מנחות 49 — Soncino English Talmud

¹That Tanna in fact relies upon the verse, This is the law of the burnt-offering, which includes [all things that were brought up]. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited before Rab: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered as rams, they are valid, but they do not count to the owners in fulfilment of their obligation; whereupon Rab said to him, They certainly count as such. Said R. Hisda, Rab's view is reasonable in the case where [the slaughterer] believing them to be rams slaughtered them as lambs, for then lambs were in fact slaughtered as lambs; but not where he believed them to be rams and slaughtered them as rams, for even a mistaken variation is considered a variation. Rabbah, however, says: A mistaken variation is no variation. Rabbah said, I raised an objection against my own statement from the following: Priests who rendered the flesh in the Sanctuary piggul, if they did so deliberately, are liable to pay compensation. It follows that if they did so unwittingly they are exempt. And in connection therewith it was taught: What they rendered piggul [although unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul. Now what were the circumstances [where the priest acted unwittingly]? If the priest knew that [the offering] was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering, then surely he was not acting unwittingly but deliberately! We must say, therefore, that he believed that it was a peace-offering and treated it as though it were a peace-offering; and yet it has been taught: ‘What they rendered piggul [though unwittingly] is nevertheless piggul’, thus proving that a mistaken variation is considered a variation! — Abaye answered, I can still say that the priest knew that it was a sin-offering and treated it as a peace-offering, [and yet he was acting unwittingly] for he believed that it was permitted [to change the character of the sacrifice]. R. Zera raised an objection from the following: R. Simeon says, All meal-offerings from which the handful was taken under some other name are valid, and also discharge the owner's obligation, since meal-offerings are unlike animal-offerings; for when the priest takes the handful from a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and refers to it as one prepared in a pan, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a meal-offering prepared on a griddle. Or if he is dealing with a dry meal-offering and refers to it as one mixed with oil, [his intention is of no consequence], for the preparation thereof clearly indicates that it is a dry meal-offering. But it is not so with animal-offerings: the same slaughtering is for all offerings, the same manner of receiving the blood for all, and the same manner of sprinkling for all. Now what are the circumstances? If the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle and yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, then what does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering? He has deliberately varied the offering, has he not? We must say, therefore, that he believes it to be a meal-offering prepared in a pan and when taking the handful refers to it as such, but he is mistaken; now in this case only [is his intention of no consequence], since the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering, but in all other cases we say that a mistaken variation is considered a variation? — Abaye answered him, I can still say that the priest knows that it is in fact a meal-offering prepared on a griddle yet when taking the handful refers to it as one prepared in a pan, and as for the question, ‘What does it matter that the preparation thereof clearly indicates the true nature of the offering?’ [I answer that] Rabbah is consistent with his view, for Rabbah has said, only a wrongful intention which is not manifestly [absurd] does the Divine Law declare capable of rendering an offering invalid, but a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd] the Divine Law declares incapable of rendering invalid. MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS, NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE [ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER. EVEN THOUGH THEY DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MUST OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. R. SIMEON SAID, WHEN IS THIS? ONLY WHEN THEY HAD ACTED UNDER CONSTRAINT OR IN ERROR, BUT IF THEY ACTED DELIBERATELY AND DID NOT OFFER THE LAMB IN THE MORNING THEY MAY NOT OFFER [THE LAMB] TOWARDS EVENING. IF THEY DID NOT BURN THE INCENSE IN THE MORNING THEY BURN IT TOWARDS EVENING. R. SIMEON SAID, THE WHOLE OF IT WAS BURNT TOWARDS EVENING, FOR THE GOLDEN ALTAR WAS DEDICATED ONLY BY THE INCENSE OF SPICES, THE ALTAR FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING ONLY BY THE DAILY OFFERING OF THE MORNING, THE TABLE ONLY BY THE SHEWBREAD ON THE SABBATH, AND THE CANDLESTICK ONLY BY [THE KINDLING OF] SEVEN LAMPS TOWARDS EVENING. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abin enquired of R. Hisda, If the community had not [means enough] for the Daily Offerings as well as for the Additional Offerings, which take precedence? But what are the circumstances? If you say that the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for to-day and the Additional Offerings also for to-day, then surely it is obvious that the Daily Offerings take precedence, for they are more frequent and holy! We must therefore say, the reference is to the Daily Offerings required for the morrow and the Additional Offerings for to-day. Shall we say that the Daily Offerings take precedence for they are more frequent, or the Additional Offerings, since they are holy? — He replied, But you have learnt it: THE [ABSENCE OF THE] DAILY OFFERINGS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS NEITHER DOES [THE ABSENCE OF] THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS INVALIDATE THE DAILY OFFERINGS; MOREOVER OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS THE[ ABSENCE OF] ONE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE OTHER. Now what are the circumstances? if you say that [both kinds of offerings] are available and it is only a question of precedence, surely it has been taught: Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the Daily Offering of the morning? Because it is written, And he shall lay the burnt-offering in order upon it, and Raba stated, ‘The burnt-offering’ implies the first burnt-offering.26^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:Lev. VI, 2. By interpreting vkug (rendered ‘burnt-offering’) as whatsoever is brought up’ from vkg ‘to go up’, the rule is established that whatsoever is brought upon the altar, although unfit, must not come down again. Accordingly the rule is not derived by inference from the case of the high places.
^ᵇnote:The slaughterer believed and expressly declared that he was slaughtering rams (i.e., sheep of the second year).
^ᶜnote:Sc. the community
^ᵈnote:For the slaughterer did not know that they were in fact lambs of the first year.
^ᵉnote:And the owners’ obligation is ‘thereby fulfilled.
^ᶠnote:So MS.M. and also B.H. In cur. edd. ‘Raba’.
^ᵍnote:To the owners who, owing to the priests’ wrongful intention, must now provide a fresh sacrifice. V. Git. 54b.
^ʰnote:By expressly declaring his intention of eating of the flesh of the offering for the next two days, which intention in a sin-offering renders piggul, for a sin-offering may be eaten the same day and night but no more.
^ⁱnote:Sc. the sin-offering.
^ʲnote:V. supra 2b.
^ᵏnote:I.e., one that is not mixed with oil, e.g., a sinner's meal-offering; cf. Lev. V, 11.
^ˡnote:Sc. the meal-offering prepared on a griddle.
^ᵐnote:Where the priest's actions belie his expressed intention, obviously his words cannot be taken seriously, and they therefore cannot render the offering invalid.
^ⁿnote:Offered on Sabbaths and on Festivals; cf. Num. XXVIII.
^ᵒnote:Sc. the priests.
^ᵖnote:Of the Daily Offering.
^ᵠnote:I.e., the lamb for the evening Daily Offering is nevertheless to be offered.
^ʳnote:Cf. Ex. XXX, 7, 8; one half-maneh of incense was offered every morning and the other half-maneh every evening.
^ˢnote:I.e., the whole maneh.
^ᵗnote:Consisting of one whole maneh offered towards evening; v. Gemara infra.
^ᵘnote:For the one was offered daily whereas the other only on Sabbaths and Festivals.
^ᵛnote:I.e., more holy. For on Sabbaths and Festivals the Daily Offering is offered prior to the Additional Offering. Aliter: ‘holy’ in that they are offered on a holy day.
^ʷnote:For these are to be offered on a holy day whereas the Daily Offerings are for the morrow, a weekday. Or, according to the first interpretation given on p. 297, n. 8: the Additional Offerings in this case are sacrificed prior to the Daily Offerings, since the former are offered to-day and the latter on the morrow.
^ˣnote:And by stating that one does not invalidate the other the Mishnah teaches us that any one may be offered first.
^ʸnote:Lev. VI, 5.
^ᶻnote:The definite article, vkugv emphasizes the importance of this burnt-offering.

²Obviously then there are not sufficient means [for the two kinds of offerings]; now if both are required for to-day how [can it be said that either the one or the other may be offered]? Surely what is more frequent and holy takes precedence! We must say, therefore, [that one is required] for the morrow, and yet it states, that [the absence of] one does invalidate the other, thus proving that they are on a par. Thereupon Abaye said to him, I can still say that [both kinds of offerings] are available and it is only a question of precedence and as for your objection that nothing should be offered prior to [the Daily Offering, I say that] that is only a recommendation. Come and hear: We have learnt: There must never be less than six inspected lambs in the chamber of lambs, sufficient for a Sabbath and the two Festival days of the New Year. Now what are the circumstances? Shall I say that [lambs] are available, then surely many more are required for the Daily Offerings and the Additional Offerings! Obviously there are not sufficient lambs; we thus see that the Daily Offerings take precedence! — This is not so, for actually lambs are available [for all the offerings], but this is what [that Mishnah] says: There must never be less than six lambs, inspected four days before the slaughtering, in the chamber of lambs. And the author [of that Mishnah] is Ben Bag Bag. For Ben Bag Bag says, Whence do we know that the lamb for the Daily Offering must be inspected four days before the slaughtering? Because it is written here, Ye shall observe to offer unto Me in its due season , and there it is written, And ye shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; as in the latter case the lamb was inspected four days before the slaughtering, so in the former case the lamb must be inspected four days before the slaughtering. Rabina said to R. Ashi, Why six? Surely seven are necessary, for one must reckon also the lamb for the morning [Daily Offering] on Tuesday! And according to your argument, [retorted the other], are not eight necessary? For one must also reckon the lamb for the evening Daily Offering on Friday! — This is no difficulty, for [the Tanna] assumed that [the Friday evening Daily Offering] had been offered.^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵃᵃnote:And that is the Daily Offering.
^ᵃᵇnote:But in fact offerings may be sacrificed before the morning Daily Offering.
^ᵃᶜnote:‘Ar. 13a.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., examined and found free from all physical blemishes.
^ᵃᵉnote:When the three fall on consecutive days six lambs would be required for the Daily Offerings; v. ‘Ar. 13a.
^ᵃᶠnote:Actually twenty two lambs would be required for these three days, six for the Daily Offerings and sixteen for the Additional Offerings.
^ᵃᵍnote:Since all the six lambs are reserved for the Daily Offerings in preference to the Additional Offerings.
^ᵃʰnote:This requirement was essential for the Daily Offerings only.
^ᵃⁱnote:Num. XXVIII, 2.
^ᵃʲnote:Ex. XII, 6. In both these verses a form of the root rna ‘to keep’ ‘observe’ is used.
^ᵃᵏnote:For the lamb was taken on the tenth of the month of Nisan and slaughtered on the fourteenth of the same month. Cf. ibid. 3,6.
^ᵃˡnote:When the New Year falls on Sunday and Monday, the six inspected lambs would, it is true, serve for the Daily Offerings of the three days, namely the Sabbath, Sunday and Monday, but surely another lamb must be had in readiness for the morning Daily Offering on Tuesday, since there is no opportunity to obtain one during the preceding three days. There is another reading: ‘for the morning Daily Offering on Sunday’. The interpretation is similar but the assumption is that the New Year preceded the Sabbath and fell on Thursday and Friday.
^ᵃᵐnote:It being assumed that the evening offering on Friday had not yet been offered, consequently the number of lambs stated by the Tanna would have to include this lamb too.