Menachot

, what would be R. Simeon's view? Is this the reason for R. Simeon's opinion, namely, that a wrongful intention which is manifestly [absurd] does not invalidate the offering, and here also the intention is manifestly [absurd]; or is it this, namely, it is written. And this is the law of the meal-offering,1 but it is not written ‘of the animal-offering’? — He replied, We cannot fathom R. Simeon's mind, He2 would not give Rabbah's answer because of Abaye's objection to it;3 nor Raba's answer because of the objection from the verse, And this is the law of the sin-offering;4 nor R. Ashi's answer because of the objection raised by R. Aha the son of Raba. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. It is indeed clear with regard to the sinner's meal-offering, for the Divine Law terms it a sin-offering, as it is written, He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.5 But whence do we know it with regard to the meal-offering of jealousy? From the following which a Tanna recited before R. Nahman: The surplus of the meal-offering of jealousy was used for [public] freewill-offerings.6 Whereupon he [R. Nahman] said to him, Well spoken, indeed! For the expression ‘iniquity’ is used with regard to it as well as with regard to the sin-offering;7 and as the surplus of the sin-offering goes for [public] freewill-offerings,8 so the surplus of the meal-offering of jealousy goes for [public] freewill-offerings. And again like the sin-offering; as the sin-offering Is invalid if offered under any other name than its own, so the meal-offering of jealousy is also invalid if offered under any other name than its own. In that case the guilt-offering should also be invalid if offered under any name other than its own, since one can infer it from the sin-offering by means of the common expression ‘iniquity’!9 — We may infer ‘iniquity’ from ‘iniquity’, but we may not infer ‘iniquity’ from ‘his iniquity’. But what does this [slight variation] matter? Was it not taught in the School of R. Ishmael that in the verses, And the priest shall come again,10 and And the priest shall come in,10 ‘coming again’ and ‘coming in’ have the same import [for purposes of deduction]? Moreover, one can infer ‘his iniquity’ [stated in connection with the guilt-offering] from ‘his iniquity’ stated in connection with ‘the hearing of the voice of adjuration’, where it is written, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.11 — Indeed the inference [from the sin-offering] relates only to the surplus [that it shall go] for freewill-offerings. Should you, however, retort, Surely an inference cannot be restricted to one point!12 [I answer that] the Divine Law has expressly stated ‘it’ with regard to the sin-offering, as it is written, And he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering;13 ‘it’ [namely, the sin-offering, if slaughtered] under its own name is valid but under any name other than its own is invalid, whereas all other offerings are valid whether offered under their own or under any other name. Then whence do we know that the sinner's meal-offering and the meal-offering of jealousy are invalid [if offered] under any name other than their own? — Why is it [that this is so]14 regarding the sin-offering? Because there is written, It is [a sin-offering].15 With these, too, there is written, ‘It is’.16 Then, with the guilt-offering we also find ‘It is’?17 — That is stated after the burning of the sacrificial parts; as it was taught: But with regard to the guilt-offering the expression ‘It is’ is stated after the burning of the sacrificial parts. And if the sacrificial parts thereof were not burnt at all, it is valid18 . Then what is the purpose of the expression ‘It is’ [in the case of the guilt-offering]? — It is required for the teaching of R. Huna in the name of Rab, viz., If a guilt-offering that was assigned to pasture19 was slaughtered without any specified purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. That is so only if it was assigned to pasture, but if it was not so assigned it is not [valid], for the verse reads. It is [a guilt-offering],17 that is it retains its status.20 Rab said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the ‘Omer21 under any name other than its own it is invalid,22 for it is brought in order to render permitted [the new harvest] and it has not done so.23 In like manner you may say with regard to the guilt-offering of the Nazirite with the sinner's meal-offering. the meantime barley fell in price, the surplus money was to be put into the special collecting boxes in the Temple (v. Shek. VI, 1, 5). The accumulated money was expended in the purchase of animals for sacrifices which were offered as public freewill-offerings whenever the altar was ‘vacant’. hath given it to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation; and in connection with the meal-offering of jealousy it is written (Num. V, 15). Bringing iniquity to remembrance. his iniquity (Lev. V, 17). Nevertheless it is established law that a guilt-offering offered under any other name than its own is valid. another law. was offered under another name it should be invalid. other services are valid even though performed under another name. Moreover to suggest that the burning of the sacrificial parts is invalid if performed under another name is out of the question, for the offering is valid without it. required for that purpose. e.g., where the owner who was to bring this guilt-offering died, or where the animal was lost and another was used in its stead and was later found. This animal was assigned to the care of a shepherd and put out in the field to pasture until it became blemished, when it might be redeemed and the money used for freewill burnt-offerings (Rashi). to eat of the new harvest.