Menachot 11

מה לכלאים שמצותו בכך

This is so of the law of diverse kinds since there is an express command that it shall be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the High Priest's girdle shall be of wool and linen; cf. Ex. XXVIII.');">¹</span> R'Shisha the son of R'Idi said, One could reply, Let the argument revolve and the inference be made from what is common to both.

רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר משום דאיכא למימר ליהדר דינא ותיתי במה הצד מה למליקה שכן קדושתה אוסרתה חלב ודם יוכיחו

Thus, the argument, 'This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden to man by this act which renders it consecrated',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 24, nn. 1 and 2.');">²</span> can be refuted by the argument, 'The fat and the blood can prove otherwise'.

מה לחלב ודם שכן באים מכלל היתר מליקה תוכיח

And the argument, 'This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from what is permitted',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 24, nn. 1 and 2.');">²</span> can be refuted by the argument, 'The rite of nipping can prove otherwise'.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שאסורין להדיוט ומותרין לגבוה אף אני אביא טרפה אף על פי שאסורה להדיוט תהא מותרת לגבוה מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן מצותה בכך

And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the other is not of this case; but what they have in common is that each is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. So I might have inferred that trefah, too, although it is forbidden to man, is permitted to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the verse of Lev. I, 3 is necessary in order to exclude the trefah animal from sacrifice.');">³</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי משום דאיכא למימר מעיקרא דדינא פרכא מהיכא קא מייתית לה מבעל מום

But they have this also in common, have they not, that in each case there is an express command that it shall be so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is not the case with trefah; so that it would not have been possible to infer the trefah animal from the common features of the other two (sc. the fat and the blood and the rite of nipping) , and therefore the verse is rendered superfluous.');">⁴</span> - R'Ashi therefore said, One could reply that the first proposition of the argument is unsound.

מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין

Whence did you infer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a trefah animal might not be offered upon the altar.');">⁵</span> at the outset?

אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי יוצא דופן יוכיח שלא עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין ומותר להדיוט ואסור לגבוה

From the case of a blemished animal. But the case of a blemish is different, since in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is not so with trefah, for a priest with a physical blemish is disqualified from offering sacrifices (cf Lev. XXI, 17ff) . whereas a priest who is trefah, i.e., who suffers from a serious organic disease, is still qualified to officiate in the Temple; cf. Bek. 45b.');">⁶</span>

מה ליוצא דופן שכן אינו קדוש בבכורה

Whereupon R'Aha the Elder said to R'Ashi, That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise: for in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is not on the same footing as the [animal] offered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A priest who at birth was extracted by a Caesarean operation from his mother's womb is considered fit to serve in the Temple, whereas an animal so extracted from the dam's womb is not fit for a sacrifice. V. Lev. XXII, 27 and Sifra thereon.');">⁷</span> nevertheless such an animal is permitted to man and forbidden to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a trefah animal would a fortiori be forbidden to the Most High, since it is even forbidden to man; hence the verse excluding trefah is superfluous.');">⁸</span>

בעל מום יוכיח מה לבעל מום שכן עשה בו מקריבין כקריבין יוצא דופן יוכיח

[And if the objection is raised:] But this is so only of that which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb since it is not holy as a firstling;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas an animal that was born a trefah is nevertheless holy as a firstling.');">⁹</span> [I reply,] The case of an animal with a physical blemish can prove otherwise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an animal that was born with a physical blemish, although holy as a firstling, is nevertheless not permitted to the Most High. The same therefore would be said of trefah, that although it is holy as a firstling it is forbidden to be offered.');">¹⁰</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שמותרים להדיוט ואסורים לגבוה וכ"ש טרפה שאסורה להדיוט תהא אסורה לגבוה

[And if this objection is raised:] But this is so only in the case of a blemish since in th respect [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered, [I reply,] That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise. And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the o is not that of this case; but what they have in common is that each is permitted to man yet forbidden to the Most High, then surely trefah, which is forbidden to man, is all the more forbidden to the Most High.

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן לא הותרו מכללן תאמר בטריפה שהותרה מכללה

But the others have this also in common, that in each case there is no exception to the general [prohibition]; will you say the same of the case of trefah seeing that it admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly it could be held that a trefah animal may be offered as a sacrifice.');">¹¹</span> Thereupon R'Aha the son of Raba said to R'Ashi, What is meant by saying that trefah admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]?

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי טרפה שהותרה מכללה מאי היא אילימא מליקה דעולת העוף לגבוה בעל מום נמי בעופות אשתרויי אשתרי תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות

Should you say that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of the burnt-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird, although rendered trefah thereby,] is nevertheless permitted [to be offered] to the Most High; but this is also the case with physical blemishes, for a bird with a physical blemish is certainly permitted to be offered to the Most High, [for it has been said,]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kid. 24b.');">¹²</span> The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisites only to sacrifices of cattle but not of birds! You would say then that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of a sin-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird is] permitted to eaten by] priests; but surely the priests receive it from the table of the Most High!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And with regard to the Most High it has been shown that there is also an exception to the general prohibition of physical blemishes in the case of birds.');">¹³</span>

אלא מליקה דחטאת העוף לכהנים כהנים משולחן גבוה קא זכו

- Indeed the argument could be refuted thus, The others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the animal that is blemished and that which has been extracted from the womb.');">¹⁴</span> have this further in common, for in each case the defect thereof is perceptible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only an animal with a blemish exposed to the full view is declared to be unfit for sacrifice. Likewise an animal extracted from the side of its dam would be regarded as an object of curiosity, and so its peculiarity would soon be known to all. Trefah, on the other hand, is not always a perceptible taint, for it may be that only an internal organ has become affected.');">¹⁵</span>

ואלא פריך הכי מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן מומן ניכר תאמר בטריפה שכן אין מומה ניכר מש"ה איצטריך קרא

will you then say the same of the case of trefah seeing that its defect is not perceptible? The verse is therefore necessary [to exclude trefah].

וטריפה מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (יחזקאל מה, טו) ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל

And is the case of trefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not fit to be offered as a sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> derived from here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from Lev. I, 3; v. supra p. 23.');">¹⁷</span>

(ויקרא כז, כח) מכל אשר יעבור תחת השבט נפקא פרט לטריפה שאינה עוברת

Surely it is derived from the verse, From the liquor of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLV, 15; v. supra p. 20.');">¹⁸</span> that is, from that which is permitted to Israel; or from the verse, Whatsoever passeth under the rod,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32, with reference to the Cattle Tithe, but the rule that is here derived is applied to all sacrifices; cf. Bek. 57a.');">¹⁹</span>

צריכי דאי ממשקה ישראל ה"א למעוטי היכא דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר דומיא דערלה וכלאי הכרם אבל היתה לה שעת הכושר אימא תתכשר כתב רחמנא כל אשר יעבור

which excludes a trefah animal since it cannot pass under!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A trefah animal, inasmuch as it cannot continue to live for more than twelve months (cf. Hul. 42a) , is not deemed to possess vitality, and therefore cannot be said to pass of its own volition under the rod. Cf. however Rashi on Hul ');">²⁰</span> - All [three verses] are necessary; for from the verse, 'From the liquor of Israel', I should have excluded only those that were at no time fit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., an animal that was born trefah. According to Rabbinic interpretation the verse in Ezek. contains an allusion to 'orlah and to diverse kinds in the vineyard, and these were at no time ever allowed for any purpose.');">²¹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא כל אשר יעבור הוה אמינא למעוטי היכא דנטרפה ולבסוף הקדישה דומיא דמעשר אבל הקדישה ולבסוף נטרפה דבעידנא דאקדשה הוה חזיא אימא תתכשר כתב רחמנא מן הבקר צריכי:

[for a sacrifice], just as 'orlah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'uncircumcised'. The fruit of newly-planted trees is during the first three years forbidden for all purposes. Cf. Lev. XIX, 23.');">²²</span> or diverse kinds in the vineyard;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXII, 9.');">²³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד מנחת חוטא ואחד כל המנחות שקמצן זר אונן טבול יום מחוסר בגדים מחוסר כיפורים שלא רחץ ידיו ורגליו ערל טמא יושב עומד על גבי כלים על גבי בהמה ע"ג רגלי חבירו פסול

but where it was at one time fit I would say that it is permitted [to be offered]. Scripture therefore states, 'Whatsoever passeth under the rod'.

קמץ בשמאל פסול בן בתירא אומר יחזיר ויחזור ויקמוץ בימין

And had Scripture only stated the verse, 'Whatsoever passeth under the rod', I should have excluded only those animals that were first rendered trefah and subsequently consecrated, as in the case of the Cattle Tithe;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse merely implies that a trefah animal, since it cannot pass under the rod, is not subject to the law of Cattle Tithe; but an animal consecrated as the tithe always remains consecrated even though it subsequently becomes trefah. ibut');">²⁴</span> but where it was consecrated first and subsequently it became trefah, since at the time when it was consecrated it was fit [for a sacrifice], I would say that it is permitted [to be offered], therefore all [three verses] are necessary.

קמץ ועלה בידו צרור או גרגר מלח או קורט של לבונה פסול מפני שאמרו הקומץ היתר והחסר פסול ואיזהו היתר שקמצו מבורץ וחסר שקמצו בראשי אצבעותיו:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IF A NON-PRIEST, OR [A PRIEST] THAT WAS IN MOURNING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , a mourner while his dead relative is awaiting burial. Such a priest is forbidden to minister in the Temple, cf. Zeb. 16a. ouh kucy');">²⁵</span> OR HAD IMMERSED HIMSELF DURING THE DAY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. ; one who having suffered uncleanness has taken the ritual bath during the day but must now await sunset before he is deemed fully clean. He may not enter the Temple or minister therein.');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> למה לי למתנא אחד מנחת חוטא ואחד כל המנחות ליתני כל המנחות שקמצן זר ואונן

OR WAS NOT WEARING THE [OFFICIAL PRIESTLY] ROBES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 17b.');">²⁷</span> OR WHOSE ATONEMENT WAS NOT YET COMPLETE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who, having suffered the uncleanness of leprosy or of an issue, has performed all the rites of purification but is not deemed fully clean until he has brought an offering as an atonement. V. Zeb. 19b.');">²⁸</span>

לר"ש איצטריך דתניא א"ר שמעון בדין הוא שתהא מנחת חוטא טעונה שמן ולבונה שלא יהא חוטא נשכר ומפני מה אינה טעונה שלא יהא קרבנו מהודר ובדין הוא שתהא חטאת חלב טעונה נסכים

OR THAT HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every priest was obliged to wash his hands and feet from the Temple laver daily before taking part in the service. Cf. Ex. XXX, 19, 20.');">²⁹</span> OR THAT WAS UNCIRCUMCISED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose brothers had died by reason of their circumcision.');">³⁰</span> OR UNCLEAN, OR THAT MINISTERED SITTING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is written, To stand to minister (Deut. XVIII, 5.) .');">³¹</span> OR STANDING UPON VESSELS OR UPON A BEAST OR UPON ANOTHER'S FEET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest must stand on the floor and nothing should interpose between his feet and the floor of the Temple. V. Zeb. 24a.');">³²</span> HAD TAKEN THE HANDFUL THEREFROM IT IS INVALID. IF [A PRIEST] REMOVED THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND IT IS INVALID. BEN BATHYRA SAYS, HE MUST PUT [THE HANDFUL] BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND. IF ON TAKING THE HANDFUL THERE CAME INTO HIS HAND A SMALL STONE OR A GRAIN OF SALT OR A DROP OF FRANKINCENSE IT IS INVALID;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the handful is not quite full since there is lacking flour to the extent of the volume of the stone or other substance that came up with it.');">³³</span> FOR THEY HAVE RULED: IF THE HANDFUL WAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE IT IS INVALID. WHAT IS MEANT BY TOO MUCH? IF HE TOOK AN OVERFLOWING HANDFUL. AND 'TOO LITTLE'? IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH THE TIPS OF HIS FINGERS ONLY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of extending his fingers over the palm of his hand, v. infra 11a.');">³⁴</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why does the Mishnah state: 'WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING'? Surely it should state, 'Every meal-offering from which the handful was taken by a non-priest or a priest that was in mourning [etc.]'. - It was necessary [to state it so] according to R'Simeon's view. For it was taught: R'Simeon said, By right the sinner's meal-offering should require oil and frankincense, so that the sinner should have no advantage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By being spared the cost of these ingredients.');">³⁵</span> why then does it not require them? In order that his offering be not sumptuous. Also, by right an ordinary sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a sin-offering (to be brought on account) of (eating forbidden) fat'. This is the usual example of a transgression involving a sin-offering.');">³⁶</span> should require drink-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. XV, where are prescribed the quantities of flour and oil for the meal-offering and wine for the drink-offering which must accompany the burnt-offering and the peace-offering.');">³⁷</span>