Commentary for Menachot 127:2

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא התם אלא דאיתעביד ליה צורך גבוה ולא צריך אחולי שבת אבל הכא דלא איתעביד ליה צורך גבוה וצריך לאחולי שבת אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

It was stated: If a man slaughtered [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings for the community when only one was necessary, Rabbah (others say. R. Ammi) said, He is liable for the slaughtering of the second but not for the first, even though atonement was effected through the second offering. and even though the first proved to be a lean animal. But could Rabbah have really said so? Surely Rabbah has said, If a man had before him [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings [for the community], one beast being fat and the other lean, and he first slaughtered the fat beast and then the lean one, he is liable; if he first slaughtered the lean beast and then the fat one, he is not liable; and not only that but we even bid him [after he has slaughtered the lean one]. Go at once and fetch a fat one and slaughter it! - If you wish, you can say, Strike out the clause about the lean beast in the first statement; or if you prefer you may say, That first statement was taught by R. Ammi.

Explore commentary for Menachot 127:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.