Menachot 5

אמרי דילמא מיצוי דבתר הזאה הוא דאמר מר מיצה דמה בכל מקום במזבח כשירה

It might be said that it is now being drained, the sprinkling having already taken place; and [as for its being drained above the red line], has not the Master stated that wherever upon the altar the blood was drained it is valid?

חטאת העוף שהזה דמה למטה לשם עולת העוף תרצה דמעשיה מוכיחין עליה דחטאת עוף היא דאי עולת העוף היא למעלה הוה עביד לה ומיצוי הוה עביד ליה

Again, if he sprinkled the blood of the sin-offering of a bird below [the red line] under the name of a burnt-offering of a bird, it should discharge [the owner], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that it is a sin-offering of a bird, for if it were a burnt-offering of a bird he would have performed [the sprinkling] above [the red line], and would also have drained out the blood? - This is so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That according to R. Simeon in such a case the owner counts the offering as the fulfilment of his obligation.');">¹</span>

ה"נ אלא לפי שאין המנחות דומות לזבחים קאמר לזבחים ולא לעופות:

But did he not say, 'Since meal-offerings are unlike [animal] offerings'? - Yes, unlike [animal] offerings, but not unlike bird-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a bird-offering like a meal-offering, although offered under a different name, discharges the obligation of the owner, for the treatment thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the sacrifice.');">²</span>

קדשי קדשים ששחטן בצפון לשם קדשים קלים לירצו מעשיהן מוכיחין עליהן דקדשי קדשים נינהו דאי קדשים קלים בדרום הוה עביד להו

Again, if one slaughtered Most Holy sacrifices on the north side [of the altar] under the name of Lesser Holy sacrifices, they should discharge [the owners], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that they are Most Holy sacrifices, for if they were Lesser Holy sacrifices, [the slaughtering] surely would have been performed on the south side! - No, the rule of the Divine Law is [that Lesser Holy sacrifices may be slaughtered] even on the south side, but not on the south side to the exclusion of the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did it say, On the south side and not on the north?' In contradistinction from the Most Holy sacrifices - the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering, which must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar only (v. Lev. I, 11; VI, 18; VII, 2) . - Scripture does not specify any particular place for the slaughtering of the Lesser Holy sacrifices, and the implication clearly is that it may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court.');">³</span>

אימור דאמר רחמנא אף בדרום בדרום ולא בצפון מי אמר דתנן שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה

For we have learnt: [The Lesser Holy sacrifices] may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 55a.');">⁴</span>

קדשים קלים ששחטן בדרום לשם קדשי קדשים לירצו מעשיהן מוכיחין עליהן דקדשים קלים נינהו דאי קדשי קדשים בצפון הוה עביד להו

Again, if one slaughtered Lesser Holy sacrifices on the south side under the name of Most Holy sacrifices, they should discharge [the owners], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that they are Lesser Holy sacrifices, for if they were Most Holy sacrifices, [the slaughtering] would surely have been performed on the north side! - It might be said that they really were Most Holy sacrifices but that [the slaughterer] had transgressed the law and slaughtered them on the south side.

אמרי קדשי קדשים נינהו ומיעבר הוא דעבר ושחט להו בדרום

If so, in the case where a meal-offering prepared on a griddle was referred to as one prepared in a pan, it might also be said that the owner had vowed a meal-offering prepared in a pan and the priest when taking the handful therefrom [rightly] referred to it as prepared in a pan, for it was to be a meal-offering prepared in a pan, but he [the owner] had transgressed and brought one prepared on a griddle!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And why does R. Simeon hold that in such a case the express intention is to be ignored? The text in cur. edd. is somewhat involved, and the reading of Sh. Mek. is followed.');">⁵</span>

אי הכי מחבת לשם מרחשת נמי האי דקא קמיץ לה למרחשת אמר האי במרחשת נדר והא דמייתי לה במחבת דמרחשת היא ומעבר הוא דעבר ואתייה במחבת

- There, even though he had vowed a meal-offering prepared in a pan, if he brought it prepared on a griddle it must be treated as prepared on a griddle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore to refer to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan is mere empty words.');">⁶</span>

התם כי נמי במרחשת נדר כי מייתי לה במחבת מחבת הויא

As we have learnt: If a man said, 'I take it upon myself to bring a meal-offering prepared on a griddle', and he brought one prepared in a pan; or if he said, 'a meal-offering prepared in a pan', and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not discharged the obligation of his vow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 102b.');">⁷</span>

כדתנן האומר הרי עלי במחבת והביא במרחשת במרחשת והביא במחבת מה שהביא הביא וידי נדרו לא יצא

But perhaps he used the expression 'This';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek, omitting the words, 'to be brought prepared on a griddle and he brought it prepared in a pan'.');">⁸</span>

ודילמא אמר זו להביא במחבת והביא במרחשת כדתנן זו להביא במחבת והביא במרחשת במרחשת והביא במחבת הרי זו פסולה

as we have learnt: If he said, 'Let this [meal] be brought [as a meal-offering prepared] on a griddle', and he brought it [prepared] in a pan, or if he said, 'Let this [meal be brought as a meal-offering] prepared in a pan', and he brought it [prepared] on a griddle, it is invalid! -<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 102b. Consequently where the expression 'this' was used it cannot be offered as anything else. Now in the present case it might be thought that the priest when taking the handful therefrom and referring to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan, refers actually to its true character, so that his expressed intention cannot be said to be idle talk.');">⁹</span>

לרבנן ה"נ לר"ש כיון דאמר ר"ש אף ידי נדרו יצא אלמא קביעותא דמנא ולא כלום הוא ולא שנא אמר זו ולא שנא אמר עלי

According to the view of the Rabbis this would indeed be [a difficulty]; but we are arguing according to the view of R'Simeon, and R'Simeon holds that [in the first case] he has even discharged the obligation of his vow.

אלא מעתה עולה ששחט לשם חטאת תרצה דהאי זכר והאי נקבה כיון דאיכא שעיר נשיא דזכר הוא לא ידיע

Hence the description [of the meal-offering] by the particular vessel is of no consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is the vessel in which the meal is actually put that decides the kind of meal-offering it is to be; so that what is put on a griddle cannot be anything else, and the priest's reference to it as something else is idle talk.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר לשם חטאת יחיד מאי איכא למימר ותו חטאת יחיד ששחטה לשם עולה תרצה דחטאת נקבה ועולה זכר מיכסיא באליה

and it is immaterial whether he said 'Let this be' or 'I take it upon myself'.

התינח היכא דאייתי כבשה אייתי שעירה מאי איכא למימר אלא בין זכרים לנקבות לאו אדעתייהו דאינשי

Again, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering under the name of a sin-offering it should discharge [the owner], for the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the burnt-offering.');">¹¹</span>

פסח ששחטו לשם אשם לירצי דהאי בן שנה והאי בן שתים כיון דאיכא אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע לא פסיקא ליה

is a male animal and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sin-offering.');">¹²</span>

אמר לשום אשם גזילות ולשום אשם מעילות מאי איכא למימר ותו אשם גזילות ואשם מעילות ששחטן לשום פסח לירצו דפסח בן שנה והני בן שתי שנים

a female!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is evident to all that to refer to this animal as a sin-offering is idle talk, for it is a male animal.');">¹³</span>

אלא בין בן שנה לבין בן שתי שנים לאו אדעתייהו דאינשי דאיכא בן שנה דמיחזי כבן שתים ואיכא בן שתים דמיחזי כבן שנה

- Since there is the goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, which must be a male,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. IV, 22f.');">¹⁴</span>

שעיר ששחטו לשום אשם לירצי דהאי צמר והאי שיער אמרי דיכרא אוכמא הוא

it is not so evident.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the burnt-offering that he is slaughtering might reasonably be taken to be the goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, particularly since he refers to it as a sin-offering.');">¹⁵</span>

עגל ופר ששחטן לשום פסח ואשם לירצו דעגל ופר בפסח ואשם ליכא אין הכי נמי

Then what can be said if he referred to it as a sin-offering of an individual?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which every one knows must be a female animal. The fact therefore that he is dealing with a male animal indicates clearly that his words are meaningless.');">¹⁶</span> Moreover, if one slaughtered the sin-offering of an individual under the name of a burnt-offering, it should discharge [the owner], since a sin-offering must be a female animal, and a burnt-offering a male! - It is covered by the tail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the sex of the animal is not noticeable.');">¹⁷</span> This holds good in the case where one brought a ewe, but what can be said where one brought a she-goat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has no tail, i.e., its tail does not cover fully its hind quarters. like a sheep, and its sex is easily noticeable. acf acf');">¹⁸</span> - In truth people don't usually think of distinguishing between male and female animals. Again, if one slaughtered the passover-offering under the name of a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the former must be in its first year whereas the latter must be in its second year! - Since there is the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must also be in the first year, for is prescribed, and the term , sheep, signifies a lamb not more than one year old, whereas kht the term , ram, signifies a sheep in its second year and not more than two years old (v. Parah I, 3) . V. Num. VI, 12; and Lev. XIV, 12.');">¹⁹</span> it is then not so certain. Then what can be said if he expressly referred to it as the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which must be a sheep in its second year; v. Lev. V, 25 and 15.');">²⁰</span> Moreover, if one slaughtered the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege under the name of the passover-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the passover-lamb must be in its first year whereas the others must be in their second year! - In truth people don't usually distinguish between an animal in its first year and one in its second year, for an animal in its first year may sometimes look like one in its second year, and one in its second year may look like one in its first year. Again. if one slaughtered a he-goat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The he-goat of the sin-offering of a ruler.');">²¹</span> under the name of a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sheep for the guilt-offering.');">²²</span> has wool and the other hair! - people might think that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the he-goat; since goats are usually dark in colour (cf. Rashi and Tosaf.) .');">²³</span> is a black ram. Again, if one slaughtered a calf or a bullock under the name of the passover-offering or a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since a calf or a bullock cannot serve as the passover-offering or as a guilt-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these must be of the flock.');">²⁴</span> - This is indeed so;