מנחות 82 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And in respect of peace-offerings [this is derived] from the expression ‘there’ stated [in connection with peace-offerings] and also in connection with the Second Tithe. Then it follows, as peace-offerings are not brought from actual Second Tithe produce. so the [bread of the] thank-offering may not be brought from actual Second Tithe produce; and wheat bought with Second Tithe money is not actual Second Tithe produce. And I will state my reason: Whence do I know this of the thank-offering? From peace-offerings. And in respect of peace-offerings [this is derived] from the expression ‘there’ stated [in connection with peace-offerings] and also in connection with the Second Tithe. Then it follows, as peace-offerings are not of the same kind as Second Tithe, so the [bread of the] thank-offering may not be from that which is the same kind as Second Tithe; thus excluding wheat bought from Second Tithe money which is the same kind as Second Tithe. R. Ammi said, If a man designated Second Tithe money for a peace-offering, the peace-offering has not appropriated it. Why? Because the sanctity of the peace-offering is not so potent that it can be imposed upon the sanctity of Second Tithe. An objection was raised: If a man bought a wild animal for a peace-offering or cattle for use as ordinary food, the hide does not become unhallowed. Does not this prove that the peaceoffering has appropriated it? — Surely it has been stated in connection with this that Rab said, The peace-offering has not appropriated it; and what is meant by ‘the hide does not become unhallowed’? It means this:-[The wild animal] does not come within the category [of peace-offerings] for its hide to become unhallowed. And why is it so? — Rabbah answered. It is as if he bought an ox for ploughing. It was stated: If a man designated Second Tithe money for a peace-offering, R. Johanan said, [The peace-offering] has appropriated it; R. Eleazar said, It has not appropriated it. According to R. Judah who maintains that the [Second] Tithe is secular property they both agree that the peace-offering has appropriated it; they differ only according to R. Meir who maintains that the [Second] Tithe is sacred property. He who said that it has not appropriated it is in accord with R. Meir; but he who said that it has appropriated it is of the opinion that since Second Tithe is usually offered as peace-offerings, if a man designates [Second Tithe money for a peace-offering] the designation is binding. An objection was raised: If a man designated Second Tithe money for a peace-offering, when he redeems it he must add two fifths, one in respect of things consecrated and one in respect of Second Tithe! — Do you think that this teaching is the opinion of all? It is only the opinion of R. Judah. MISHNAH. WHENCE [IS IT DERIVED]THAT IF A MAN SAYS,’I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER] A THANK-OFFERING’, HE MAY BRING IT ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED? BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN, AND THOU SHALT SACRIFICE THE PASSOVER-OFFERING UNTO THE LORD THY GOD OF THE FLOCK AND THE HERD. BUT IS NOT THE PASSOVER-OFFERING BROUGHT ONLY FROM THE LAMBS AND FROM THE GOATS? WHY THEN IS IT WRITTEN, OF THE FLOCK AND THE HERD? IT IS TO COMPARE WHATSOEVER IS BROUGHT FROM THE FLOCK AND THE HERD WITH THE PASSOVER-OFFERING: AS THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IS OBLIGATORY AND OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED, SO EVERYTHING THAT IS OBLIGATORY MAY BE OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED. THEREFORE IF A MAN SAYS, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER] A THANK-OFFERING’, OR ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO OFFER] A PEACE-OFFERING’, SINCE THESE ARE OBLIGATORY THEY MAY BE OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED. THE DRINK-OFFERINGS IN EVERY CASE MAY BE OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED. GEMARA. And whence do we know it for the Passover-offering itself? — It was taught: R. Eliezer said: A Passover-offering was ordained to be brought in Egypt and a Passover-offering was ordained for later generations; as the Passover-offering that was ordained in Egypt could be brought only from what was unconsecrated, so the Passover-offering that was ordained for later generations may be brought only from what is unconsecrated. Said to him R. Akiba, Is it right to infer the possible from the impossible? The other replied, Although it was impossible [otherwise]. it is nevertheless a striking argument and we may make an inference from it. Then R. Akiba put forward the following argument [in refutation]: This was so of the Passover-offering ordained in Egypt since it did not require the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar; 33^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^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XXVII, 7. And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings and shalt eat there.
^ᵇnote:Deut. XIV, 26: And thou shalt eat there. Thus by analogy it is established that peace-offerings may be brought from Second Tithe.
^ᶜnote:For Second Tithe is taken from corn only, and so cannot actually be used for peace-offerings. What is meant is. of course, that the money obtained from redeeming Second Tithe produce may be used for buying animals for peace-offerings.
^ᵈnote:Since the original Second Tithe wheat had already been redeemed with money.
^ᵉnote:So that any Second Tithe wheat, even that which was bought with Second Tithe money, may not be used for the thank-offering. But he may buy with Second Tithe money wheat expressly for the thank-offering. V. p. 494. n. 5.
^ᶠnote:For Second Tithe purposes but not for the thank-offering.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘attached’.
^ʰnote:But he may use the money for another purpose.
^ⁱnote:With Second Tithe money in Jerusalem.
^ʲnote:Neither purchase is proper, for wild animals may not be offered as peace-offerings, and cattle bought with Second Tithe money should be offered as peace-offerings only and not be slaughtered for a secular meal.
^ᵏnote:It is assumed that this means that the hide of the wild beast must be sold and with the money a peace-offering must be offered. Similarly the hide of the cattle must be sold and the money received must be treated as Second Tithe money.
^ˡnote:I.e., the sanctity of the peace-offering rests upon the hide so that it must be sold and the money received must be spent on peace-offerings.
^ᵐnote:In the usual way when cattle is bought with Second Tithe money and is offered as a peace-offering the hide becomes absolutely unhallowed and has neither the sanctity of the peace-offering nor the sanctity of Second Tithe. And likewise, if the sanctity of peace-offerings could apply to wild animals the hide thereof would also become absolutely unhallowed. Since, however, this is not the case, for the wild animal does not come within the category of peace-offerings, the hide does not become unhallowed, but it must be sold and the money received must be treated as Second Tithe money (Rashi MS. and Tosaf.).
^ⁿnote:With Second Tithe money in Jerusalem.
^ᵒnote:In which case the ox must be sold and the money received treated in the sanctity of Second Tithe.
^ᵖnote:V. Kid. 24a, 52b.
^ᵠnote:For the sanctity of the peace-offering immediately rests upon the secular property.
^ʳnote:For he holds that the sanctity of the peace-offering cannot rest upon sacred property.
^ˢnote:So MSS. reading cre. Cur. edd. read hre , ‘is referred to’.
^ᵗnote:When a man redeems things consecrated or Second Tithe produce or Second Tithe money for other coinage he must add to the redemption money one fifth part of its value. For the former v.Lev.XXVII, 13, 15 and for the latter v. ibid. 31.
^ᵘnote:It is thus quite evident that the sanctity of the peace-offering rests upon the Second Tithe money that was merely designated for a peace-offering, contrary therefore to R. Eleazar.
^ᵛnote:Who regards the Second Tithe as secular property and therefore the sanctity of the peace-offering can rest upon it.
^ʷnote:Deut. XVI, 2.
^ˣnote:Sc. peace-offerings and thank-offerings.
^ʸnote:V. Gemara.
^ᶻnote:I.e., in every case where the expression ‘I take upon myself’ was used, for this imposes a personal obligation for the fulfilment of the vow.
^ᵃᵃnote:Whether the expression ‘I take upon myself’ was used or not, and whether it was expressly stated that the drink-offerings be brought from Second Tithe or not.
^ᵃᵇnote:For the drink-offerings are wholly offered up, and whatsoever is wholly offered up may not be brought from Second Tithe (Tosaf).
^ᵃᶜnote:That it is to be brought only from what is unconsecrated.
^ᵃᵈnote:Yeb. 46a.
^ᵃᵉnote:For at that time the law of the Second Tithe had not been promulgated, and even later when this law was given it was not to come into force until the Israelites entered the Holy Land.
^ᵃᶠnote:The Passover-offering in Egypt could not possibly have been brought from Second Tithe (v. prec. n.) whereas that of future generations could.
^ᵃᵍnote:Since there was no altar in existence at that time.

²will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of the blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar? The other replied. Behold it is written, And thou shalt keep this service in this month, [signifying] that all the services of this month should be like this. [Now let us consider the view of] R. Akiba. If he holds that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, then let him stand by that argument [in refutation]; and if he retracted it, and the only reason why he did not derive the law from the Passover-offering in Egypt was that refutation [which he raised], but surely [that can be countered by] the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves [the reverse]! — He [R. Akiba] was arguing with R. Eliezer from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible; but even from your point of view, that one may infer the possible from the impossible, there is surely this refutation: This was so of the Passover-offering in Egypt since it did not require the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial parts upon the altar; will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar? To this, however, R. Eliezer replied. It is written, ‘And thou shalt keep’. But should not R. Eliezer have replied that the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness proves the reverse? — He [R. Eliezer] was arguing with R. Akiba from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is quite proper to infer the possible from the impossible; and as for that refutation of yours, it can be countered by the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves the reverse; but even from your point of view, that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, [I reply that there is written.] ‘And thou shalt keep’. But even now let him raise this objection! — R. Shesheth answered, This proves that no objections can be entertained against a hekkesh. In the School garden it was asked, May that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh become the basis for another inference to be made from it again by a hekkesh? — It is derived from the class, for all the Passover-offerings from one class. And whence does R. Akiba derive the law that the Passover- offering may be brought only from what is unconsecrated? — He derives it from the following teaching of Samuel in the name of R. Eliezer: It is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. ‘Burnt-offering’: as the burnt-offering requires a vessel, so all the other offerings require a vessel. (What [vessel] is it that is meant? Shall I say a basin? But with regard to the peace-offerings of the congregation it is also written, And put it in basins! — Rather it means a knife. And how do we know this of the burnt-offering itself? Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.) ‘Meal- offering’: as the meal-offering may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood, so all the other offerings may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood. (What [other offerings] are meant? It cannot be the sin-offering and the guilt-offering.^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃʰnote:Like peace-offerings; and as peace-offerings may be brought from Second Tithe, so it should also be with the Passover-offering.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ex. XIII, 5.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the Passover-offering of future generations offered in this month shall be like this one in that it be brought only from what is unconsecrated.
^ᵃᵏnote:Why then did he put forward another argument in refutation?
^ᵃˡnote:For it required the sprinkling of blood and offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar — for an altar had already been set up — nevertheless it was brought only from what was unconsecrated since as yet the law of Second Tithe had not come into force.
^ᵃᵐnote:Why did he find it necessary to adduce this verse ‘And thou shalt keep’?
^ᵃⁿnote:Even against the inference drawn from the verse ‘And thou shalt keep’ R. Akiba can put forward the objection that it is not right to infer the possible from the impossible.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Glos. The inference drawn from this verse is by hekkesh or analogy.
^ᵃᵖnote:The garden where scholars of the academy used to congregate for general discussions, v. Kaplan, The Redaction of the Talmud, pp. 240ff. V. however Tosaf. s.v. tmhcr,cu . Cf. the expression ‘ htmhcr, in Rashi Yoma 62b, s.v. ihpxunu , and Zeb. 104a, s.v. rugvu .
^ᵃᵠnote:For it is desired in our Mishnah to conclude by a hekkesh from the Passoverofferings of later generations that all obligatory offerings shall be brought only from what is unconsecrated; but this law with regard to Passover-offerings of later generations is itself inferred by a hekkesh from the Passover-offering in Egypt, and it is an established rule that in matters appertaining to sacrifice one may not draw an inference by a hekkesh from that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh. V. Zeb. 49b.
^ᵃʳnote:The Tanna of our Mishnah derives the law that the thank-offering must be brought only from what is unconsecrated by hekkesh from Passover-offerings in general, which include also the Passover-offering in Egypt.
^ᵃˢnote:Zeb. 97b.
^ᵃᵗnote:Lev. VII, 37.
^ᵃᵘnote:For receiving the blood therein. This is expressly stated in connection with the burnt-offering, as it is written (Ex. XXIV, 5,6): And he sent the young men of the children of Israel who offered burnt-offerings . . . And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins.
^ᵃᵛnote:Ibid. 6. And in verse 5 it is written, And sacrificed peace-offerings.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., the instrument used for the slaughtering shall be something detached from the ground and not a flint or a reed that is attached to the ground (Rashi Zeb. 98a). Aliter: one must use a knife for the slaughtering and not kill the beast by tearing its organs with the hands as is the case with a bird-offering whose head is nipped by the priest with his finger.
^ᵃˣnote:Gen. XXII, 10. The expression ‘and took’ implies something movable and not fixed.
^ᵃʸnote:Ibid. 13.