Menachot

And in respect of peace-offerings [this is derived] from the expression ‘there’ stated [in connection with peace-offerings]1 and also in connection with the Second Tithe.2 Then it follows, as peace-offerings are not brought from actual Second Tithe produce.3 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.4 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;5 thus excluding wheat bought from Second Tithe money6 which is the same kind as Second Tithe. R. Ammi said, If a man designated7 Second Tithe money for a peace-offering, the peace-offering has not appropriated it.8 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 bought9 a wild animal for a peace-offering or cattle for use as ordinary food,10 the hide does not become unhallowed.11 Does not this prove that the peaceoffering has appropriated it?12 — 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.13 And why is it so? — Rabbah answered. It is as if he bought14 an ox for ploughing.15 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. Judah16 who maintains that the [Second] Tithe is secular property they both agree that the peace-offering has appropriated it;17 they differ only according to R. Meir16 who maintains that the [Second] Tithe is sacred property. He who said that it has not appropriated it is in accord with R. Meir;18 but he who said that it has appropriated it is of the opinion that since Second Tithe is usually offered19 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 it20 he must add two fifths, one in respect of things consecrated and one in respect of Second Tithe!21 — Do you think that this teaching is the opinion of all? It is only the opinion of R. Judah.22 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.23 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 HERD24 WITH THE PASSOVER-OFFERING: AS THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IS OBLIGATORY AND OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED,25 SO EVERYTHING THAT IS OBLIGATORY26 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 CASE27 MAY BE OFFERED ONLY FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED.28 GEMARA. And whence do we know it29 for the Passover-offering itself? — It was taught:30 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,31 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?32 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]: This29 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 Second Tithe. course, that the money obtained from redeeming Second Tithe produce may be used for buying animals for peace-offerings. thank-offering. But he may buy with Second Tithe money wheat expressly for the thank-offering. V. p. 494. n. 5. Tithe money should be offered as peace-offerings only and not be slaughtered for a secular meal. be offered. Similarly the hide of the cattle must be sold and the money received must be treated as Second Tithe money. spent on peace-offerings. 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.). 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. designated for a peace-offering, contrary therefore to R. Eleazar. fulfilment of the vow. drink-offerings be brought from Second Tithe or not. Second Tithe (Tosaf). was not to come into force until the Israelites entered the Holy Land. of future generations could.