Menachot

Let it run down and become unclean, but he must not render it unclean with his own hands;1 and R. Joshua says, He may even render it unclean with his own hands!2 — In that case it is different, since in any event it will become unclean.3 When R. Isaac came [from Palestine] he recited: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite,4 they are invalid; their appearance must be spoilt5 and they must be taken away to the place of burning. R. Nahman said to him, You, Master, who compare [the lambs of Pentecost] with the sin-offering6 recite that they are invalid, but a Tanna of the School of Levi who infers obligatory peace-offerings from freewill peace-offerings7 recites that they are valid. For Levi taught:8 And so with the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, if they were slaughtered not according to the prescribed rite, they are valid but they do not count in fulfilment of their owner's obligation; they may be eaten the same day and evening [until midnight], and they do not require any cakes nor the offering of the shoulder [to the priest].9 An objection was raised: If for the guilt-offering that requires a lamb of the first year10 a sheep of the second year was offered, or for that which requires a sheep of the second year11 a lamb of the first year was offered,it is invalid; its appearance must be spoilt and it must be taken away to the place of burning. But if the burnt-offering of the Nazirite, or of a woman after childbirth, or of a leper, was a sheep of the second year and it was slaughtered, it is valid.12 This is the general principle: Whatsoever is valid for a freewill burnt-offering is also valid for an obligatory burnt-offering, and whatsoever is invalid for a sin-offering is also invalid for a guilt-offering except [when the offering was slaughtered] under another name!13 — The author of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the School of Levi. Come and hear from the following which Levi taught: If the guilt-offering of the Nazirite14 and the guilt-offering of the leper were slaughtered under another name, they are valid, but they do not count in fulfilment of the owner's obligation. If they were slaughtered before the time had arrived for the owner to offer them,15 or if they were of the second year, they are invalid. Now if this were so,16 he should then draw an inference from the peace-offering!17 — He infers peace-offering from peace-offering but he does not infer guilt-offering from peace-offering. But then if he infers peace-offering from peace-offering he should also infer guilt-offering from guilt-offering, viz., the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper from the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege, and then the guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege from the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and of the leper!18 — R. Shimi b. Ashi answered, We infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is similarly offered not according to the prescribed rite,19 but we do not infer what is offered not according to the prescribed rite from what is offered according to the prescribed rite.20 Do we not? Surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that if what had been taken out [of its proper place] was later brought up upon the altar it must not come down again? From the fact that with regard to the high places what was taken out was still valid to be offered! 21 — to save the unclean non-terumah wine. non-terumah wine. were offered. destroy any sacrificial portions that are still valid. year old), so it is with these lambs. prescribed age), so it is with these obligatory peace-offerings of Pentecost. although the peace-offering of the Nazirite is mentioned alongside with his sin-offering in verse 14 ibid., and one could conclude therefrom that the former, if offered not according to its prescribed rite, is invalid, Levi prefers to draw the inference between the identical kinds of offerings, namely from the freewill peace-offering to the obligatory peace-offering. Accordingly any obligatory peace-offerings, e.g., the Nazirite's peace-offering or the lambs of Pentecost, are valid even though offered not according to the prescribed rite, as is the case with freewill peace-offerings. purification, in connection with which Holy Writ uses the expression acf ‘a lamb’, i.e., of the first year; v. Parah I, 3. ram’ is used, i.e., a sheep of the second year; v. Parah ibid. case of a freewill burnt-offering, if an older animal was offered in place of a younger one, the offering is valid. V. infra 107b. thus be seen that obligatory burnt-offerings are placed on the same footing as freewill burnt-offerings and are not compared with sin-offerings (although these are mentioned in the same verse as the obligatory burnt-offerings, cf. Lev. XIV, 19; Num. VI, 14); likewise obligatory peace-offerings are to be compared with freewill peace-offerings but not with sin-offerings; contra R. Isaac. Num. VI, 12. XIV, 8; and in the case of the Nazirite, before he had rendered himself clean, v. Num. VI, 12. of the first year that was vowed, so it should be with the obligatory guilt-offering. valid by inference drawn from the case of freewill peace-offerings, which are valid even though not offered according to their prescribed rite. rite (e.g., if a sheep of the second year was offered), by inference from the guilt-offering for robbery or for sacrilege which according to the prescribed law must be a sheep of the second year. no restrictions of place in regard to the sacrifices offered at the high places. V. supra p. 34, nn. 3 and 4. Now here is an instance of an act though not in accordance with the prescribed rite (sc. the offering upon the altar of what was taken outside the Sanctuary) being regarded as valid by inference from the high places where such an act is permitted.