Parallel
מנחות 4
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
, what would be R. Simeon's view? Is this the reason for R. Simeon's opinion, namely, that a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd] does not invalidate the offering, and here also the intention is manifestly [absurd]; or is it this, namely, it is written. And this is the law of the meal-offering, but it is not written ‘of the animal-offering’? — He replied, We cannot fathom R. Simeon's mind, He would not give Rabbah's answer because of Abaye's objection to it; nor Raba's answer because of the objection from the verse, And this is the law of the sin-offering; nor R. Ashi's answer because of the objection raised by R. Aha the son of Raba. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. It is indeed clear with regard to the sinner's meal-offering, for the Divine Law terms it a sin-offering, as it is written, He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering. But whence do we know it with regard to the meal-offering of jealousy? From the following which a Tanna recited before R. Nahman: The surplus of the meal-offering of jealousy was used for [public] freewill-offerings. Whereupon he [R. Nahman] said to him, Well spoken, indeed! For the expression ‘iniquity’ is used with regard to it as well as with regard to the sin-offering; and as the surplus of the sin-offering goes for [public] freewill-offerings, so the surplus of the meal-offering of jealousy goes for [public] freewill-offerings. And again like the sin-offering; as the sin-offering Is invalid if offered under any other name than its own, so the meal-offering of jealousy is also invalid if offered under any other name than its own. In that case the guilt-offering should also be invalid if offered under any name other than its own, since one can infer it from the sin-offering by means of the common expression ‘iniquity’! — We may infer ‘iniquity’ from ‘iniquity’, but we may not infer ‘iniquity’ from ‘his iniquity’. But what does this [slight variation] matter? Was it not taught in the School of R. Ishmael that in the verses, And the priest shall come again, and And the priest shall come in, ‘coming again’ and ‘coming in’ have the same import [for purposes of deduction]? Moreover, one can infer ‘his iniquity’ [stated in connection with the guilt-offering] from ‘his iniquity’ stated in connection with ‘the hearing of the voice of adjuration’, where it is written, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity. — Indeed the inference [from the sin-offering] relates only to the surplus [that it shall go] for freewill-offerings. Should you, however, retort, Surely an inference cannot be restricted to one point! [I answer that] the Divine Law has expressly stated ‘it’ with regard to the sin-offering, as it is written, And he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering; ‘it’ [namely, the sin-offering, if slaughtered] under its own name is valid but under any name other than its own is invalid, whereas all other offerings are valid whether offered under their own or under any other name. Then whence do we know that the sinner's meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy are invalid [if offered] under any name other than their own? — Why is it [that this is so] regarding the sin-offering? Because there is written, It is [a sin-offering]. With these, too, there is written, ‘It is’. Then, with the guilt-offering we also find ‘It is’? — That is stated after the burning of the sacrificial parts; as it was taught: But with regard to the guilt-offering the expression ‘It is’ is stated after the burning of the sacrificial parts. And if the sacrificial parts thereof were not burnt at all, it is valid . Then what is the purpose of the expression ‘It is’ [in the case of the guilt-offering]? — It is required for the teaching of R. Huna in the name of Rab, viz., If a guilt-offering that was assigned to pasture was slaughtered without any specified purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. That is so only if it was assigned to pasture, but if it was not so assigned it is not [valid], for the verse reads. It is [a guilt-offering], that is it retains its status. Rab said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the ‘Omer under any name other than its own it is invalid, for it is brought in order to render permitted [the new harvest] and it has not done so. In like manner you may say with regard to the guilt-offering of the Nazirite
—
and the guilt-offering of the leper, viz., if one slaughtered them under any name other than their own they are invalid, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so. [An objection was raised:] We have learnt: 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. Now if the [above ruling of Rab] were correct, then it should have also stated ‘with the exception of the meal-offering of the ‘Omer’! — It only states those [meal-offerings] which are brought by an individual and not that which is brought by the whole community; furthermore, it only states those which are brought by themselves and not that which accompanies an animal-offering; furthermore, it only states those which are brought at no fixed time and not that which is brought at a fixed time. ‘In like manner you may say with regard to the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper, viz., if one slaughtered them under any name other than their own they are invalid, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so’. [An objection was raised:] We have learnt: All animal-offerings that were slaughtered under any name other than their own are valid, save that they do not discharge the obligation of the owner, with the exception of the passover-offering and the sin-offering. Now if [the above ruling of Rab] were correct, then it should have also stated with the exception of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper’, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so! — Since there is also the guilt-offering for robbery and the guilt-offering for sacrilege which are brought for atonement, [the Tanna] therefore could not have stated it absolutely. Why is it that the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper [if slaughtered under another name are invalid]? It is, is it not, because they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so? Then with the other [guilt-offerings] too, it might be said, they are brought to make atonement and they have not done so! — R. Jeremiah answered, It is because we find that Scripture distinguishes between sacrifices that bring about atonement and those that render [the person] fit; those that bring about atonement are sometimes brought after death; whereas those that render [the person] fit are never brought after death. As we have learnt: If a woman had brought her sin-offering and then died, her heirs must bring her burnt-offering; but if she had first brought her burnt-offering and then died, her heirs need not bring her sin-offering. R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi demurred: But are not sacrifices that render the person fit also brought after death? Surely we have learnt: If a man set apart money for his Nazirite offerings, it is forbidden to make any other use of it, yet there would be no infringement of the law of sacrilege, since it may all be used for the purchase of peace-offerings. If he died and the money was not yet apportioned [for the respective offerings], it all goes for freewill-offerings; if it was apportioned, the price of the sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea — no use may be made of it; yet [if one did] there would be no infringement of the law of sacrilege; with the price of the burnt-offering a burnt-offering must be brought and the law of sacrilege applies to it; with the price of the peace-offering a peace-offering must be brought which must be eaten the same day , but it does not require the Bread-offering. Now are not the burnt-offering and the peace-offering of the Nazirite brought in order to render him fit and yet are brought after death? — Said R. Papa. This is what R. Jeremiah meant: We do not find an absolute offering, serving to render the person fit, that can be brought after death, for as regards the Nazirite, the offering which serves to render him fit is not absolute,
—