Menachot 157

שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום רבי אליעזר אומר קדש רבי יהושע אומר לא קדש דברי ר' מאיר

If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, R'Eliezer says, The bread is hallowed; but R'Joshua says, It is not hallowed. So R'Meir.

אמר רבי יהודה לא נחלקו רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע על ששחטה ונמצאת טריפה שלא קדש ועל חוץ לזמנו שקדש ועל בעל מום שלא קדש ועל מה נחלקו על חוץ למקומו שר' אליעזר אומר קדש ורבי יהושע אומר לא קדש

R'Judah said, R'Eliezer and R'Joshua do not dispute the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. insert here: 'that if he slaughtered it and it was found to be trefah the bread is not hallowed'. It is not found in the MSS. or in Tosefta Men. VIII. It is deleted here by Sh. Mek.');">¹</span> that [if at the slaughtering there was an intention of eating thereof] outside its proper time the bread is hallowed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this is a case of piggul, and with piggul it is essential that the remaining services be regarded as validly performed, otherwise the penalty of piggul would not be incurred. Accordingly the bread is undoubtedly hallowed by the slaughtering.');">²</span>

אמר ר' אליעזר הואיל וחוץ לזמנו פסול וחוץ למקומו פסול מה חוץ לזמנו קדש אף חוץ למקומו קדש אמר ר' יהושע הואיל וחוץ למקומו פסול ובעל מום פסול מה בעל מום לא קדש אף חוץ למקומו לא קדש

or that if it was found to have a blemish the bread is not hallowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the disqualifying defect must have befallen it before it came into the Temple.');">³</span> They differ only where [there was an intention of eating thereof] outside its proper place; in this case R'Eliezer says, The bread is hallowed; and R'Joshua says, It is not hallowed.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר אני דמיתיהו לחוץ לזמנו ואתה דמיתו לבעל מום נראה למי דומה אם דומה לחוץ לזמנו נדוננו מחוץ לזמנו אם דומה לבעל מום נדוננו מבעל מום

R'Eliezer argued, Since [the intention to eat of the offering] outside the proper time is a disqualifying defect, and [the intention to eat thereof] outside the proper place is also a disqualifying defect: as in the former case the bread is nevertheless hallowed, so in the latter case. too, the bread is hallowed.

התחיל רבי אליעזר לדון דנין פסול מחשבה מפסול מחשבה ואין דנין פסול מחשבה מפסול הגוף

R'Joshua argued, Since [the intention to eat of the offering] outside its proper place is a disqualifying defect, and a blemish in the animal is also a disqualifying defect: as in the latter case the brea is not hallowed, so in the former, too, it is not hallowed. R'Eliezer replied.

התחיל רבי יהושע לדון דנין פסול שאין בו כרת מפסול שאין בו כרת ואל יוכיח חוץ לזמנו שפסול שיש בו כרת ועוד נדוננו משלא לשמו שפסול מחשבה ואין בו כרת

I likened it to [the case where there was an intention to eat thereof] outside its proper time, but you likened it to the case of a blemish in the animal. Let us then see to which [of the two] is it more similar.

ושתק רבי אליעזר

If it is more similar to [the case where there was an intention to eat thereof] outside its proper time then we must infer it from this, and if it is mor similar to the case of the blemish in the animal then we must infer it from this. And so R'Eliezer began to argue as follows: We may infer that which is a defect by reason of the intention from that which is also a defect by reason of the intention, but we may not infer that which is a defect by reason of the intention from that which is a defect by reason of a physical blemish.

ורבי מאיר מאי שנא שחטה ונמצאת טריפה דהוי פסולו קודם שחיטה ומאי שנא שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום דלא הוי פסולו קודם שחיטה

Thereupon R'Joshua began to argue as follows: We may infer a defect which does not involve the penalty of kareth from a defect which also does not involve the penalty of kareth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offering of an animal with a physical blemish does not involve the penalty of kareth.');">⁴</span> and let not [the intention to eat of the offering] outside its proper time enter into th argument since it is a defect which involves the penalty of kareth.

בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר' עקיבא דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו ורבי יהושע כי אמר רבי עקיבא אם עלו לא ירדו בפסולא דגופיה אבל לקדושי לחם לא

Moreover, we should infer it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it is expressly stated in our Mishnah that the bread is not hallowed.');">⁵</span> for this is a defect by reason of the intention and also does not involve the penalty of kareth.

איתמר חטאת ששחטה חוץ לזמנה אם עלתה לא תרד חוץ למקומה רבא אמר תרד רבה אמר לא תרד

At this R'Eliezer was silent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he recognized in this last statement a convincing argument, and eventually acquiesced in R. Joshua's view that where there was an intention expressed at the slaughtering of the offering of eating thereof outside its proper place the bread is not hallowed.');">⁶</span> Why is it, according to R'Meir's view, that where [the thank-offering] was slaughtered and was found to be trefah [the bread is not hallowed, for] the defect is regarded as having befallen it before the slaughtering, and that where it was slaughtered and was found to have a blemish [the bread is, according to the ruling of R'Eliezer, hallowed.

רבא כרבי יהושע ורבה כרבי אליעזר

for] the defect is not regarded as having befallen it before the slaughtering? - [It refer only to such blemishes as] a film over the eye.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'a cataract'. As this is but a minor defect, since it is not noticeable nor is it regarded as a defect in birds, it is accepted by the altar; consequently it is regarded as having befallen the offering in the Temple and the bread is therefore hallowed.');">⁷</span> and it agrees with R'Akiba who said that [in such cases] if they were brought up [on the altar] they must not be taken down.

והדר ביה רבה לגביה דרבא מדהדר ביה רבי אליעזר לגביה דרבי יהושע

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., Rashi MS. and Sh. Mek. The question is against R. Judah in his report of R. Eliezer's view, that where the animal is found after the slaughtering to have a blemish the bread is not hallowed. Why should not the bread be hallowed seeing that we are speaking of a minor blemish? In some texts the reading is 'And R. Judah?' and in others 'and R. Joshua?'.');">⁸</span> - He will reply, It is only when [the blemish] affects the validity of [the animal] itself [as a sacrifice] that R'Akiba says that if they brought up they must not be taken down, but he does not say so where it affects the hallowing of the bread.

ואיכא דאמרי אף על גב דהדר ביה ר' אליעזר לגביה דרבי יהושע רבה לגביה דרבא לא הדר ביה התם הוא דקאמר ליה נדוננו משלא לשמו אבל הכא אי דיינת ליה משלא לשמו אם עלתה לא תרד:

It was stated: If a sin-offering was slaughtered [with the intention of performing a service or of eating thereof] outside its proper time and it was brought up [on the altar], it must not be taken down. If [it was slaughtered with the intention of performing a service or of eating thereof] outside its proper place and it was taken up, Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., Rashi MS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. transpose 'Rabbah' and 'Raba' in the entire passage.');">⁹</span>

שחטה שלא לשמה [וכו']: אמר רב פפא שבק תנא דידן איל נזיר דשכיח ונקיט איל המילואים ותנא דידן עיקר מילתא נקט:

said, It must be taken down; but Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., Rashi MS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. transpose 'Rabbah' and 'Raba' in the entire passage.');">⁹</span> said, It must not be taken down.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הנסכים שקדשו בכלי ונמצא זבח פסול אם יש זבח אחר יקריבו עמו ואם לאו יפסלו בלינה:

Rabbah evidently agrees with R'Joshua<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who in a similar case in connection with the thank-offering ruled that the bread was not hallowed, for he compared the slaughtering of an offering at which there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper place with the offering of a blemished animal, and in the latter case even if it was brought up it must be taken down.');">¹⁰</span> and Raba with R'Eliezer;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who considered the slaughtering at which there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper place on the same footing as where there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper time, and in the latter case all agree that if brought up it must not be taken down.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר זעירי אין הנסכים מתקדשין אלא בשחיטת הזבח מאי טעמא אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, לז) זבח ונסכים

but Raba retracted in favour of Rabbah's view seeing that R'Eliezer retracted in favour of R'Joshua's view. There are some, however, who say that although R'Eliezer retracted in favour of R'Joshua's view Raba did not retract in favour of Rabbah's view; for there [R'Joshua] convinced [R'Eliezer] by his argument: We should infer it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name; here, however, if we derive it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name, [we obtain the ruling that] if it was brought up it must not be taken down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is admitted by all that if a sin-offering was offered under another name and it was brought up upon the altar it must not be taken down again. V. Zeb. 84a.');">¹²</span>

תנן הנסכים שקדשו בכלי ונמצא זבח פסול אם יש זבח אחר יקרבו עמו ואם לאו יפסלו בלינה

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, etc, R'Papa said, Our Tanna omits the ram of the Nazirite-offering which is frequent and deals with the ram of the Consecration-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was only offered at the consecration of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. This is most strange on the part of the Tanna.');">¹³</span> And our Tanna? - He deals with the very first offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecration-offering was the first offering that was accompanied by a bread-offering. The law, however, applies also to the ram of the Nazirite-offering. Aliter: the Tanna only mentions offerings of the community but not individual offerings.');">¹⁴</span>

מאי לאו דאיפסיל בשחיטה לא דאיפסיל בזריקה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE DRINK-OFFERINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These include the wine as well as the meal-offerings which accompanied certain animal-offerings; v. Num. XV, 4ff.');">¹⁵</span> HAD ALREADY BEEN HALLOWED IN A VESSEL WHEN THE ANIMAL-OFFERING WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID, IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was slaughtered on this day too, but which had not been provided with the drink-offerings. vbhkc ukxph ubk otu');">¹⁶</span>

כמאן כרבי דאמר שני דברים המתירין מעלין זה בלא זה

THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT; BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they have been hallowed in a vessel of ministry. A variant reading is: , 'if they remained overnight, they are, by being kept overnight. rendered invalid'.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Ze'iri said, The drink-offerings are hallowed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore become invalid if kept overnight or if taken outside the Sanctuary (Rashi MS.) . Tosaf and Rashi (in cur. edd.) explain 'hallowed' to mean that they may not now be used for another offering.');">¹⁸</span>

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.');">¹⁹</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.');">²⁰</span> - No, it became invalid in the act of sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the drink-offerings were hallowed by the slaughtering.');">²¹</span> With whom [would this agree]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the view expressed that the slaughtering alone hallows the drink-offerings.');">²²</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.');">²³</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;');">²⁴</span> for we are dealing here with the case where the blood had been received in a bowl and was spilt.