מנחות 3 — Soncino English Talmud

¹It might be said that it is now being drained, the sprinkling having already taken place; and [as for its being drained above the red line], has not the Master stated that wherever upon the altar the blood was drained it is valid? Again, if he sprinkled the blood of the sin-offering of a bird below [the red line] under the name of a burnt-offering of a bird, it should discharge [the owner], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that it is a sin-offering of a bird, for if it were a burnt-offering of a bird he would have performed [the sprinkling] above [the red line], and would also have drained out the blood? — This is so. But did he not say, ‘Since meal-offerings are unlike [animal] offerings’? — Yes, unlike [animal] offerings, but not unlike bird-offerings. Again, if one slaughtered Most Holy sacrifices on the north side [of the altar] under the name of Lesser Holy sacrifices, they should discharge [the owners], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that they are Most Holy sacrifices, for if they were Lesser Holy sacrifices, [the slaughtering] surely would have been performed on the south side! — No, the rule of the Divine Law is [that Lesser Holy sacrifices may be slaughtered] even on the south side, but not on the south side to the exclusion of the north. For we have learnt: [The Lesser Holy sacrifices] may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court. Again, if one slaughtered Lesser Holy sacrifices on the south side under the name of Most Holy sacrifices, they should discharge [the owners], since the treatment thereof indicates plainly that they are Lesser Holy sacrifices, for if they were Most Holy sacrifices, [the slaughtering] would surely have been performed on the north side! — It might be said that they really were Most Holy sacrifices but that [the slaughterer] had transgressed the law and slaughtered them on the south side. If so, in the case where a meal-offering prepared on a griddle was referred to as one prepared in a pan, it might also be said that the owner had vowed a meal-offering prepared in a pan and the priest when taking the handful therefrom [rightly] referred to it as prepared in a pan, for it was to be a meal-offering prepared in a pan, but he [the owner] had transgressed and brought one prepared on a griddle! — There, even though he had vowed a meal-offering prepared in a pan, if he brought it prepared on a griddle it must be treated as prepared on a griddle. As we have learnt: If a man said, ‘I take it upon myself to bring a meal-offering prepared on a griddle’, and he brought one prepared in a pan; or if he said, ‘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 perhaps he used the expression ‘This’; as we have learnt: If he said, ‘Let this [meal] be brought [as a meal-offering prepared] on a griddle’, and he brought it [prepared] in a pan, or if he said, ‘Let this [meal be brought as a meal-offering] prepared in a pan’, and he brought it [prepared] on a griddle, it is invalid! — According to the view of the Rabbis this would indeed be [a difficulty]; but we are arguing according to the view of R. Simeon, and R. Simeon holds that [in the first case] he has even discharged the obligation of his vow. Hence the description [of the meal-offering] by the particular vessel is of no consequence, and it is immaterial whether he said ‘Let this be’ or ‘I take it upon myself’. Again, if one slaughtered a burnt-offering under the name of a sin-offering it should discharge [the owner], for the one is a male animal and the other a female! — Since there is the goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, which must be a male, it is not so evident. Then what can be said if he referred to it as a sin-offering of an individual? Moreover, if one slaughtered the sin-offering of an individual under the name of a burnt-offering, it should discharge [the owner], since a sin-offering must be a female animal, and a burnt-offering a male! — It is covered by the tail. This holds good in the case where one brought a ewe, but what can be said where one brought a she-goat? — In truth people don't usually think of distinguishing between male and female animals. Again, if one slaughtered the passover-offering under the name of a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the former must be in its first year whereas the latter must be in its second year! — Since there is the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper, it is then not so certain. Then what can be said if he expressly referred to it as the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege? Moreover, if one slaughtered the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege under the name of the passover-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the passover-lamb must be in its first year whereas the others must be in their second year! — In truth people don't usually distinguish between an animal in its first year and one in its second year, for an animal in its first year may sometimes look like one in its second year, and one in its second year may look like one in its first year. Again. if one slaughtered a he-goat under the name of a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since the one has wool and the other hair! — people might think that it is a black ram. Again, if one slaughtered a calf or a bullock under the name of the passover-offering or a guilt-offering it should discharge [the owner], since a calf or a bullock cannot serve as the passover-offering or as a guilt-offering! — This is indeed so;^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:That according to R. Simeon in such a case the owner counts the offering as the fulfilment of his obligation.
^ᵇnote:I.e., a bird-offering like a meal-offering, although offered under a different name, discharges the obligation of the owner, for the treatment thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the sacrifice.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘did it say, On the south side and not on the north?’ In contradistinction from the Most Holy sacrifices — the burnt-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering, which must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar only (v. Lev. I, 11; VI, 18; VII, 2). — Scripture does not specify any particular place for the slaughtering of the Lesser Holy sacrifices, and the implication clearly is that it may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court.
^ᵈnote:Zeb. 55a.
^ᵉnote:And why does R. Simeon hold that in such a case the express intention is to be ignored? The text in cur. edd. is somewhat involved, and the reading of Sh. Mek. is followed.
^ᶠnote:And therefore to refer to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan is mere empty words.
^ᵍnote:Infra 102b.
^ʰnote:So Sh. Mek, omitting the words, ‘to be brought prepared on a griddle and he brought it prepared in a pan’.
^ⁱnote:Infra 102b. Consequently where the expression ‘this’ was used it cannot be offered as anything else. Now in the present case it might be thought that the priest when taking the handful therefrom and referring to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan, refers actually to its true character, so that his expressed intention cannot be said to be idle talk.
^ʲnote:But it is the vessel in which the meal is actually put that decides the kind of meal-offering it is to be; so that what is put on a griddle cannot be anything else, and the priest's reference to it as something else is idle talk.
^ᵏnote:Sc. the burnt-offering.
^ˡnote:Sc. the sin-offering.
^ᵐnote:And it is evident to all that to refer to this animal as a sin-offering is idle talk, for it is a male animal.
^ⁿnote:V. Lev. IV, 22f.
^ᵒnote:For the burnt-offering that he is slaughtering might reasonably be taken to be the goat of the sin-offering of a ruler, particularly since he refers to it as a sin-offering.
^ᵖnote:Which every one knows must be a female animal. The fact therefore that he is dealing with a male animal indicates clearly that his words are meaningless.
^ᵠnote:So that the sex of the animal is not noticeable.
^ʳnote:Which has no tail, i.e., its tail does not cover fully its hind quarters. like a sheep, and its sex is easily noticeable.
^ˢnote:Which must also be in the first year, for acf is prescribed, and the term acf, sheep, signifies a lamb not more than one year old, whereas the term kht, ram, signifies a sheep in its second year and not more than two years old (v. Parah I, 3). V. Num. VI, 12; and Lev. XIV, 12.
^ᵗnote:Which must be a sheep in its second year; v. Lev. V, 25 and 15.
^ᵘnote:The he-goat of the sin-offering of a ruler.
^ᵛnote:Sc. the sheep for the guilt-offering.
^ʷnote:Sc. the he-goat; since goats are usually dark in colour (cf. Rashi and Tosaf.).
^ˣnote:For these must be of the flock.

²and by the term ‘animal offerings’ he meant the majority of animal-offerings. Raba answered: It is no contradiction: here he took the handful out of a meal-offering and referred to it as [another] meal-offering, there he took the handful out of a meal-offering and referred to it as an animal-offering. Where one meal-offering was referred to as [another] meal-offering [it discharges the owner's obligation, for it is written,] And this is the law of the meal-offering: there is but one law for all meal-offerings; where a meal-offering was referred to as an animal-offering, [it does not discharge the owner's obligation, for it is written.] ‘And this is the law of the meal-offering’; but it is not written ‘of the animal-offering’. But did not the Tanna [R. Simeon] say, ‘For the preparation thereof clearly indicates [the true nature of the offering]’? — He meant thus: Although the expressed statement clearly does not [correspond with the actual offering] and consequently it should be invalid, [yet it is not so, for it is written,] ‘And this is the law of the meal-offering’: there is but one law for all meal-offerings. Then what is the meaning of the statement, ‘But with animal-offerings it is not so’? — It means, in spite of the fact that the same manner of slaughtering is for all offerings, it is written, ‘And this is the law of the meal-offering’, and not ‘of the animal-offering’. In that case, if one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] forbidden fat under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] blood, or under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of idolatry, or under the name of the sinoffering of the Nazirite or of the leper, it should be valid and also discharge [the owner], for the Divine Law says, This is the law of the sin-offering: there is but one law for all sin-offerings! According to R. Simeon it is indeed so; and as for the view of the Rabbis, Raba said, If one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] forbidden fat under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of [eating] blood, or under the name of a sin-offering brought on account of idolatry, it is valid; if [he slaughtered it] under the name of the sin-offering of the Nazirite or of the leper it is invalid, because with each of these there is a burnt-offering too. R. Aha the son of Raba reports that it is invalid in every case, for it is written, And he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering. that is, for that [particular] sin. R. Ashi answered, It is no contradiction: Here he took the handful out of that which was prepared on a griddle and referred to it as prepared in a pan, there he took the handful out of a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and referred to it as a meal-offering prepared in a pan. Where what is prepared on a griddle is referred to as prepared in a pan, [it discharges the owner's obligation, for] the wrongful intention is in respect of the vessel used, and a wrongful intention in respect of the vessel used does not invalidate the offering. Where a meal-offering prepared on a griddle is referred to as a meal-offering prepared in a pan, [it does not discharge the owner's obligation, for] the wrongful intention is in respect of a meal-offering, and it is thereby rendered invalid. But did not the Tanna [R. Simeon] say, ‘For the preparation thereof clearly indicates [the true nature of the offering]’? — He meant thus: Although the expressed statement clearly does not [correspond with the actual offering], and consequently it should be invalid, [yet it is not so, for] the intention is in respect of the vessel and any wrongful intention in respect of the vessel does not invalidate the offering. Then what is the meaning of the statement, ‘But with animal-offerings it is not so’? — It means, in spite of the fact that the same manner of slaughtering is for all offerings, and the same manner of receiving the blood and sprinkling it for all offerings, the wrongful intention is in respect of the slaughtering and it is thereby rendered invalid. R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi, Then why does R. Simeon say [that it discharges the owner's obligation] where a dry [meal-offering] was referred to as one mingled [with oil]? He replied, [The intention was] for anything that is mingled. If so, when referring [to a burnt-offering] as a peace-offering it might also be taken to mean anything that brings about peace! — There is no comparison at all! There the actual sacrifice is termed shelamim [peace-offering], as it is written, He that offereth the blood of the shelamim, which means, he that sprinkles the blood of the peace-offering; but here, is the meal-offering ever referred to simply as belulah [mingled]? It is written, And every meal-offering, mingled with oil [belulah ba-shemen] or dry; it is indeed referred to as ‘mingled with oil’, but never as ‘mingled’ by itself. Now they all do not adopt Rabbah's answer, for [they say], on the contrary, an intention which is manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares capable of rendering an offering invalid. They also do not adopt Raba's answer, for they do not accept his interpretation of the verse, ‘And this is the law of the meal-offering’. And they do not all adopt R. Ashi's answer because of the difficulty raised by R. Aha the son of Raba. That which is clear to Rabbah in one way and is clear to Raba in the opposite way, is a matter of doubt to R. Hoshaia. For R. Hoshaia put the question (others say, R. Hoshaia put the question to R. Assi): Where one referred to a meal-offering as an animal-offering^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ʸnote:V. supra 2b: ‘Since meal-offerings are not like animal offerings’. In some cases, however, as in the last case stated, the express variation of the sacrifice is so absurd as to be absolutely ignored; and therefore the sacrifice serves to discharge the obligation of the owner.
^ᶻnote:To reconcile the contradiction cited between the statements of R. Simeon, v. supra p. 4.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. VI, 7.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., all meal-offerings are regarded as one form of offering, and therefore when dealing with one kind of meal-offering to refer to it as another is of no consequence.
^ᵃᶜnote:Accordingly a meal-offering referred to as an animal-offering should be valid since the reference is apparently absurd.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the case where the priest expressly refers to a meal-offering prepared on a griddle as one prepared in a pan.
^ᵃᵉnote:For the view now held is that where the expressed intention is absurd on the face of it it most certainly renders the offering invalid, for otherwise it may be said that it is permitted to vary offerings.
^ᵃᶠnote:This statement originally was taken to mean that any variation in an animal-offering affects the owner in that his obligation is not discharged. Now, however, according to the interpretation suggested, the contrast with meal-offerings must give the result that any variation in animal-offerings discharges the owner's obligation since, after all, there is but one manner of slaughtering and one manner of sprinkling for all offerings.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. VI, 18.
^ᵃʰnote:Consequently any variation regarding the kind of sin-offering should be of no consequence; wherefore then have we learnt that the sin-offering is thereby rendered invalid (Zeb. opening Mishnah)?
^ᵃⁱnote:The text is extremely doubtful and the suggested emendations are various each with different interpretations. The translation follows the text as suggested by Sh. Mek. in the margin, which is supported by MS.M. V. also commentaries of Birkath Hazebah (B.H.) and Z. Kodoshim (Z.K.)
^ᵃʲnote:Who do not adopt the interpretation of And this is the law of the sin-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:Although it does not count for the fulfilment of the owner's obligation (Rashi). It is valid, however, because each offering mentioned bears the name and true characteristic of the sin-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:And it might be said that a sin-offering offered under the name of a burnt-offering is also valid, which is certainly not the law. According to another reading, the word uvhhsvc is omitted, and the translation would be: ‘these are (sc. have the characteristics of) burnt-offerings’; i.e., the sin-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper do not, like all other sin-offerings, bring about atonement, but only serve to render the person fit to partake of that which he was forbidden heretofore, namely, to permit the Nazirite to drink wine, and the leper to enter the Temple and to partake of sacred food.
^ᵃᵐnote:Ibid. IV, 33.
^ᵃⁿnote:Heb. v,ut translated ‘it’ is often interpreted by the Rabbis as the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’; i.e., he shall slaughter the offering for that particular sin.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. supra p. 3, n. 4.
^ᵃᵖnote:Accordingly a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and referred to as a meal-offering prepared in a pan should also be valid since the expressed intention is apparently absurd.
^ᵃᵠnote:V. supra p. 10, n. 5.
^ᵃʳnote:So in MS. M. and Sh. Mek.
^ᵃˢnote:V. supra p. 10, n. 6.
^ᵃᵗnote:The variation here is clearly not in respect of the vessel in which the meal-offering is put, but rather in respect of the meal-offering itself, and therefore the wrongful intention should invalidate the offering.
^ᵃᵘnote:But not necessarily a meal-offering; such an intention therefore could in no wise affect the offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:And not necessarily a peace-offering; such an intention therefore should not invalidate the sacrifice, nevertheless it is admitted by R. Simeon that with regard to animal offerings a wrongful intention does invalidate the sacrifice.
^ᵃʷnote:ohnka. And nowhere in the Bible has this word any other connotation.
^ᵃˣnote:Lev. VII, 33.
^ᵃʸnote:V. Zeb. 98b.
^ᵃᶻnote:vkukc.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lev. VII, 10. inac vkukc.
^ᵇᵇnote:So that to refer to a dry meal-offering as mingled does not necessarily mean that it is intended to be a meal-offering mingled with oil, for this would have been expressly stated; it is regarded as empty words and the offering is not affected thereby.
^ᵇᶜnote:The Gemara, having argued fully upon the suggested answers of Rabbah, Raba and R. Ashi in reconciling the conflicting views of R. Simeon, now proceeds to explain why these three Rabbis cannot agree upon one answer.
^ᵇᵈnote:For otherwise it may be said that one may vary the services of the sacrifices.
^ᵇᵉnote:Ibid. VI, 7. For if they accepted this interpretation, they would also have to accept the similar interpretation of the verse in connection with the sin-offering, and there is no evidence to show that R. Simeon ever held such a view with regard to the sin-offering, namely, that if one slaughtered a sin-offering brought on account of eating forbidden fat under the name of the sin-offering of the Nazarite, it discharges the owner's obligation.
^ᵇᶠnote:For the answer given is not quite satisfactory, since the term ‘belulah’ by itself generally refers to a meal-offering mingled with oil.
^ᵇᵍnote:That a statement which is manifestly absurd with regard to the offering, as when the actions of the officiating priest belie his expressed intention, does not render the offering invalid; v. supra p. 5.
^ᵇʰnote:That a statement which is manifestly absurd does render the offering invalid; v. supra p. 9, n.7.