Menachot — Daf 2a

מתני׳ כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה חוץ ממנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות

מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שקמצן שלא לשמן נתן בכלי והלך והקטיר שלא לשמן או לשמן ושלא לשמן או שלא לשמן ולשמן פסולות

כיצד לשמן ושלא לשמן לשם מנחת חוטא ולשם מנחת נדבה שלא לשמן ולשמן לשם מנחת נדבה ולשם מנחת חוטא:

גמ׳ למה למיתנא אלא ליתני ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה

הא קמ"ל לבעלים הוא דלא עלו לשום חובה הא מנחה גופה כשרה ואסור לשנויי כדרבא דאמר רבא עולה ששחטה שלא לשמה אסור לזרוק דמה שלא לשמה

איבעית אימא סברא ואיבעית אימא קרא איבעית אימא סברא משום דמשני בה כל הני לישני בה וניזיל

ואיבעית אימא קרא (דברים כג, כד) מוצא שפתיך תשמור ועשית כאשר נדרת ליי' אלהיך נדבה נדבה נדר הוא קרי ליה נדר וקרי ליה נדבה אלא אם כמה שנדרת עשית יהא נדר ואם לאו יהא נדבה

MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS,1 FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL WAS TAKEN UNDER ANY OTHER NAME THAN THEIR OWN,2 ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEY DO NOT DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER,3 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING4 AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY.5 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.6 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.7 ‘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. handful out of the meal-offering, putting it into a vessel, bringing it nigh to the altar, and burning it. These services correspond respectively to the four main services in connection with animal sacrifices, viz., slaughtering, receiving the blood, bringing it nigh to the altar, and sprinkling it. griddle the officiating priest expressly declares that he is dealing with one prepared in a pan; or declaring it to be on behalf of a different person, ohkgc hubha e.g., while dealing with A's meal-offering the priest declares that he is dealing with it on behalf of B. transgressions mentioned in Lev. V, 1-4. brought under another name, is invalid. meal-offering.