Menachot 4

ונדבה מי שרי לשנויי בה

And is it permitted to make any changes in respect of a freewill-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not! v. Sifra on Lev. I, 9. Hence even though the original sacrifice has been varied (as here from a votive to a freewill-offering) it is forbidden to make any further changes with regard to it, just as it is forbidden to vary the freewill-offering.');">¹</span>

לימא מתני' דלא כר' שמעון דתניא ר' שמעון אומר כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות ועלו לבעלים לשם חובה

Must we say that our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of R'Simeon?

שאין המנחות דומות לזבחים שהקומץ מחבת לשום מרחשת מעשיה מוכיחין עליה לשום מחבת חריבה לשום בלולה מעשיה מוכיחין עליה לשום חריבה

For it was taught: R'Simeon says, All meal-offerings, from which the handful was taken under any other name than their own, are valid, and they also discharge the obligation of the owner, since meal-offerings are unlike [animal] offerings.

אבל בזבחים אינו כן שחיטה אחת לכולן וזריקה אחת לכולן וקבלה אחת לכולן

For if [the priest] takes the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. II, 5, 7; and infra ');">²</span>

הניחא לרב אשי דאמר כאן בקומץ מחבת לשום מרחשת כאן בקומץ מנחת מחבת לשום מנחת מרחשת

and expressly refers to it as one prepared in a pan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. II, 5, 7; and infra ');">²</span>

מתניתין מנחה לשום מנחה היא אלא לרבה ורבא מאי איכא למימר

[his intention is of no consequence].

וכי תימא כדקא משני רבה כאן בשינוי קדש כאן בשינוי בעלים

for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that he is dealing with one prepared on a griddle.

הא מתניתין שינוי קודש הוא דקתני כיצד לשמן ושלא לשמן לשום מנחת חוטא ולשום מנחת נדבה

Or if he is dealing with a dry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one not mixed with oil, e.g., a sinner's meal-offering, or the meal-offering of jealousy.');">³</span>

ואי נמי כדקא משני רבא כאן בקומץ מנחה לשום מנחה כאן בקומץ מנחה לשום זבח

[meal-offering] and expressly refers to it as mingled [with oil, his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereo clearly indicates that he is dealing with a dry [meal-offering].

הא מתניתין מנחה לשום מנחה היא דקתני שלא לשמן ולשמן לשם מנחת נדבה לשם מנחת חוטא אלא לרבה ורבא מחוורתא מתני' דלא כר"ש

But with [animal] offerings, it is not so; the same slaughtering is for all offerings, the same manner of receiving the blood for all, and the same manner of sprinkling for all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon apparently disagrees with our Mishnah on two points: (a) He makes no exception for the sinner's meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy, and (b) he declares that even though the meal-offering was treated under another name the owner has discharged his obligation.');">⁴</span>

ורמי דר"ש אדר"ש דתניא ר' שמעון אומר קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם יש מהן כחטאת ויש מהן כאשם

This indeed presents no difficulty according to R'Ashi who said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the contradiction pointed out between the two statements of R. Simeon, infra.');">⁵</span>

מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה כחטאת מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשירה

'Here he took the handful from that which was prepared on a griddle and referred to it as prepared in a pan, there he took the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and referred to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the officiating priest does not mention 'meal-offering' but merely the vessel in which it has been prepared, referring to one kind as another, it is clear that his words are meaningless and are to be ignored, since the very preparation of the meal-offering contradicts him; hence the offering is in no wise affected thereby and it discharges the owner's obligation. On the other hand, where he refers to one meal-offering as another, as is clearly the case in our Mishnah, the offering is affected thereby, since he has expressed a wrongful intention in connection with a meal-offering, and it therefore does not discharge the owner's obligation.');">⁶</span>

וכאשם מה אשם כשר ואינו מרצה אף מנחת נדבה כשירה ואינה מרצה

for our Mishnah is a case where one meal-offering was referred to as another meal-offering.

אמר רבה לא קשיא כאן בשינוי קודש כאן בשינוי בעלים

But what can be said according to the answers suggested by Rabbah and Raba?

אמר ליה אביי מכדי מחשבה דפסל רחמנא הקישא היא מה לי שינוי קודש מ"ל שינוי בעלים

For should you accept the answer suggested by Rabbah namely, 'Here the change was as regards the offering, there as regards the owner',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the change was expressed in respect of the kind of offering, e.g., a meal-offering prepared on a griddle being referred to as one prepared in a pan, the offering is not thereby invalidated, for it is clear to all that it is the former and not that which he declares it to be, and therefore counts in fulfilment of the owner's obligation. Where, however, the change was expressed in respect of the owner of the offering, the offering cannot discharge the true owner's obligation.');">⁷</span>

א"ל מעשיה מוכיחין דקאמר ר"ש סברא היא דר"ש דריש טעמא דקרא

[the difficulty of reconciling R'Simeon's view with that of our Mishnah remains, for] our Mishnah speaks of the change as regards the offering, since it reads, HOW CAN THEY BE UNDER THEIR OWN AND ANOTHER NAME'?

מחשבה דלא מינכרא פסל רחמנא מחשבה דמינכרא לא פסל רחמנא

IF OFFERED AS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND AS A FREEWILL MEAL-OFFERING! And should you accept the answer suggested by Raba namely, 'Here he took the handful out of a meal-offering and referred to it as [another] meal-offering, there he took the handful out of a meal-offering and referred to it a an animal-offering',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former case the owner's obligation is discharged in spite of the variation in the kind of meal-offering, in the latter case it is not discharged.');">⁸</span>

(סי' עולה עולה מלק ומיצה חטאת העוף קדשי קדשים קדשים קלים)

[the difficulty also remains, for] our Mishnah speaks of a meal-offering being referred to as [another] meal-offering, since it reads, AND HOW CAN THEY BE 'UNDER ANOTHER NAME AND THEIR OWN'?

אלא מעתה עולת העוף שמלקה למעלה משום חטאת העוף תרצה מעשיה מוכיחין עליה דעולת העוף היא דאי חטאת העוף היא למטה הוי עביד לה

IF OFFERED AS A FREEWILL MEAL-OFFERING AND AS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING! - It is clear then that according to Rabbah and Raba our Mishnah is not in agreement with R'Simeon, Now I can point out a contradiction between the words of R'Simeon here and the words of R'Simeon elsewhere.

אטו חטאת העוף למעלה מי ליתא האמר מר מליקה בכל מקום במזבח כשרה

For it has been taught: R'Simeon says, It is written, It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as t guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 10.');">⁹</span>

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> -