מנחות 102 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and if one so desired one could have sprinkled it properly, nevertheless [the Baraitha] states that it does not convey food-uncleanness. Now presumably the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling! — No, the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering. Then what would be his ruling where the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling? It would, as suggested, convey food-uncleanness. If so, instead of teaching ‘A meal-offering that had been made piggul conveys food-uncleanness, [the Tanna] should have drawn a distinction in [the case of the animal-offering] itself in these terms: This applies only where the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering, but if the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling it conveys food-uncleanness! It was necessary [for the Tanna] to teach the case of the meal-offering that had been made piggul; for notwithstanding that the piggul-intention was expressed at the time of the taking of the handful, and the taking of the handful in the meal-offering corresponds to the slaughtering [in the animal-offering], nevertheless the meal-offering conveys food-uncleanness, since there was a time when it was permitted in the beginning. R. Ashi said, I stated this argument before R. Nahman [and he said to me,] You may even say that the expression, ‘if it had remained overnight [before the sprinkling]’ shall be taken in the ordinary sense; and, moreover, you may say that the piggul-intention was expressed during the sprinkling, [and there is no difficulty at all], for whilst we accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have redeemed it’, we do not accept the principle ‘If he so desired he could have sprinkled it’. An objection was raised [from the following]: R. Joshua laid down this general rule: Whatsoever had a period of permissibility to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatsoever had no period of permissibility to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. What is that which had a period of permissibility to the priests? That which remained overnight or became unclean or was taken out [of the Sanctuary]. And what is that which had no period of permissibility to the priests? Offerings that were slaughtered [while the intention was expressed of eating of the flesh thereof] outside the proper time or outside the proper place, or whose blood was received or sprinkled by those that were unfit. It says here in the first part: ‘That which remained overnight or became unclean or was taken out’. Now this means, does it not, that it actually remained overnight, and [yet it is considered as having had a period of permissibility to the priests by virtue of the fact that] here if one so desired one could have sprinkled the blood, and [therefore] it states that it is not subject to the law of sacrilege? — No, it means that it is ready [to become disqualified] if taken out or made unclean. But what would be the position where it had actually remained overnight? It would be subject to the law of sacrilege, would it not? Then instead of saying, ‘Whatsoever had a period of permissibility to the priests’ and ‘Whatsoever had no period of permissibility to the priests’ [the Tanna] should have said, ‘Whatsoever had been permissible to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatsoever had not been permissible to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege! — The fact is, answered R. Ashi, that one cannot point out a contradiction between the ruling concerning the law of sacrilege and that concerning uncleanness. The law of sacrilege applies only to that which is holy and not to that which is not holy; therefore once the holiness has departed how can it revert? On the other hand, food-uncleanness applies only to that which is a foodstuff and not to that which is not a foodstuff; therefore where the blood has been sprinkled [the flesh of the offering] has thereby become a foodstuff and so conveys food-uncleanness, but where the blood has not been sprinkled [the flesh of the offering] has not become a foodstuff and so does not convey food-uncleanness. An objection was raised [from the following]: If a man brought a suspensive guilt-offering and it became known to him that he had not sinned, if the animal was not yet slaughtered it may go forth and pasture among the flock. This is the opinion of R. Meir. The Sages say^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵃnote:Before the sprinkling, however, the offering was still valid, and the blood was then ready to be sprinkled in the proper manner; the flesh therefore should convey food-uncleanness. As the Tanna does not rule so we are forced to the conclusion that whatever is ready for sprinkling is not considered as already sprinkled.
^ᵇnote:So that there was never a time when the offering was in a permitted state.
^ᶜnote:That an offering which had been made piggul does not convey food-uncleanness
^ᵈnote:Cf. supra 13b. And it has been stated that where the piggul-intention was expressed during the slaughtering the flesh does not convey food-uncleanness.
^ᵉnote:Before it was consecrated.
^ᶠnote:Not as suggested above that ‘before the sprinkling’ meant that there was no time during the day for the sprinkling and ‘after the sprinkling’ that there was time in the day for the sprinkling, but the former expression means that the sprinkling had not actually taken place and the latter that it had actually taken place.
^ᵍnote:Nevertheless the flesh of the offering does not convey food-uncleanness.
^ʰnote:In the apparent contradiction between the views of R. Simeon; for with regard to the Red Cow he applies the principle ‘Whatsoever stands to be redeemed is considered as redeemed’, yet with regard to the offering conveying food-uncleanness he does not apply the similar principle ‘Whatsoever stands to be sprinkled is considered as sprinkled’.
^ⁱnote:For the redemption can be accomplished by word of mouth, and therefore even though not yet redeemed it is considered as already redeemed.
^ʲnote:For so long as the act of sprinkling has not been performed, the fact that it can be sprinkled if so desired dos not cause it to be regarded as already sprinkled.
^ᵏnote:Me'il. 2a.
^ˡnote:I.e., the misappropriation of the property of the Temple, for which a guilt-offering is prescribed. Cf. Lev. V, 15f. That which had at some time been permitted to the priests, even though it is now no longer permitted, is not regarded as ‘the holy things of the Lord’ (ibid.), and the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.
^ᵐnote:In these three cases the flesh had been permissible at some time, i.e., before it had been kept overnight or before it had become unclean or before it had been taken out.
^ⁿnote:V. Zeb. 15b. In these cases the flesh of the offering had at no time been permissible since the offering was never valid.
^ᵒnote:I.e., both the flesh and the blood of the offering had remained overnight, for the blood had not yet been sprinkled.
^ᵖnote:And whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled; thus contrary to R. Nahman and R. Ashi.
^ᵠnote:I.e., the blood has already been sprinkled, so that the flesh is perfectly valid now but may yet be rendered invalid if taken outside the Sanctuary or made unclean. This is Rashi's first interpretation, according to which the words ihkk vhutru are to be omitted from the text. They are deleted by Sh. Mek. V., however, Rashi's second interpretation and Tosaf. s.v. tk.
^ʳnote:Since we do not accept the principle that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled.
^ˢnote:The expression ‘a period of permissibility’ signifies a potential permissibility; i.e., there was the possibility of the offering becoming permissible if only the blood had been sprinkled, though in fact the blood had not been sprinkled and so the flesh had not become permissible. Since, however, it is now assumed that the blood had actually been sprinkled, so that the flesh had in fact become permissible to the priests, the Tanna should have used the expression, ‘Whatsoever had been permissible’. This last expression does not preclude the fact that the flesh is now no longer permissible to the priests for it has remained overnight; accordingly the difficulty raised by Tosaf. is disposed of. This interpretation follows the suggestion of R. Samuel Strashun, namely, that the question in the Gemara involves merely the omission of the word ,ga from the rule stated by the Tanna.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘is on account of the holiness or non-holiness (of the offering)’.
^ᵘnote:As soon as the blood is ready to be sprinkled the holiness of the flesh of the offering is gone, since the principle is well-established that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled. Cf. B.K. 76b.
^ᵛnote:Even though the blood was ready to be sprinkled.
^ʷnote:The text of this last sentence in cur. edd. is profuse and redundant; the reading adopted is that of MS.M. and Sh. Mek.
^ˣnote:Ker. 23b.
^ʸnote:Heb. huk, oat. The guilt-offering brought by a person who is in doubt whether he has committed an act which must be atoned for by a sin-offering. This sacrifice is therefore merely suspensive until the doubt will be settled and the person will know whether he must bring a sin-offering or not.
^ᶻnote:The animal is deemed to be non-holy and may join the flock.

², It must be left to pasture until it becomes blemished, when it shall be sold and its money spent on a freewill-offering. R. Eliezer says, It should be offered, for if it was not offered for this sin it can be taken as offered for some other sin. If it became known to him [that he had not sinned] only after it was slaughtered, the blood must be poured out and the flesh burnt. If the blood had already been sprinkled, the flesh may be eaten. R. Jose says, Even if the blood was still in the basin, it should be sprinkled and the flesh eaten. And Raba had said that R. Jose adopted the principle stated by R. Simeon that whatsoever stands to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled! — Is that [indeed] the reason [for R. Jose's view]? [No]. In the West it was said in the name of R. Jose b. Hanina that this is the reason for R. Jose's view: Vessels of ministry hallow what is invalid so that it may be offered up in the first instance. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: Since R. Simeon holds that whatsoever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as already sprinkled, then similarly [he holds that] whatsoever is ready to be burnt is considered as already burnt, consequently why should nothar and the Red Cow convey food-uncleanness? They are but ashes, are they not? — He replied, Sacred esteem renders them fit [to convey uncleanness]. Thereupon Rabina said to R. Ashi, I grant you that sacred esteem can have the effect of rendering the object itself invalid, but can it have the effect of rendering the object unclean so that it should transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees? [For in that case] you could solve the question raised by Resh Lakish: [If] the dry portion of a meal-offering [becomes unclean], does it transmit uncleanness up to the first and second degrees or not? — Resh Lakish's question was [whether it was so] by the law of the Torah ‘ whereas we are speaking of [the uncleanness imposed] by the Rabbis. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING PREPARED] ON A GRIDDLE’, AND HE BROUGHT ONE PREPARED IN A PAN, OR ‘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. BUT [IF HE SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF] TO BRING THIS [MEAL] AS A MEAL-OFFERING PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE’, AND HE BROUGHT IT PREPARED IN A PAN; OR AS A MEAL-OFFERING PREPARED IN A PAN’, AND HE BROUGHT IT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, IT IS INVALID. IF HE SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING TWO TENTHS IN ONE VESSEL, AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN TWO VESSELS, OR IN TWO VESSELS’, AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN ONE VESSEL, WHAT HE HAS BROUGHT HE HAS BROUGHT, BUT HE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE OBLIGATION OF HIS VOW. BUT [IF HE SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING] THESE [TWO TENTHS] IN ONE VESSEL’, AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN TWO VESSELS, OR IN TWO VESSELS’, AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN ONE VESSEL, THEY ARE INVALID. IF HE SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING TWO TENTHS IN ONE VESSEL’ AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN TWO VESSELS, AND WHEN THEY SAID TO HIM, THOU DIDST VOW TO BRING THEM IN ONE VESSEL’, HE STILL OFFERED THEM IN TWO VESSELS, THEY ARE INVALID; BUT IF HE THEREUPON OFFERED THEM IN ONE VESSEL THEY ARE VALID. IF HE SAID I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING TWO TENTHS IN TWO VESSELS’, AND HE BROUGHT THEM IN ONE VESSEL, AND WHEN THEY SAID TO HIM, ‘THOU DIDST VOW TO BRING THEM IN TWO VESSELS’, HE THEREUPON OFFERED THEM IN TWO VESSELS THEY ARE VALID; BUT IF HE STILL KEPT THEM IN ONE VESSEL, THEY ARE RECKONED AS TWO MEAL-OFFERINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN MIXED. GEMARA. All the cases indeed had to be stated. For if the Tanna had only taught us the first cases we should have said that the reason [why he has not fulfilled his obligation] was that he had promised a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and brought one prepared in a pan, but in the other cases, where both were meal-offerings prepared on a griddle or both were meal-offerings prepared in a pan, we should have said that he has even discharged the obligation of his vow; [hence those other cases were necessary to be stated]. And if he had only stated those cases we should have said that the reason for the ruling was that he had divided up the meal-offering, but in the former cases, where he had not divided up the meal-offering, we should have said that it was not so; therefore all the cases were necessary [to be stated]. Our Rabbis taught: What he has brought he has brought, but he has not discharged the obligation of his vow. R. Simeon says, He has even discharged the obligation of his vow. TO BRING THIS [MEAL] AS A MEAL-OFFERING PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE. But it has been taught: The vessels of ministry have not hallowed them! — Abaye answered, They have not hallowed them to that extent that they may be offered [upon the altar], but they have hallowed them to the extent that they can become invalid. Abaye further said, This has been taught^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ᵃᵃnote:For R. Eliezer has already stated his view that a man may offer a suspensive guilt-offering every day. V. Ker. 25a.
^ᵃᵇnote:For it is now manifest that what was slaughtered was not an offering but an unconsecrated animal, and as it was slaughtered in the Temple court it must be destroyed.
^ᵃᶜnote:For at the time of the sprinkling this man required atonement and the offering was a valid offering, consequently its flesh may be eaten.
^ᵃᵈnote:We thus see that by this principle the flesh of the offering is deemed to be a foodstuff so that it may be eaten by the priests as soon as the blood was ready for sprinkling; but this is contrary to R. Ashi's contention.
^ᵃᵉnote:Palestine.
^ᵃᶠnote:Not what is actually invalid, but, as in the case in question, where the offering turned out to be unnecessary.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃʰnote:For they are destined to be burnt.
^ᵃⁱnote:And the expression ‘conveys food-uncleanness’ obviously means that it transmits the uncleanness to another object, the latter becoming unclean in the second degree.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Hul. 36a, Sonc. ed. p. 194ff; and Pes. 20a.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., that part of the meal-offering which was not moistened by the oil and so was not rendered susceptible to uncleanness in the usual manner by moistening by a liquid but only by sacred esteem.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., whether that which was deemed a foodstuff or that which was made susceptible to uncleanness only by sacred esteem, and which subsequently suffered uncleanness, can by the law of the Torah transmit the uncleanness to another foodstuff, so that if the latter were consecrated meat it would have to be burnt.
^ᵃᵐnote:The ruling that nothar and the Red Cow convey food-uncleanness is therefore only Rabbinic, and one would not burn consecrated meat on account of such uncleanness.
^ᵃⁿnote:And it is regarded as a freewill meal-offering.
^ᵃᵒnote:Since the flour was designated for one meal-offering it may not be used for another.
^ᵃᵖnote:For where the meal-offering was brought in two vessels instead of in a single vessel, two handfuls are taken from the meal-offering instead of one, and moreover in each vessel the flour is less than the amount promised. And where it was brought in one vessel instead of in two vessels, only one handful is taken therefrom instead of two, and moreover the flour in this vessel is too much, for there should be in it one tenth and not two.
^ᵃᵠnote:In this case the offerings cannot be regarded as freewill-offerings seeing that when his attention was drawn to the terms of his vow he did not reply that what he was offering was a freewill-offering and not in fulfilment of his vow.
^ᵃʳnote:And if each tenth is distinct so that the handful can still be taken from each by itself, they are valid. V. supra 23a. In the earlier case of this Mishnah, where he said, ‘Let two tenths be brought in two vessels’, and he brought them in one vessel, it must be assumed that the two tenths were so much mixed together that the handful could not have been taken from each by itself, and therefore they are invalid.
^ᵃˢnote:Where a man promised to bring a meal-offering prepared on a griddle, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or vice versa.
^ᵃᵗnote:Where he promised to bring a meal-offering in one vessel and he brought it in two, or vice versa.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. what he had promised and what he had actually brought.
^ᵃᵛnote:The vessels in which the meal-offerings are put when brought to the Temple do not hallow the offerings, accordingly the meal-offering which had wrongfully been put into a pan could be transferred to a griddle, why then is it invalid?
^ᵃʷnote:If they are taken out of the vessels assigned to them.
^ᵃˣnote:That where a man vowed to bring this flour as a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and he brought it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan it is invalid.