מנחות 79 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, R. Eliezer says, The bread is hallowed; but R. Joshua says, It is not hallowed. So R. Meir. R. Judah said, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua do not dispute the ruling that [if at the slaughtering there was an intention of eating thereof] outside its proper time the bread is hallowed, or that if it was found to have a blemish the bread is not hallowed. They differ only where [there was an intention of eating thereof] outside its proper place; in this case R. Eliezer says, The bread is hallowed; and R. Joshua says, It is not hallowed. R. Eliezer argued, Since [the intention to eat of the offering] outside the proper time is a disqualifying defect, and [the intention to eat thereof] outside the proper place is also a disqualifying defect: as in the former case the bread is nevertheless hallowed, so in the latter case. too, the bread is hallowed. R. Joshua argued, Since [the intention to eat of the offering] outside its proper place is a disqualifying defect, and a blemish in the animal is also a disqualifying defect: as in the latter case the bread is not hallowed, so in the former, too, it is not hallowed. R. Eliezer replied. I likened it to [the case where there was an intention to eat thereof] outside its proper time, but you likened it to the case of a blemish in the animal. Let us then see to which [of the two] is it more similar. If it is more similar to [the case where there was an intention to eat thereof] outside its proper time then we must infer it from this, and if it is more similar to the case of the blemish in the animal then we must infer it from this. And so R. Eliezer began to argue as follows: We may infer that which is a defect by reason of the intention from that which is also a defect by reason of the intention, but we may not infer that which is a defect by reason of the intention from that which is a defect by reason of a physical blemish. Thereupon R. Joshua began to argue as follows: We may infer a defect which does not involve the penalty of kareth from a defect which also does not involve the penalty of kareth, and let not [the intention to eat of the offering] outside its proper time enter into the argument since it is a defect which involves the penalty of kareth. Moreover, we should infer it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name, for this is a defect by reason of the intention and also does not involve the penalty of kareth. At this R. Eliezer was silent. Why is it, according to R. Meir's view, that where [the thank-offering] was slaughtered and was found to be trefah [the bread is not hallowed, for] the defect is regarded as having befallen it before the slaughtering, and that where it was slaughtered and was found to have a blemish [the bread is, according to the ruling of R. Eliezer, hallowed. for] the defect is not regarded as having befallen it before the slaughtering? — [It refers only to such blemishes as] a film over the eye. and it agrees with R. Akiba who said that [in such cases] if they were brought up [on the altar] they must not be taken down. And the other? — He will reply, It is only when [the blemish] affects the validity of [the animal] itself [as a sacrifice] that R. Akiba says that if they were brought up they must not be taken down, but he does not say so where it affects the hallowing of the bread. It was stated: If a sin-offering was slaughtered [with the intention of performing a service or of eating thereof] outside its proper time and it was brought up [on the altar], it must not be taken down. If [it was slaughtered with the intention of performing a service or of eating thereof] outside its proper place and it was taken up, Rabbah said, It must be taken down; but Raba said, It must not be taken down. Rabbah evidently agrees with R. Joshua and Raba with R. Eliezer; but Raba retracted in favour of Rabbah's view seeing that R. Eliezer retracted in favour of R. Joshua's view. There are some, however, who say that although R. Eliezer retracted in favour of R. Joshua's view Raba did not retract in favour of Rabbah's view; for there [R. Joshua] convinced [R. Eliezer] by his argument: We should infer it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name; here, however, if we derive it from [the slaughtering of the offering] under another name, [we obtain the ruling that] if it was brought up it must not be taken down. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, etc, R. Papa said, Our Tanna omits the ram of the Nazirite-offering which is frequent and deals with the ram of the Consecration-offering! And our Tanna? — He deals with the very first offering. MISHNAH. IF THE DRINK-OFFERINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN HALLOWED IN A VESSEL WHEN THE ANIMAL-OFFERING WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID, IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT; BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT. GEMARA. Ze'iri said, The drink-offerings are hallowed only by the slaughtering of the animal-offering. Why is this? Because the verse says, Animal-offerings and drink-offerings. We have learnt: IF THE DRINK-OFFERINGS HAD ALREADY BEEN HALLOWED IN A VESSEL WHEN THE ANIMAL-OFFERING WAS FOUND TO BE INVALID, IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT; BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, Now presumably it became invalid in the act of slaughtering? — No, it became invalid in the act of sprinkling. With whom [would this agree]? [Shall I say only] with Rabbi, who ruled that where there are two acts which [jointly] render the offering permissible, one can promote [to sanctity] even without the other? — You may even say that it agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, for we are dealing here with the case where the blood had been received in a bowl and was spilt.^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:Cur. edd. insert here: ‘that if he slaughtered it and it was found to be trefah the bread is not hallowed’. It is not found in the MSS. or in Tosefta Men. VIII. It is deleted here by Sh. Mek.
^ᵇnote:For this is a case of piggul, and with piggul it is essential that the remaining services be regarded as validly performed, otherwise the penalty of piggul would not be incurred. Accordingly the bread is undoubtedly hallowed by the slaughtering.
^ᶜnote:For the disqualifying defect must have befallen it before it came into the Temple.
^ᵈnote:The offering of an animal with a physical blemish does not involve the penalty of kareth.
^ᵉnote:In which case it is expressly stated in our Mishnah that the bread is not hallowed.
^ᶠnote:I.e., he recognized in this last statement a convincing argument, and eventually acquiesced in R. Joshua's view that where there was an intention expressed at the slaughtering of the offering of eating thereof outside its proper place the bread is not hallowed.
^ᵍnote:Or, ‘a cataract’. As this is but a minor defect, since it is not noticeable nor is it regarded as a defect in birds, it is accepted by the altar; consequently it is regarded as having befallen the offering in the Temple and the bread is therefore hallowed.
^ʰnote:So MS.M., Rashi MS. and Sh. Mek. The question is against R. Judah in his report of R. Eliezer's view, that where the animal is found after the slaughtering to have a blemish the bread is not hallowed. Why should not the bread be hallowed seeing that we are speaking of a minor blemish? In some texts the reading is ‘And R. Judah?’ and in others ‘and R. Joshua?’.
^ⁱnote:So MS.M., Rashi MS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. transpose ‘Rabbah’ and ‘Raba’ in the entire passage.
^ʲnote:Who in a similar case in connection with the thank-offering ruled that the bread was not hallowed, for he compared the slaughtering of an offering at which there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper place with the offering of a blemished animal, and in the latter case even if it was brought up it must be taken down.
^ᵏnote:Who considered the slaughtering at which there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper place on the same footing as where there was the intention of eating thereof outside its proper time, and in the latter case all agree that if brought up it must not be taken down.
^ˡnote:For it is admitted by all that if a sin-offering was offered under another name and it was brought up upon the altar it must not be taken down again. V. Zeb. 84a.
^ᵐnote:Which was only offered at the consecration of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. This is most strange on the part of the Tanna.
^ⁿnote:The consecration-offering was the first offering that was accompanied by a bread-offering. The law, however, applies also to the ram of the Nazirite-offering. Aliter: the Tanna only mentions offerings of the community but not individual offerings.
^ᵒnote:These include the wine as well as the meal-offerings which accompanied certain animal-offerings; v. Num. XV, 4ff.
^ᵖnote:Which was slaughtered on this day too, but which had not been provided with the drink-offerings.
^ᵠnote:Since they have been hallowed in a vessel of ministry. A variant reading is: vbhkc ukxph ubk otu, ‘if they remained overnight, they are, by being kept overnight. rendered invalid’.
^ʳnote:And therefore become invalid if kept overnight or if taken outside the Sanctuary (Rashi MS.). Tosaf and Rashi (in cur. edd.) explain ‘hallowed’ to mean that they may not now be used for another offering.
^ˢnote:Lev. XXIII, 37. The drink-offerings are thus dependent upon and are hallowed by the animal-offering.
^ᵗnote:Nevertheless the drink-offerings are hallowed, for the Mishnah states that in the absence of another animal-offering they must be kept overnight to be rendered invalid. Now since in this case the slaughtering of the animal-offering was invalid it obviously could not have hallowed the drink-offerings, but they must have been hallowed before the slaughtering, thus contrary to Ze'iri.
^ᵘnote:And the drink-offerings were hallowed by the slaughtering.
^ᵛnote:Viz., the view expressed that the slaughtering alone hallows the drink-offerings.
^ʷnote:Here the slaughtering and the sprinkling.
^ˣnote:Who maintains that both acts are essential for the hallowing of the drink-offerings;

²and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds the same view as his father, who maintained that what was ready for sprinkling is regarded as sprinkled. The Master stated: ‘IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT’. But has not R. Hisda ruled that oil which had been set apart for one meal-offering is invalid for another meal-offering? — R. Jannai answered, The Beth din make a mental stipulation about [the drink-offerings] that if they are required, they are required [and utilized for that offering]; but if not, they shall be utilized for another offering. If so, this should apply to oil too! — Oil is part of the meal-offering. Should they not stipulate that they shall be non-holy? — [No,] for it is to be feared that people will say that one may take out what has already been in a vessel of ministry for secular use. But even now it is to be feared, is it not, that people might think that drink-offerings set apart for one offering may be used for another offering? — Behold Mattitiah b. Judah taught [that the ruling of our Mishnah applies only] where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time. Then what would be the law where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time? They [the drink-offerings] would be left to become invalid by remaining overnight, would they not? Then instead of teaching the final clause, BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, [the Tanna] could have drawn a distinction in that [first clause] thus: That is so only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but not where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time! — That is just what [the Tanna] meant to say, That is so only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time, [the drink-offerings] are invalid for they are regarded as though they had remained overnight. But does R. Simeon hold that the mental stipulation of the Beth din is effective? Behold R. Idi b. Abin stated in the name of R. Amram who cited R. Isaac who cited R. Johanan, The daily offerings which are not required for the community are, according to R. Simeon, not redeemed unblemished; but according to the Sages they are redeemed unblemished! — In that case it is different for there is the remedy of putting them to pasture. MISHNAH. THE YOUNG OF A THANK-OFFERING, ITS SUBSTITUTE, AND THE ANIMAL WHICH WAS SET APART IN THE PLACE OF THE THANK-OFFERING WHICH WAS SET APART AND WAS LOST, DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF THANK-OFFERING; THE THANK-OFFERING REQUIRES THE BREAD-OFFERING, BUT ITS YOUNG, WHAT IS BROUGHT IN ITS PLACE, AND ITS SUBSTITUTE, DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Why was It necessary for Scripture to say, He offers [it] for a thank-offering? Whence is it derived that if a man had set apart a beast for a thank-offering and it was lost and he set apart another in its place, and then the first was found so that now both beasts are standing before him — whence [it is asked] is it derived that he may offer whichever of them he pleases and with it the bread-offering? Because the text states, He offers... for a thank-offering. I might think that the other animal also requires the bread-offering; therefore the text says, He offers it, implying one only but not two. Thus the text has qualified it after including it. Whence do I know that the young [of the thank-offering]. what was brought in its place, and its substitute, are also included that they too must be offered [as thank-offerings]? Because the text states, If... for a thank-offering. I might think that they also require the bread- offerings; the text therefore says, Then he shall offer with the thank-offering; the thank-offering alone requires the bread-offering, but its young, what was brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the bread-offering. R. Hanina sent the following ruling in the name of R. Johanan, This is so only [if it is offered] after the atonement; but if before the atonement, it also needs the bread-offering. Now R. Amram pondered over this. To what [does the above ruling refer]? Shall I say to the case of the animal that was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering? But we have already learnt it regarding the case [where it was offered] before the atonement, and also regarding the case [where it was offered] after the atonement!28^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

^ʸnote:Accordingly the moment that the blood had been received in a bowl in readiness for the sprinkling the drink-offerings become hallowed.
^ᶻnote:This relates, of course, only to communal offerings. By ‘Beth din’ is meant here the Temple authorities, the priests.
^ᵃᵃnote:For the oil is mingled with the flour and becomes one with the meal-offering; hence, even before mingling, the oil is so closely related to the meal-offering that if the latter is for some reason invalid the oil cannot be used for any other offering.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., in the event of the drink-offerings not being utilized for the animal-offering they shall be permitted for secular use. Wherefore does our Mishnah state: BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID?
^ᵃᶜnote:For people will not be aware of the mental reservation of the Beth din.
^ᵃᵈnote:For which these drink-offerings are to be used.
^ᵃᵉnote:In this case people would assume that the drink-offerings had originally been intended for the other animal-offering.
^ᵃᶠnote:That the drink-offerings may be used for another animal-offering.
^ᵃᵍnote:For it had been said supra that our Mishnah was in agreement with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who adopted his father's view.
^ᵃʰnote:There were always six lambs which had been examined and found free from blemish in readiness for the daily offerings, for although only two were required daily six were made ready in case of an emergency. Consequently on the last day of every year, i.e., on the twenty-ninth day of Adar, there were always four lambs left which were not required for the community. They could not be used as offerings, for from the first of Nisan lambs from the new stock only would be used. V. supra 49b.
^ᵃⁱnote:But they must be allowed to pasture until they become blemished when they may be redeemed. The fact that R. Simeon must resort to this measure indicates clearly that he holds that the mental stipulation of the Beth din with regard to the lambs, namely those that are not required shall be non-holy, is of no effect.
^ᵃʲnote:For the mental stipulation of the Beth din is effective. V. Shebu. 11b.
^ᵃᵏnote:Until they become blemished when they can be redeemed. Only in such a case does R. Simeon hold that the mental stipulation of the Beth din is of no effect, but not in the case where there is no other remedy, as with the drink-offerings.
^ᵃˡnote:A man consecrated a pregnant beast as a thank-offering and it later brought forth its young. The young must be offered as the same sacrifice as the mother-beast; v. Tem. III, 2.
^ᵃᵐnote:In which case both the consecrated beast and the substitute are holy. cf. Lev. XXVII, 10; and the latter must be offered as the same sacrifice as the former; v. Tem. l.c.
^ᵃⁿnote:And which was eventually found. It is immaterial which beast was offered, the other must also be offered as a thank- offering.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. VII, 12.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid. The expression ‘he offers it’ is entirely superfluous in the construction of this verse.
^ᵃᵠnote:Lev. VII, 12.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., only one of these two thank-offerings, either the original animal or what was brought in its place, requires the bread-offering.
^ᵃˢnote:What was brought in place of the thank-offering is here included that it too must be offered as a thank-offering. but it is qualified in that it does not require a bread-offering.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ibid. The expression kg , translated ‘for’, really signifies ‘with’, ‘in addition to’. I.e., others are also offered as thank-offerings in addition to the original animal.
^ᵃᵘnote:This item is redundant here, since it has already been established by virtue of the expression ‘he shall offer it’ that what was brought in the place of the thank-offering is exempt from the bread-offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:That the bread-offering is not required.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., the young or the substitute or what was brought in the place of the thank-offering is being offered now as a thank-offering after the original animal had been sacrificed and atonement effected thereby.
^ᵃˣnote:So that if both animals are present, whichever is offered, whether the original thank-offering or its young or its substitute, needs the bread-offering.
^ᵃʸnote:E.g.. if one vowed a thank-offering by using the expression ‘I take upon myself to offer a thank-offering’. In this case if the animal set apart for the offering was lost another must be brought in its place.
^ᵃᶻnote:In the foregoing Baraitha it is expressly taught that if the original thank-offering has not been sacrificed but both it and the substitute are present, whichever is offered requires the bread-offering; and if the one had already been sacrificed the other, it has also been taught, is exempt from the bread-offering. And this Baraitha deals with an obligatory thank-offering, for were it only a freewill thank-offering it would not be necessary to replace it if it were lost.