מנחות 2 — parallel

2:1

MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS, FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL WAS TAKEN UNDER ANY OTHER NAME THAN THEIR OWN, ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEY DO NOT DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. AS TO THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY, IF THE HANDFUL WAS TAKEN THEREFROM UNDER ANY OTHER NAME THAN THEIR OWN, OR IF THEY WERE PUT INTO THE VESSEL, OR BROUGHT NIGH, OR BURNT UNDER ANY OTHER NAME THAN THEIR OWN, OR UNDER THEIR OWN AND ANOTHER NAME, OR UNDER ANOTHER NAME AND THEIR OWN, THEY ARE INVALID. HOW CAN THEY BE ‘UNDER THEIR OWN AND ANOTHER NAME’? IF OFFERED AS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND AS A FREEWILL MEAL-OFFERING. AND HOW CAN THEY BE UNDER ANOTHER NAME AND THEIR OWN’? IF OFFERED AS A FREEWILL MEAL-OFFERING AND AS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING. GEMARA. Why does the Mishnah state SAVE THAT? It could have simply stated, ‘But they do not discharge the obligation of the owner’? — It teaches this: The owner's obligation is not thereby discharged, but the meal-offering itself is in each case valid, and it is therefore forbidden to make any further changes with regard to it. This is in accordance with Raba, for Raba said, If a burnt-offering was slaughtered under any name other than its own, it is nevertheless forbidden to sprinkle its blood under any other name than its own. You may, if you wish, explain this by logical reasoning, or if you wish, by reference to a verse. ‘You may, if, you wish, explain this by logical reasoning’ — is it to be permitted, because a change has been made with regard to it, to go on making more and more changes? ‘Or if you wish, by reference to a verse’ — for it is written, That which is done out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do; according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, a freewill-offering. ‘A freewill-offering’? It is a vow, is it not? Hence the verse is to be explained thus: if thou hast done according as thou hast vowed, then it is a votive offering; and if not it shall be a freewill-offering.

—

2:2

And is it permitted to make any changes in respect of a freewill-offering? Must we say that our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of R. Simeon? 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. For if [the priest] takes the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and expressly refers to it as one prepared in a pan. [his intention is of no consequence]. for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that he is dealing with one prepared on a griddle. Or if he is dealing with a dry [meal-offering] and expressly refers to it as mingled [with oil, his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that he is dealing with a dry [meal-offering]. 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. This indeed presents no difficulty according to R. Ashi who said, ‘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’, for our Mishnah is a case where one meal-offering was referred to as another meal-offering. But what can be said according to the answers suggested by Rabbah and Raba? For should you accept the answer suggested by Rabbah namely, ‘Here the change was as regards the offering, there as regards the owner’, [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’? 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 as an animal-offering’, [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’? 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. For it has been taught: R. Simeon says, It is written, It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering, 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]! — Rabbah answered, It is no contradiction: here the change was as regards the offering, there as regards the owner. 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, 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] the Divine Law declares incapable of rendering invalid. (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 [the red line which went around the altar] under the name of a sin-offering of a bird, it discharges [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]! — 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! 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-offering he would have drained it below [the red line], and [would also have first] sprinkled [the blood upon the side of the altar]! —

—