מנחות 102:2 — Soncino English Talmud

, 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:For R. Eliezer has already stated his view that a man may offer a suspensive guilt-offering every day. V. Ker. 25a.
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:For at the time of the sprinkling this man required atonement and the offering was a valid offering, consequently its flesh may be eaten.
^ᵈnote: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.
^ᵉnote:Palestine.
^ᶠnote:Not what is actually invalid, but, as in the case in question, where the offering turned out to be unnecessary.
^ᵍnote:V. Glos.
^ʰnote:For they are destined to be burnt.
^ⁱnote:And the expression ‘conveys food-uncleanness’ obviously means that it transmits the uncleanness to another object, the latter becoming unclean in the second degree.
^ʲnote:V. Hul. 36a, Sonc. ed. p. 194ff; and Pes. 20a.
^ᵏnote: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.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote:And it is regarded as a freewill meal-offering.
^ᵒnote:Since the flour was designated for one meal-offering it may not be used for another.
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote:Where a man promised to bring a meal-offering prepared on a griddle, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or vice versa.
^ᵗnote:Where he promised to bring a meal-offering in one vessel and he brought it in two, or vice versa.
^ᵘnote:Sc. what he had promised and what he had actually brought.
^ᵛnote: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?
^ʷnote:If they are taken out of the vessels assigned to them.
^ˣnote: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.