Menachot — Daf 3a

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

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

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

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

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

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

אמרי קדשי קדשים נינהו ומיעבר הוא דעבר ושחט להו בדרום

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

התם כי נמי במרחשת נדר כי מייתי לה במחבת מחבת הויא

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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? 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.1 But did he not say, ‘Since meal-offerings are unlike [animal] offerings’? — Yes, unlike [animal] offerings, but not unlike bird-offerings.2 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.3 For we have learnt: [The Lesser Holy sacrifices] may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court.4 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. 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!5 — 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.6 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.7 But perhaps he used the expression ‘This’;8 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! —9 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. Hence the description [of the meal-offering] by the particular vessel is of no consequence,10 and it is immaterial whether he said ‘Let this be’ or ‘I take it upon myself’. Again, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering under the name of a sin-offering it should discharge [the owner], for the one11 is a male animal and the other12 a female!13 — Since there is the goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, which must be a male,14 it is not so evident.15 Then what can be said if he referred to it as a sin-offering of an individual?16 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.17 This holds good in the case where one brought a ewe, but what can be said where one brought a she-goat?18 — 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,19 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?20 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-goat21 under the name of a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the one22 has wool and the other hair! — people might think that it 23 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!24 — This is indeed so; owner, for the treatment thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the sacrifice. 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. somewhat involved, and the reading of Sh. Mek. is followed. 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. put on a griddle cannot be anything else, and the priest's reference to it as something else is idle talk. particularly since he refers to it as a sin-offering. clearly that his words are meaningless. than one year old, whereas the term kht, 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.