Menachot 97

תנא אזאת תורת העולה ריבה סמיך ליה

That Tanna in fact relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2. By interpreting (rendered 'burnt-offering') as whatsoever is brought up' from 'to go up', the rule is established that whatsoever is brought upon the altar, although unfit, must not come down again. Accordingly the rule is not derived by inference from the case of the high places.');">¹</span>

תני רבה בר בר חנה קמיה דרב כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשום אילים כשרין ולא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה אמר ליה רב עלו ועלו

which includes [all things that were brought up].

אמר רב חסדא מסתברא מילתיה דרב בכסבור אילים ושחטן לשום כבשים שהרי כבשים לשום כבשים נשחטו

Rabbah B'Bar Hanah recited before Rab: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered as rams,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slaughterer believed and expressly declared that he was slaughtering rams (i.e., sheep of the second year) .');">²</span>

אבל כסבור אילים ושחטן לשום אילים לא עקירה בטעות הויא עקירה ורבה אמר עקירה בטעות לא הויא עקירה

they are valid, but they do not count to the owners<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the community');">³</span>

אמר רבא ומותבינן אשמעתין הכהנים שפיגלו במקדש מזידין חייבין הא שוגגין פטורין ותני עלה פיגולן פיגול

in fulfilment of their obligation; whereupon Rab said to him, They certainly count as such.

היכי דמי אילימא דידע דחטאת היא וקא מחשב בה לשום שלמים האי שוגגין מזידין הוו

Said R'Hisda, Rab's view is reasonable in the case where [the slaughterer] believing them to be rams slaughtered them as lambs, for then lambs were in fact slaughtered as lambs; but not where he believed them to be rams and slaughtered them as rams, for even a mistaken variation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the slaughterer did not know that they were in fact lambs of the first year.');">⁴</span>

אלא לאו דכסבור שלמים הוא וקא מחשב בה לשום שלמים וקתני פיגולן פיגול אלמא עקירה בטעות הויא עקירה

is considered a variation.

אמר לי' אביי לעולם דידע דחטאת היא וקא מחשב בה לשום שלמים ובאומר מותר

Rabbah, however, says: A mistaken variation is no variation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owners' obligation is 'thereby fulfilled.');">⁵</span>

מתיב ר' זירא ר' שמעון אומר כל מנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשרות ועלו לבעלים לשום חובה

Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and also B.H. In cur. edd. 'Raba'.');">⁶</span>

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

said, I raised an objection against my own statement from the following: Priests who rendered the flesh in the Sanctuary piggul, if they did so deliberately, are liable to pay compensation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the owners who, owing to the priests' wrongful intention, must now provide a fresh sacrifice. V. Git. 54b.');">⁷</span>

אבל בזבחים אינו כן שחיטה אחת לכולן קבלה אחת לכולן זריקה אחת לכולן

It follows that if they did so unwittingly they are exempt.

היכי דמי אילימא דידע דמחבת היא וקא קמיץ לה לשום מרחשת כי מעשיה מוכיחין מאי הוי הא מיעקר קא עקיר לה

And in connection therewith it was taught: What they rendered piggul [although unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul.

אלא לאו דכסבור מרחשת היא וקא קמיץ לה לשום מרחשת וטעה דהכא הוא דמעשיה מוכיחין עליה הא בעלמא עקירה בטעות הויא עקירה

Now what were the circumstances [where the priest acted unwittingly]?

אמר ליה אביי לעולם דידע דמחבת היא וקא קמיץ לה לשום מרחשת

If the priest knew that [the offering] was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By expressly declaring his intention of eating of the flesh of the offering for the next two days, which intention in a sin-offering renders piggul, for a sin-offering may be eaten the same day and night but no more.');">⁸</span>

ודקא אמרת כי מעשיה מוכיחין עליה מאי הוי רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא מחשבה דלא מינכרא פסל רחמנא מחשבה דמינכרא לא פסל רחמנא:

then surely he was not acting unwittingly but deliberately! We must say, therefore, that he believed that it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sin-offering.');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> התמידין אין מעכבין את המוספין ולא המוספין מעכבין את התמידין ולא המוספין מעכבין זה את זה לא הקריבו כבש בבוקר יקריבו בין הערבים

was a peace-offering and treated it as though it were a peace-offering; and yet it has been taught: 'What they rendered piggul [though unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul', thus proving that a mistaken variation is considered a variation! - Abaye answered, I can still say that the priest knew that it was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering, [and yet he was acting unwittingly] for he believed that it was permitted [to change the character of the sacrifice].

אמר ר' שמעון אימתי בזמן שהיו אנוסין או שוגגין אבל אם היו מזידין ולא הקריבו כבש בבוקר לא יקריבו בין הערבים

R'Zera raised an objection from the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2b.');">¹⁰</span>

לא הקטירו קטורת בבוקר יקטירו בין הערבים

R'Simeon says, All meal-offerings from which the handful was taken under some other name are valid, and also discharge the owner's obligation, since meal-offerings are unlike animal-offerings; for when the priest takes the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and refers to it as one prepared in a pan, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a meal-offering prepared on a griddle.

אמר רבי שמעון וכולה היתה קריבה בין הערבים שאין מחנכין את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטורת הסמים ולא מזבח העולה אלא בתמיד של שחר ולא את השולחן אלא בלחם הפנים בשבת ולא את המנורה אלא בשבעה נרותיה בין הערבים:

Or if he is dealing with a dry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one that is not mixed with oil, e.g., a sinner's meal-offering; cf. Lev. V, 11.');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעא מיניה ר' חייא בר אבין מרב חסדא ציבור שאין להן תמידין ומוספין אי זה מהן קודם

meal-offering and refers to it as one mixed with oil, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a dry meal-offering.

היכי דמי אילימא תמידין דיומיה ומוספין דיומיה פשיטא תמידין עדיפי דהוו להו תדיר ומקודש

But it is not so with animal-offerings: th same slaughtering is for all offerings, the same manner of receiving the blood for all, and the same manner of sprinkling for all.

אלא תמידין דלמחר ומוספין דהאידנא תמידין עדיפי שכן תדיר או דלמא מוספין עדיפי דהוו להו מקודש

Now what are the circumstances?

אמר ליה תניתוה התמידין אין מעכבין את המוספין ולא המוספין מעכבין את התמידין ולא (את) המוספין מעכבין זה את זה

If the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, then what does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering?

היכי דמי אילימא דאית ליה ולקדם והתניא מנין שלא יהא דבר קודם לתמיד של שחר ת"ל (ויקרא ו, ה) וערך עליה העולה

He has deliberately varied the offering, has he not?

ואמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה

We must say, therefore, that he believes it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the meal-offering prepared on a griddle.');">¹²</span> to be a meal-offering prepared in a pan and when taking the handful refers to it as such, but he is mistaken; now in this case only [is his intention of no consequence], since the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering, but in all other cases we say that a mistaken variation is considered a variation? - Abaye answered him, I can still say that the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, and as for the question, 'What does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering? ' [I answer that] Rabbah is consistent wit his view, for Rabbah has said, only a wrongful intention which is not manifestly [absurd] does the Divine Law declare capable of rendering an offering invalid, but a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares incapable of rendering invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the priest's actions belie his expressed intention, obviously his words cannot be taken seriously, and they therefore cannot render the offering invalid.');">¹³</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered on Sabbaths and on Festivals; cf. Num. XXVIII.');">¹⁴</span> NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER'EVEN THOUGH THEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the priests.');">¹⁵</span> DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Daily Offering.');">¹⁶</span> IN THE MORNING THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the lamb for the evening Daily Offering is nevertheless to be offered.');">¹⁷</span> R'SIMEON SAID, WHEN IS THIS? ONLY WHEN THEY HAD ACTED UNDER CONSTRAINT OR IN ERROR, BUT IF THEY ACTED DELIBERATELY AND DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MAY NOT OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. IF THEY DID NOT BURN THE INCENSE IN THE MORNING<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXX, 7, 8; one half-maneh of incense was offered every morning and the other half-maneh every evening.');">¹⁸</span> THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. R'SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole maneh.');">¹⁹</span> FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consisting of one whole maneh offered towards evening; v. Gemara infra.');">²⁰</span> THE ALTAR FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING ONLY BY THE DAILY OFFERING OF THE MORNING, THE TABLE ONLY BY THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH, AND THE CANDLESTICK ONLY BY [THE KINDLING OF] SEVEN LAMPS TOWARDS EVENING. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Hiyya B'Abin enquired of R'Hisda, If the community had not [means enough] for the Daily Offerings as well as for the Additional Offerings, which take precedence? But what are the circumstances? If you say that the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for to-day and the Additional Offerings also for to-day, then surely it is obvious that the Daily Offerings take precedence, for they are more frequent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the one was offered daily whereas the other only on Sabbaths and Festivals.');">²¹</span> and holy!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., more holy. For on Sabbaths and Festivals the Daily Offering is offered prior to the Additional Offering. Aliter: 'holy' in that they are offered on a holy day.');">²²</span> We must therefore say, the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for the morrow and the Additional Offerings for to-day. Shall we say that the Daily Offerings take precedence for they are more frequent, or the Additional Offerings, since they are holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these are to be offered on a holy day whereas the Daily Offerings are for the morrow, a weekday. Or, according to the first interpretation given on p. 297, n. 8: the Additional Offerings in this case are sacrificed prior to the Daily Offerings, since the former are offered to-day and the latter on the morrow.');">²³</span> - He replied, But you have learnt it: THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE[ ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER'Now what are the circumstances? if you say that [both kinds of offerings] are available and it is only a question of precedence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by stating that one does not invalidate the other the Mishnah teaches us that any one may be offered first.');">²⁴</span> surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the Daily Offering of the morning? Because it is written, And he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 5. vkugv');">²⁵</span> and Raba stated, 'The burnt-offering' implies the first burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The definite article, emphasizes the importance of this burnt-offering.');">²⁶</span>