Menachot — Daf 49a

תנא אזאת תורת העולה ריבה סמיך ליה

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

מתני׳ התמידין אין מעכבין את המוספין ולא המוספין מעכבין את התמידין ולא המוספין מעכבין זה את זה לא הקריבו כבש בבוקר יקריבו בין הערבים

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

לא הקטירו קטורת בבוקר יקטירו בין הערבים

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:

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

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

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

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

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

ואמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה

That Tanna in fact relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering,1 which includes [all things that were brought up]. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited before Rab: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered as rams,2 they are valid, but they do not count to the owners3 in fulfilment of their obligation; whereupon Rab said to him, They certainly count as such. 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 variation4 is considered a variation. Rabbah, however, says: A mistaken variation is no variation.5 Rabbah6 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.7 It follows that if they did so unwittingly they are exempt. And in connection therewith it was taught: What they rendered piggul [although unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul. Now what were the circumstances [where the priest acted unwittingly]? If the priest knew that [the offering] was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering,8 then surely he was not acting unwittingly but deliberately! We must say, therefore, that he believed that it9 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]. R. Zera raised an objection from the following:10 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. Or if he is dealing with a dry11 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. But it is not so with animal-offerings: the same slaughtering is for all offerings, the same manner of receiving the blood for all, and the same manner of sprinkling for all. Now what are the circumstances? 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? He has deliberately varied the offering, has he not? We must say, therefore, that he believes it12 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 with 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.13 MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS,14 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 THEY15 DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB16 IN THE MORNING THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING.17 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 MORNING18 THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. R. SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING,19 FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES,20 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. GEMARA. 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 frequent21 and holy!22 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?23 — 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,24 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,25 and Raba stated, ‘The burnt-offering’ implies the first burnt-offering.26 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. sin-offering renders piggul, for a sin-offering may be eaten the same day and night but no more. therefore cannot render the offering invalid. ‘holy’ in that they are offered on a holy day. 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.