Commentary for Menachot 217:24

רב נחמן אמר קרבנו ריח ניחוח דלא עבד שירות רב ששת אמר אין קרבנו ריח ניחוח

It was stated: [If a priest had] inadvertently sprinkled blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is, of course, an act of service.');">²⁴</span> [to an idol]. R'Nahman says, His offering [in the Temple]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a subsequent occasion.');">²⁵</span> is a sweet savour; but R'Shesheth says, His offering is not a sweet savour. R'Shesheth said, Whence do I derive my view? It is written, 'And became a stumblingblock of iniquity unto the house of Israel'. Now this surely means either through stumbling or through iniquity; and 'stumblingblock' signifies an inadvertent act, and 'iniquity' a deliberate act!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus whether the service in honour of the idol was performed inadvertently (through stumbling) or deliberately (through iniquity) the priest is debarred for all time from offering sacrifices in the Temple.');">²⁶</span> R'Nahman, however, says, It means a stumblingblock of iniquity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a deliberate act of service.');">²⁷</span> R'Nahman said, Whence do I derive my view? From the following Baraitha which was taught: It is written, And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth in error:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 28. The apparently superfluous expression 'when he sinneth in error' is interpreted as referring to a priest who, having sinned by ministering to idols, is now offering his own sacrifice and making atonement for himself (for the whole passage refers to the sin of idolatry) .');">²⁸</span> this teaches us that the priest may make atonement for himself by his own sacrifice. Now how [did he minister unto the idol]? Will you say, by slaughtering before it? Then why does the verse speak of sinning in error? It is the same even though he sinned deliberately!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For slaughtering is no service.');">²⁹</span> It can only be that he ministered unto the idol by sprinkling before it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as he did so in error he may minister in the Temple. for the Baraitha teaches that he may offer his own sacrifice; thus in accord with R. Nahman's view.');">³⁰</span> R'Shesheth, however, can say. I still say by slaughtering before it, but it is not the same if he did so deliberately for he then became a priest to the idol.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that slaughtering is no service.');">³¹</span> They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman and R. Shesheth.');">³²</span> have indeed followed up these principles of theirs, for it has been stated: If a priest had deliberately slaughtered [an animal to an idol]. R'Nahman said, His offering [in the Temple] is a sweet savour; but R'Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour. R'Nahman said, His offering is a sweet savour - for he had not performed a service [before the idol].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For slaughtering is no service.');">³³</span> R'Shesheth said, His offering is not a sweet savour' -

Explore commentary for Menachot 217:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.