Commentary for Menachot 4:21

עולת העוף שמיצה דמה למעלה לשם חטאת העוף תרצה מעשיה מוכיחין עליה דעולת העוף היא דאי חטאת העוף היא למטה הוה עביד לה הזאה

that is, some [meal-offerings] are like the sin-offering, and some like the guilt-offering. The sinner's meal-offering is like the sin-offering, so that if [the priest] took the handful therefrom under any other name than its own, it would be invalid, as is the sin-offering [in such circumstances]; the freewill meal-offering is like the guilt-offering, so that if he took the handful therefrom under any other name than its own, it would remain valid.' And as the guilt-offering', that is, as the guilt-offering is valid [even when offered under any other name than its own], but does not satisfy [the obligation of the owner], so the freewill meal-offering is valid but does not satisfy [the obligation of the owner]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This latter statement of R. Simeon wholly agrees with our Mishnah, so that it is in conflict with the former statement of R. Simeon on two points; v. supra p. 3 n. 2.');">¹⁰</span> - Rabbah answered, It is no contradiction: here the change was as regards the offering, there as regards the owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra p. 3 n. 5.');">¹¹</span> Thereupon Abaye said to him, But consider, since it is established by analogy that, according to Divine Law, a wrongful intention renders the offering invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. VI, 10, the meal-offering is equated with the animal sacrifices of the sin-offering and guilt-offering, and as a wrongful intention with regard to these sacrifices, whether in respect of the kind of sacrifice or of the owner, renders them invalid, so it should be with regard to the meal-offering too.');">¹²</span> what difference does it make whether the change was as regards the offering or as regards the owner? - He replied, The rule of R'Simeon that the preparation thereof clearly indicates [the true nature of the offering] is founded on reason (for R'Simeon generally expounds the reasons of Scriptural law) ; therefore a wrongful intention which is not manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares capable of rendering an offering invalid, but a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where the actions of the officiating priest belie his expressed intention. In such a case his words cannot be taken seriously.');">¹³</span> the Divine Law declares incapable of rendering invalid. <br>(Mnemonic: a burnt-offering; he nipped off a burnt-offering; he drained; a sin-offering of a bird; Most Holy sacrifices; Lesser Holy sacrifices.) In that case it should follow that if [the priest] nipped off the head of a burnt-offering of a bird above [ red line which went around the altar]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Mid. III, 1.');">¹⁴</span> under the name of a sin-offering of a bird, it discharges<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'render acceptable'.');">¹⁵</span> [the owner], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that it is a burnt-offering of a bird, for if it were a sin-offering of a bird he would have performed [the nipping] below [the red line]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is that the burnt-offering of a bird must be prepared above the red line (v. Zeb. 65a) ; the sin-offering of a bird, on the other hand, was usually prepared below the red line. Hence in spite of the priest's express intention to the contrary, the fact that he is nipping the bird above the red line clearly indicates that he is dealing with a burnt-offering, and the offering should count in fulfilment of the owner's obligation; nevertheless the established law is not so.');">¹⁶</span> - Do you think the sin-offering of a bird may not be performed above [the red line]? Surely a Master has stated that the nipping [of the sin-offering of a bird] may be performed at any place on the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 63a. So that the treatment does not clearly mark the offering as a burnt-offering.');">¹⁷</span> Again, if he drained the blood of a burnt-offering of a bird above [the red line] under the name of a sin-offering of a bird, it should discharge [the owner], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that it is a burnt-offering, for if it were a sin-off he would have drained it below [the red line], and [would also have first] sprinkled [the blood upon the side of the altar]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fixed routine in bird-offerings was (a) in the case of a burnt-offering: the head was nipped off but not severed from the body, the blood was drained at the side of the altar above the red line, then the whole bird was burnt on the altar; (b) in the case of a sin-offering: the head was nipped off and also not severed from the body, the blood was sprinkled upon the side of the altar, the rest of the blood was drained at the base of the altar, then the flesh was consumed by the priests.');">¹⁸</span> -

Explore commentary for Menachot 4:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.