Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Menachot 157:20

אפילו תימא ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקיבל דמן בכוס ונשפך

only by the slaughtering of the animal-offering. Why is this? Because the verse says, Animal-offerings and drink-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 37. The drink-offerings are thus dependent upon and are hallowed by the animal-offering.');"><sup>19</sup></span> We have learnt: IF THE DRINK-OFFERINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN HALLOWED IN A VESSEL WHEN THE ANIMAL-OFFERING WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID, IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT; BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, Now presumably it became invalid in the act of slaughtering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nevertheless the drink-offerings are hallowed, for the Mishnah states that in the absence of another animal-offering they must be kept overnight to be rendered invalid. Now since in this case the slaughtering of the animal-offering was invalid it obviously could not have hallowed the drink-offerings, but they must have been hallowed before the slaughtering, thus contrary to Ze'iri.');"><sup>20</sup></span> - No, it became invalid in the act of sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the drink-offerings were hallowed by the slaughtering.');"><sup>21</sup></span> With whom [would this agree]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the view expressed that the slaughtering alone hallows the drink-offerings.');"><sup>22</sup></span> [Shall I say only] with Rabbi, who ruled that where there are two acts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here the slaughtering and the sprinkling.');"><sup>23</sup></span> which [jointly] render the offering permissible, one can promote [to sanctity] even without the other? - You may even say that it agrees with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that both acts are essential for the hallowing of the drink-offerings;');"><sup>24</sup></span> for we are dealing here with the case where the blood had been received in a bowl and was spilt.

Explore commentary for Menachot 157:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.

Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse