Menachot

This is so of the law of diverse kinds since there is an express command that it shall be so.1 R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said, One could reply, Let the argument revolve and the inference be made from what is common to both. Thus, the argument, ‘This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden to man by this act which renders it consecrated’,2 can be refuted by the argument, ‘The fat and the blood can prove otherwise’. And the argument, ‘This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from what is permitted’,2 can be refuted by the argument, ‘The rite of nipping can prove otherwise’. And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the other is not that of this case; but what they have in common is that each is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. So I might have inferred that trefah, too, although it is forbidden to man, is permitted to the Most High.3 But they have this also in common, have they not, that in each case there is an express command that it shall be so?4 — R. Ashi therefore said, One could reply that the first proposition of the argument is unsound. Whence did you infer it5 at the outset? From the case of a blemished animal. But the case of a blemish is different, since in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered.6 Whereupon R. Aha the Elder said to R. Ashi, That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise: for in that case [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is not on the same footing as the [animal] offered,7 nevertheless such an animal is permitted to man and forbidden to the Most High.8 [And if the objection is raised:] But this is so only of that which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb since it is not holy as a firstling;9 [I reply,] The case of an animal with a physical blemish can prove otherwise.10 [And if this objection is raised:] But this is so only in the case of a blemish since in that respect [the priest] who offers [the sacrifice] is on the same footing as the [animal] offered, [I reply,] That which was extracted from the side of the mother's womb can prove otherwise. And so the argument goes round; the characteristic feature of this case is not that of the other, and the characteristic feature of the other is not that of this case; but what they have in common is that each is permitted to man yet forbidden to the Most High, then surely trefah, which is forbidden to man, is all the more forbidden to the Most High. But the others have this also in common, that in each case there is no exception to the general [prohibition]; will you say the same of the case of trefah seeing that it admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]?11 Thereupon R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, What is meant by saying that trefah admits of an exception to the general [prohibition]? Should you say that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of the burnt-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird, although rendered trefah thereby,] is nevertheless permitted [to be offered] to the Most High; but this is also the case with physical blemishes, for a bird with a physical blemish is certainly permitted to be offered to the Most High, [for it has been said,]12 The unblemished state and the male sex are prerequisites only to sacrifices of cattle but not of birds! You would say then that it refers to the rite of nipping off the head of a sin-offering of a bird, [in which case the bird is] permitted to [be eaten by] priests; but surely the priests receive it from the table of the Most High!13 — Indeed the argument could be refuted thus, The others14 have this further in common, for in each case the defect thereof is perceptible;15 will you then say the same of the case of trefah seeing that its defect is not perceptible? The verse is therefore necessary [to exclude trefah]. And is the case of trefah16 derived from here?17 Surely it is derived from the verse, From the liquor of Israel,18 that is, from that which is permitted to Israel; or from the verse, Whatsoever passeth under the rod,19 which excludes a trefah animal since it cannot pass under!20 — All [three verses] are necessary; for from the verse, ‘From the liquor of Israel’, I should have excluded only those that were at no time fit21 [for a sacrifice], just as ‘orlah22 or diverse kinds in the vineyard;23 but where it was at one time fit I would say that it is permitted [to be offered]. Scripture therefore states, ‘Whatsoever passeth under the rod’. And had Scripture only stated the verse, ‘Whatsoever passeth under the rod’, I should have excluded only those animals that were first rendered trefah and subsequently consecrated, as in the case of the Cattle Tithe;24 but where it was consecrated first and subsequently it became trefah, since at the time when it was consecrated it was fit [for a sacrifice], I would say that it is permitted [to be offered], therefore all [three verses] are necessary. MISHNAH. WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING, IF A NON-PRIEST, OR [A PRIEST] THAT WAS IN MOURNING.25 OR HAD IMMERSED HIMSELF DURING THE DAY.26 OR WAS NOT WEARING THE [OFFICIAL PRIESTLY] ROBES,27 OR WHOSE ATONEMENT WAS NOT YET COMPLETE.28 OR THAT HAD NOT WASHED HIS HANDS AND FEET,29 OR THAT WAS UNCIRCUMCISED30 OR UNCLEAN, OR THAT MINISTERED SITTING,31 OR STANDING UPON VESSELS OR UPON A BEAST OR UPON ANOTHER'S FEET,32 HAD TAKEN THE HANDFUL THEREFROM IT IS INVALID. IF [A PRIEST] REMOVED THE HANDFUL WITH HIS LEFT HAND IT IS INVALID. BEN BATHYRA SAYS, HE MUST PUT [THE HANDFUL] BACK AND TAKE IT OUT AGAIN WITH THE RIGHT HAND. IF ON TAKING THE HANDFUL THERE CAME INTO HIS HAND A SMALL STONE OR A GRAIN OF SALT OR A DROP OF FRANKINCENSE IT IS INVALID;33 FOR THEY HAVE RULED: IF THE HANDFUL WAS TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE IT IS INVALID. WHAT IS MEANT BY TOO MUCH? IF HE TOOK AN OVERFLOWING HANDFUL. AND ‘TOO LITTLE’? IF HE TOOK THE HANDFUL WITH THE TIPS OF HIS FINGERS ONLY.34 GEMARA. Why does the Mishnah state: ‘WHETHER IT IS A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING OR ANY OTHER MEAL-OFFERING’? Surely it should state, ‘Every meal-offering from which the handful was taken by a non-priest or a priest that was in mourning [etc.]’. — It was necessary [to state it so] according to R. Simeon's view. For it was taught: R. Simeon said, By right the sinner's meal-offering should require oil and frankincense, so that the sinner should have no advantage;35 why then does it not require them? In order that his offering be not sumptuous. Also, by right an ordinary sin-offering36 should require drink-offerings.37 common features of the other two (sc. the fat and the blood and the rite of nipping), and therefore the verse is rendered superfluous. XXI, 17ff). whereas a priest who is trefah, i.e., who suffers from a serious organic disease, is still qualified to officiate in the Temple; cf. Bek. 45b. Temple, whereas an animal so extracted from the dam's womb is not fit for a sacrifice. V. Lev. XXII, 27 and Sifra thereon. verse excluding trefah is superfluous. Most High. The same therefore would be said of trefah, that although it is holy as a firstling it is forbidden to be offered. physical blemishes in the case of birds. extracted from the side of its dam would be regarded as an object of curiosity, and so its peculiarity would soon be known to all. Trefah, on the other hand, is not always a perceptible taint, for it may be that only an internal organ has become affected. Bek. 57a. possess vitality, and therefore cannot be said to pass of its own volition under the rod. Cf. however Rashi on Hul 136b where the suggestion is made that a trefah animal, e.g., one whose hind-legs were cut off above the knee-joint (v. l.c. 76a). on account of its defect cannot physically pass under the rod. ‘orlah and to diverse kinds in the vineyard, and these were at no time ever allowed for any purpose. Lev. XIX, 23. Cattle Tithe; but an animal consecrated as the tithe always remains consecrated even though it subsequently becomes trefah. Temple, cf. Zeb. 16a. await sunset before he is deemed fully clean. He may not enter the Temple or minister therein. not deemed fully clean until he has brought an offering as an atonement. V. Zeb. 19b. Cf. Ex. XXX, 19, 20. Zeb. 24a. substance that came up with it. transgression involving a sin-offering. drink-offering which must accompany the burnt-offering and the peace-offering.