Menachot 6

and by the term 'animal offerings'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2b: 'Since meal-offerings are not like animal offerings'. In some cases, however, as in the last case stated, the express variation of the sacrifice is so absurd as to be absolutely ignored; and therefore the sacrifice serves to discharge the obligation of the owner.');">¹</span> he meant the majority of animal-offerings.

Raba answered:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reconcile the contradiction cited between the statements of R. Simeon, v. supra p. 4.');">²</span> It is no contradiction: 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 as an animal-offering.

Where one meal-offering was referred to as [another] meal-offering [it discharges the owner's obligation, for it is written,] And this is the law of the meal-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 7.');">³</span> there is but one law for all meal-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all meal-offerings are regarded as one form of offering, and therefore when dealing with one kind of meal-offering to refer to it as another is of no consequence.');">⁴</span>

where a meal-offering was referred to as an animal-offering, [it does not discharge the owner's obligation, for it is written.] 'And this is the law of the meal-offering'; but it is not written 'of the animal-offering'. But did no the Tanna [R'Simeon] say, 'For the preparation thereof clearly indicates [the true nature of the offering]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly a meal-offering referred to as an animal-offering should be valid since the reference is apparently absurd.');">⁵</span>

- He meant thus: Although the expressed statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where the priest expressly refers to a meal-offering prepared on a griddle as one prepared in a pan.');">⁶</span> clearly does not [correspond with the actual offering] and consequently it should be invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the view now held is that where the expressed intention is absurd on the face of it it most certainly renders the offering invalid, for otherwise it may be said that it is permitted to vary offerings.');">⁷</span>

[yet it is not so, for it is written,] 'And this is the law of the meal-offering': there is but one law for all meal-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all meal-offerings are regarded as one form of offering, and therefore when dealing with one kind of meal-offering to refer to it as another is of no consequence.');">⁴</span> Then what is the meaning of the statement, 'But with animal-offerings it is not so'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This statement originally was taken to mean that any variation in an animal-offering affects the owner in that his obligation is not discharged. Now, however, according to the interpretation suggested, the contrast with meal-offerings must give the result that any variation in animal-offerings discharges the owner's obligation since, after all, there is but one manner of slaughtering and one manner of sprinkling for all offerings.');">⁸</span>

- It means, in spite of the fact that the same manner of slaughtering is for all offerings, it is written, 'And this is the law of the meal-offering', and not 'of the animal-offering'. In that case, if one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] forbidden fat under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] blood, or under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of idolatry, or under the name of the sinoffering of the Nazirite or of the leper, it should be valid and also discharge [the owner], for the Divine Law says, This is the law of the sin-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 18.');">⁹</span>

there is but one law for all sin-offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently any variation regarding the kind of sin-offering should be of no consequence; wherefore then have we learnt that the sin-offering is thereby rendered invalid (Zeb. opening Mishnah) ?');">¹⁰</span> According to R'Simeon it is indeed so; and<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text is extremely doubtful and the suggested emendations are various each with different interpretations. The translation follows the text as suggested by Sh. Mek. in the margin, which is supported by MS.M. V. also commentaries of Birkath Hazebah (B.H.) and Z. Kodoshim (Z.K.)');">¹¹</span>

as for the view of the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who do not adopt the interpretation of And this is the law of the sin-offering.');">¹²</span> Raba said, If one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] forbidden fat under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] blood, or under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of idolatry, it is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it does not count for the fulfilment of the owner's obligation (Rashi) . It is valid, however, because each offering mentioned bears the name and true characteristic of the sin-offering.');">¹³</span>

if [he slaughtered it] under the name of the sin-offering of the Nazirite or of the leper is invalid, because with each of these there is a burnt-offering too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it might be said that a sin-offering offered under the name of a burnt-offering is also valid, which is certainly not the law. According to uvhhsvc another reading, the word is omitted, and the translation would be: 'these are (sc. have the characteristics of) burnt-offerings'; i.e., the sin-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper do not, like all other sin-offerings, bring about atonement, but only serve to render the person fit to partake of that which he was forbidden heretofore, namely, to permit the Nazirite to drink wine, and the leper to enter the Temple and to partake of sacred food.');">¹⁴</span> R'Aha the son of Raba reports that it is invalid in every case, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 33. v,ut');">¹⁵</span>

that is, for that [particular] sin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. translated 'it' is often interpreted by the Rabbis as the demonstrative pronoun 'that'; i.e., he shall slaughter the offering for that particular sin.');">¹⁶</span> R'Ashi answered, It is no contradiction: Here he took the handful out of that which was prepared on a griddle and referred to it as prepared in a pan, there he took the handful out of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and referred to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 3, n. 4.');">¹⁷</span>

Where what is prepared on a griddle is referred to as prepared in a pan, [it discharges the owner's obligation, for] the wrongful intention is in respect of the vessel used, and a wrongful intention in respect of the vessel used does not invalidate the offering. Where a meal-offering prepared on a griddle is referred to as a meal-offering prepared in a pan, [it does not discharge the owner's obligation, for] the wrongful intention is in respect of a meal-offering, and it is thereby rendered invalid.

But did not the Tanna [R'Simeon] say, 'For the preparation thereof clearly indicates [the true nature of the offering]'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and referred to as a meal-offering prepared in a pan should also be valid since the expressed intention is apparently absurd.');">¹⁸</span> - He meant thus: Although the expressed statement clearly does not [correspond with the actual offering], and consequently it should be invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 10, n. 5.');">¹⁹</span>

[yet it is not so, fo the intention is in respect of the vessel and any wrongful intention in respect of the vessel does not invalidate the offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in MS. M. and Sh. Mek.');">²⁰</span> Then what is the meaning of the statement, 'But with animal-offerings it is not so'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 10, n. 6.');">²¹</span>

- It means, in spite of the fact that the same manner of slaughtering is for all offerings, and the same manner of receiving the blood and sprinkling it for all offerings, the wrongful intention is in respect of the slaughtering and it is thereby rendered invalid. R'Aha the son of Raba asked R'Ashi, Then why does R'Simeon say [that it discharges the owner's obligation] where a dry [meal-offering] was referred to as one mingled [with oil]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The variation here is clearly not in respect of the vessel in which the meal-offering is put, but rather in respect of the meal-offering itself, and therefore the wrongful intention should invalidate the offering.');">²²</span>

He replied, [The intention was] for anything that is mingled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not necessarily a meal-offering; such an intention therefore could in no wise affect the offering.');">²³</span> If so, when referring [to a burnt-offering] as a peace-offering might also be taken to mean anything that brings about peace!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not necessarily a peace-offering; such an intention therefore should not invalidate the sacrifice, nevertheless it is admitted by R. Simeon that with regard to animal offerings a wrongful intention does invalidate the sacrifice. ohnka');">²⁴</span>

- There is no comparison at all! There the actual sacrifice is termed shelamim [peace-offering],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . And nowhere in the Bible has this word any other connotation.');">²⁵</span> as it is written, He that offereth the blood of the shelamim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 33.');">²⁶</span>

which means, he that sprinkles the blood of the peace-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 98b. vkukc');">²⁷</span> but here, is the meal-offering ever referred to simply as belulah [mingled]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . inac vkukc');">²⁸</span>

It is written, And every meal-offering, mingled with oil [belulah ba-shemen] or dry;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 10. .');">²⁹</span> it is indeed referred to as 'mingled with oil', but never as 'mingled' by itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that to refer to a dry meal-offering as mingled does not necessarily mean that it is intended to be a meal-offering mingled with oil, for this would have been expressly stated; it is regarded as empty words and the offering is not affected thereby.');">³⁰</span>

Now they all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara, having argued fully upon the suggested answers of Rabbah, Raba and R. Ashi in reconciling the conflicting views of R. Simeon, now proceeds to explain why these three Rabbis cannot agree upon one answer.');">³¹</span> do not adopt Rabbah's answer, for [they say], on the contrary, an intention which is manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares capable of rendering an offering invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise it may be said that one may vary the services of the sacrifices.');">³²</span> They also do not adopt Raba's answer, for they do not accept his interpretation of the verse, 'And this is the law of the meal-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 7. For if they accepted this interpretation, they would also have to accept the similar interpretation of the verse in connection with the sin-offering, and there is no evidence to show that R. Simeon ever held such a view with regard to the sin-offering, namely, that if one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of eating forbidden fat under the name of the sin-offering of the Nazarite, it discharges the owner's obligation.');">³³</span> And they do not all adopt R'Ashi's answer because of the difficulty raised by R'Aha the son of Raba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the answer given is not quite satisfactory, since the term 'belulah' by itself generally refers to a meal-offering mingled with oil.');">³⁴</span> That which is clear to Rabbah in one way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a statement which is manifestly absurd with regard to the offering, as when the actions of the officiating priest belie his expressed intention, does not render the offering invalid; v. supra p. 5.');">³⁵</span> and is clear to Raba in the opposite way,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a statement which is manifestly absurd does render the offering invalid; v. supra p. 9, n.7.');">³⁶</span> is a matter of doubt to R'Hoshaia. For R'Hoshaia put the question (others say, R'Hoshaia put the question to R'Assi) : Where one referred to a meal-offering as an animal-offering