Why a Priest's Sin-Offering of Flour Is Not Eaten

"And it shall belong to the priest like the meal-offering" (Leviticus 5:13): that its service be valid through him. You say that its service is valid through him; or is it only to permit the eating of a priest's sinner's meal-offering, and how do I uphold "and every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned" (Leviticus 6:16)—that it refers to a freewill meal-offering, but his obligatory one is eaten? Scripture states "and it shall belong to the priest like the meal-offering," comparing his obligatory offering to his freewill offering: just as his freewill offering is not eaten, so too his obligatory offering is not eaten. Rabbi Shimon said: was it said "and it shall belong to the priest like his meal-offering"? It was said only "like the meal-offering," to compare the sinner's meal-offering of priests to the sinner's meal-offering of Israelites: just as the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite has a handful taken, so too the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken. If so, just as the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite has a handful taken and its remnants are eaten, so too the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken and its remnants are eaten? Scripture states "to the priest like the meal-offering," and not "to the fires like the meal-offering." How so? The handful is offered by itself and the remnants by themselves. And this, that its service is valid through him—is it derived from here? It is derived from there: from where do we know that a priest may come and offer his offerings at any time and any hour that he wishes? Scripture states, "and he may come with all the desire of his soul and serve" (Deuteronomy 18:6). If from there, I would have said: a thing that does not come on account of sin, but a thing that comes on account of sin, say no. But this too is derived from here: "and the priest shall make atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly in sinning" (Numbers 15:28), teaching that the priest atones by means of himself. If from that, I would have said: with an unwitting sin yes, but with a deliberate sin no; therefore it teaches us. It was taught in another: Rabbi Shimon says: the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken, and the handful is offered by itself and the remnants are offered by themselves. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: the handful is offered by itself and the remnants are scattered on the place of the ashes. Rabbi Yochanan inquired about it: the place of the ashes, where? If above, that is the same as his father's view; if below, is there a thing that is offered below? Rabbi Abba said to him: perhaps for destruction. They laughed at him: is there a thing that is offered for destruction? The father of Rabbi Avin taught: "and every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned, it shall not be eaten" (Leviticus 6:16)—I compared it to eating and not to another matter. What is he saying? Abaye said, this is what he is saying: "and every meal-offering of a priest, it shall not be eaten"—his obligatory one; "wholly shall it be"—his freewill one. Rava said to him: a sharp knife cuts up the verses. Rather Rava said: "and every meal-offering of a priest wholly shall it be"—his freewill one; "it shall not be eaten"—his obligatory one. And let me reverse it? It stands to reason that the freewill one should be included for the stringency, for it is regular, and is not because of sin, and its fragrance is pleasant. On the contrary, the obligatory one should be included, for it is a full tenth, and an obligation; these are more numerous. And the rabbis, what do they do with this "and every meal-offering of a priest"? They require it for that which was taught: I have only the upper one in "wholly shall it be burned" and the lower one in "it shall not be eaten"; from where to apply what is said of this to that and of that to this? "Wholly," "wholly," by a verbal analogy: just as there it is in "wholly shall it be burned," so too here it is in "wholly shall it be burned"; and just as here it sets a prohibition upon its eating, so too there it sets a prohibition upon its eating. It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: whatever is in "wholly shall it be burned," Scripture comes to set a prohibition upon its eating.