מנחות 48 — parallel

48:1

and the other [two] may be eaten after redemption. The Rabbis who recited this in the presence of R. Hisda said, This surely does not agree with Rabbi's view, for according to Rabbi who holds that the slaughtering hallows [the loaves], where can they be redeemed? If they are [all taken] outside [the Sanctuary], and redeemed there, they become at once invalid for having been taken out, for it is written, Before the Lord; and if inside, one is thus bringing unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary! Thereupon R. Hisda said to them, It is indeed in agreement with Rabbi's view and [the loaves] are actually redeemed inside [the Sanctuary], for they became unconsecrated of themselves. Rabina said to R. Ashi, But it has been taught that when they are redeemed they must be redeemed outside [the Sanctuary] only! — He replied, That [Baraitha] is clearly in agreement with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, for according to Rabbi they would at once become invalid on being taken out. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Shall we say that [in this Baraitha] we have a refutation of R. Johanan's view? For it was stated: If the thank-offering was slaughtered [accompanied] by eighty cakes, Hezekiah said, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed; but R. Johanan said, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed! — Was it not also reported thereon that R. Zera said, All agree that where [the slaughterer] declared, ‘Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed’, they are hallowed? Then here, too, we will say that he declared, ‘Let two out of the four be hallowed’. R. Hanina of Tirta recited before R. Johanan: If four lambs were slaughtered [on the Pentecost accompanied] by two loaves, two of the lambs should [first] be drawn to one side and their blood sprinkled under another name, for if you do not decide to act in this way you forfeit the last [pair of lambs]. Thereupon R. Johanan said to him, Should we bid a man, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit’? Surely we have learnt: If the limbs of a sin-offering were mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, R. Eliezer says, Let them all be put above [upon the altar], for I regard the flesh of the sin-offering that is above as wood. But the Sages say, Their appearance must first be spoilt and they must all be taken away to the place of burning. But why? Should we not say, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit’? — We would say, ‘Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain some benefit in regard to the sin-offering itself’, but we would not say, ‘Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain a benefit in regard to the burnt-offering’. And do we say it of one subject? But it was taught: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under another name, or if they were slaughtered either before or after the proper time, the blood is to be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten. If [the Festival] was on the Sabbath, the blood must not be sprinkled; if, however, is valid and may be eaten’, v. Zeb. a; and the second pair of lambs will Serve for the Pentecost-offering together with the two loaves. it was sprinkled, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the sacrificial portions must be burnt after dark. But why? Should we not say, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may gain an advantage’? — We would say, ‘Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on the Sabbath’, but we would not say, ‘Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on a weekday’. And do we not say it of two subjects? But we have learnt: If a barrel [of wine of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the winepress and in the lower part there was unclean [ordinary wine], R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if a man can save a quarter [log] of it in cleanness he must save it; but if not, R. Eliezer says,

—

48:2

Let it run down and become unclean, but he must not render it unclean with his own hands; and R. Joshua says, He may even render it unclean with his own hands! — In that case it is different, since in any event it will become unclean. When R. Isaac came [from Palestine] he recited: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite, they are invalid; their appearance must be spoilt and they must be taken away to the place of burning. R. Nahman said to him, You, Master, who compare [the lambs of Pentecost] with the sin-offering recite that they are invalid, but a Tanna of the School of Levi who infers obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings recites that they are valid. For Levi taught: And so with the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, if they were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite, they are valid but they do not count in fulfilment of their owner's obligation; they may be eaten the same day and evening [until midnight], and they do not require any cakes nor the offering of the shoulder [to the priest]. An objection was raised: If for the guilt-offering that requires a lamb of the first year a sheep of the second year was offered, or for that which requires a sheep of the second year a lamb of the first year was offered,it is invalid; its appearance must be spoilt and it must be taken away to the place of burning. But if the burnt-offering of the Nazirite, or of a woman after childbirth, or of a leper, was a sheep of the second year and it was slaughtered, it is valid. This is the general principle: Whatsoever is valid for a freewill burnt-offering is also valid for an obligatory burnt-offering, and whatsoever is invalid for a sin-offering is also invalid for a guilt-offering except [when the offering was slaughtered] under another name! — The author of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the School of Levi. Come and hear from the following which Levi taught: If the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper were slaughtered under another name, they are valid, but they do not count in fulfilment of the owner's obligation. If they were slaughtered before the time had arrived for the owner to offer them, or if they were of the second year, they are invalid. Now if this were so, he should then draw an inference from the peace-offering! — He infers peace-offering from peace-offering but he does not infer guilt-offering from peace-offering. But then if he infers peace-offering from peace-offering he should also infer guilt-offering from guilt-offering, viz., the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper from the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege, and then the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege from the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper! — R. Shimi b. Ashi answered, We infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is similarly offered not according to the prescribed rite, but we do not infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is offered according to the prescribed rite. Do we not? Surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that if what had been taken out [of its proper place] was later brought up upon the altar it must not come down again? From the fact that with regard to the high places what was taken out was still valid to be offered! —

—