מנחות מ״ח ב:י״ד-מ״ט א:ב׳

The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, ruining the non-sacred wine in the lower press, but one should not render it impure through his direct action by catching it in an impure vessel, even though catching it would prevent the wine that is teruma from mixing with his impure, non-sacred wine. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Since the wine that is teruma will become impure in any event, one may even render it impure through his direct action in order to save his non-sacred wine. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to sin with regard to one matter, i.e., the wine that is teruma, in order to gain with regard to another matter, i.e., the non-sacred wine.,The Gemara responds: It is different there, in the case of the wine, because the wine that is teruma is going to become impure in any event. Consequently, his action is not considered a sin, and this is not a case of sinning with regard to one matter in order to gain in another.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of Shavuot. When Rav Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported traditions that he learned in Eretz Yisrael, and he taught a baraita: With regard to a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., he slaughtered them for the sake of a different offering, they are disqualified; and they should be left overnight until their form decays and they attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and then they are brought out to the place designated for burning.,Rav Naḥman said to Rav Yitzḥak: The Master, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak, who compares the sheep of Shavuot to a sin offering because they are juxtaposed in a verse (see Leviticus 23:19), teaches: The sheep are disqualified, like a sin offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake. By contrast, the tanna of the school of Levi, who derives the halakha with regard to an obligatory peace offering, e.g., the two sheep of Shavuot, from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, teaches that the two sheep remain valid offerings, just as a voluntary peace offering remains valid even if it is slaughtered for the sake of a different offering.,As Levi teaches: And with regard to the other peace offerings of a nazirite that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, they are valid offerings like voluntary peace offerings, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring the required nazirite peace offerings. And these offerings are eaten for only one day and one night, in accordance with the halakha concerning the peace offerings of nazirite, and not for two days and one night like voluntary peace offerings. They require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the required peace offering of a nazirite.,The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak from that which was taught in a baraita: In a case where one is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its first year, which the Torah calls a lamb, and instead he brought an animal in its second year, which is considered a ram; or if he is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its second year and he brought an animal in its first year; the offerings are disqualified. They are to be left overnight until their form decays, and are brought out to the place designated for burning.,But in the case of the burnt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed when he completes his naziriteship; or the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, i.e., the lamb she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or on the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter; or the burnt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed after he is purified; in all of these cases if the animals were in their second year instead, and one slaughtered them, the offerings are valid.,The baraita concludes: The principle of the matter is: Any animal that is valid as a voluntary burnt offering is also valid as an obligatory burnt offering, and any animal that is disqualified as a sin offering is also disqualified as a guilt offering, except for an offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, which is disqualified in the case of a sin offering but not a guilt offering. This demonstrates that the halakhot of obligatory burnt offerings are derived from those of voluntary burnt offerings, despite the fact that the burnt offering of a nazirite is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a nazirite (see Numbers 6:14) and the burnt offering of a leper is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:19). Similarly, the halakha pertaining to the sheep of Shavuot, which are obligatory peace offerings, should be derived from the halakha pertaining to voluntary peace offerings, and not from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering as Rav Yitzḥak holds.,The Gemara answers: This tanna, who taught this baraita, is the tanna of the school of Levi cited earlier, who holds that if one slaughters a sheep of Shavuot not for its own sake, it is nevertheless valid.,The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who maintains that the tanna of the school of Levi holds that a sheep of Shavuot slaughtered not for its own sake is valid because he derives its halakha from that of a voluntary peace offering. Come and hear what Levi teaches to the contrary, as Levi teaches: The guilt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb he brings on the eighth day after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and the guilt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb he brings at the completion of his purification, that one slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.,If one slaughtered them when the time had not yet arrived for their owners to sacrifice these offerings, or they were in their second year instead of their first year and one slaughtered them, they are disqualified.,The Gemara comments: But if it is so that Levi derives the halakhot of an obligatory offering from those of a voluntary one, let him derive the halakha of the guilt offering from that of the peace offering, in which case the guilt offerings should be valid even if they were in their second year. The Gemara answers: Levi derives the halakha concerning an obligatory peace offering from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, but he does not derive the halakha concerning a guilt offering from the halakha concerning a peace offering.,The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Naḥman: But if Levi derives the halakha of an obligatory peace offering from that of a voluntary peace offering, let him similarly derive the halakha of one guilt offering from that of another guilt offering. He should derive that the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper are valid even if the animal is in its second year from the halakha concerning a guilt offering for robbery and a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, which are supposed to be a ram in its second year. Or, if one brought a lamb in its first year as a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, Levi should derive that it is valid from the halakha concerning the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, which are lambs in their first year.,Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: One can derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered not for their own sake, from the halakha with regard to another item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., a voluntary peace offering slaughtered not for its own sake. But one cannot derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the guilt offering of a nazirite or a leper that is sacrificed when it is in its second year, from the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared in its valid manner, e.g., a guilt offering for robbery or for misuse of consecrated property that is sacrificed when it is in its second year.,The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakha with regard to disqualified offerings from the halakha with regard to fit offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that left is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. Here, the baraita derives the halakha with regard to an disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit offering. The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the phrase: “This is the law of the burnt offering [ha’ola]: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning” (Leviticus 6:2), a seemingly superfluous general phrase which is interpreted homiletically to include the halakha that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. The verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling. Accordingly, the baraita does not contradict the opinion of Rav Shimi bar Ashi.,§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep of Shavuot. Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught a baraita before Rav: In a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them for the sake of rams and not for their own sake, they are valid offerings, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner, i.e., the community, to sacrifice these offerings. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥana: That is not so; rather, the sheep certainly satisfy the obligation of the community.,Rav Ḥisda said: The statement of Rav is reasonable in a case where one thought that they were rams when he slaughtered them, and nevertheless slaughtered them for the sake of lambs. In such a case, it makes sense that they satisfy the community’s obligation since the lambs were slaughtered for the sake of lambs.,But in a case where he thought that they were rams when he slaughtered them, and therefore slaughtered them for the sake of rams, they do not satisfy the community’s obligation, even though they were actually lambs. This is due to the fact that the erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, despite the fact that it was done in error. But Rabba said: The erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering does not constitute uprooting.,Rava said: We raise an objection to our own ruling concerning this halakha from that which was taught in a mishna (Gittin 54a): In a case of priests who disqualified an offering through improper intention in the Temple, by expressing, while sacrificing the offering, the intention to eat it after the appropriate time, if they did so intentionally, they are liable to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering. It follows, therefore, that if the priests did so unintentionally they are exempt. And it is taught concerning this case in a baraita: Even though they slaughtered it with improper intent unintentionally, their act of improper intention renders the offering piggul, despite the fact that they are exempt from paying damages.,What are the circumstances in which this is the halakha? If we say that it is referring to a case where the priest knew that the offering was a sin offering, which is eaten for only one day and one night, and nevertheless he intended the offering to be for the sake of a peace offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, and thereby his intention was that it be eaten after its appropriate time, is this considered an unintentional act by the priests? Certainly they were acting intentionally.,Rather, is it not referring to a case where the offering was a sin offering, which is eaten for only one day and one night, and the priest thought that it was a peace offering and therefore he intended the offering to be for the sake of a peace offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, and thereby his intention was that it be eaten after its appropriate time? And with regard to this case the tanna taught: Their act of improper intention renders the offering piggul. Apparently, this proves that the erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, contrary to the ruling of Rabba.,Abaye said to Rava: There is no objection from this baraita, because actually it is referring to a case where the priest knew that it was a sin offering and nevertheless he intended the offering to be for the sake of a peace offering, and his uprooting was done intentionally. Nevertheless, the baraita refers to the priests as acting unintentionally because it is referring to circumstances where the priest says, i.e., he mistakenly thinks, that it is permitted to sacrifice the offering with this intent.,Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to Rabba’s opinion that erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering does not constitute uprooting. A baraita teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: All meal offerings from which the handful was removed not for their sake are entirely valid, and have even satisfied the obligation of the owner, unlike animal offerings slaughtered not for their sake, which do not satisfy the obligation of the owner.,This is because meal offerings are not similar to animal offerings. As, in the case of one who removes a handful from a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, its mode of preparation proves that it is a shallow-pan meal offering and not a deep-pan meal offering. Since a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan is hard and one prepared in a deep pan is soft, his intention is plainly false. Similarly, if one removes a handful from a dry meal offering, the meal offering of a sinner, which has no oil, for the sake of a meal offering mixed with oil, his intention is plainly false, as its mode of preparation proves that it is a dry meal offering.,But with regard to animal offerings this is not so. There is one mode of slaughter for all of the offerings, one mode of collection of the blood for all of them, and one mode of sprinkling for all of them. Since the only factor that distinguishes between one type of offering and another is the intention of the individuals involved in its sacrifice, their intention is significant. Consequently, if one of the sacrificial rites is performed for the sake of the wrong type of offering, the offering does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.,The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances to which Rabbi Shimon is referring? If we say that he is referring to a case where the priest knew that the meal offering was prepared in a shallow pan, and nevertheless he removed a handful from it for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, then although its mode of preparation proves that it was prepared in a shallow pan, what of it? In any case he is consciously uprooting its status as a shallow-pan meal offering, changing it to a deep-pan meal offering by means of his intention when he removes the handful.,Rather, is it not referring to a case where the priest thought it was a meal offering prepared in a deep pan and therefore removed a handful for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, but he was mistaken, as it was actually a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan? It is specifically here, in this case, that Rabbi Shimon rules that the offering remains valid, since its mode of preparation proves that it is a shallow-pan meal offering, which indicates that in general, erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering constitutes uprooting, contrary the ruling of Rabba.,Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira, in response to his objection: This objection to Rabba’s opinion is inconclusive, because one can explain that the baraita is actually referring to a case where the priest knew that the meal offering was prepared in a shallow pan, and nevertheless he removed a handful for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a deep pan.,And with regard to that which you said in your question: Although its mode of preparation proves that it is prepared in a shallow pan, what of it, i.e., since he is consciously uprooting its identity, how can it satisfy its owner’s obligation? Abaye answers that Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava says: The Merciful One disqualifies an offering due to improper intent that is not recognizably false, i.e., when the physical properties of the offering itself do not prove that the intent is mistaken. The Merciful One does not disqualify an offering due to improper intent that is recognizably false. Consequently, if one removes a handful from a shallow-pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, even if he did so consciously, the offering remains valid and satisfies the owner’s obligation.,MISHNA: Failure to sacrifice the daily offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the additional offerings, and likewise, failure to sacrifice the additional offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the daily offerings. And failure to sacrifice some of the additional offerings on a day when more than one is sacrificed, e.g., if it was both Shabbat and the New Moon, does not prevent sacrifice of the other additional offerings. If the priests did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, nevertheless, they should sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering, as failure to sacrifice one daily offering does not prevent sacrifice of the other. In all of these cases, if they failed to sacrifice one offering, they should still sacrifice the other.,Rabbi Shimon said: When does this halakha apply? It applies at a time when the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because they were prevented from sacrificing it due to circumstances beyond their control or they failed to sacrifice it unwittingly. But if the priests acted intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning as the daily offering, they should not sacrifice a lamb in the afternoon as the daily offering.,Incense was burned twice a day, half a measure in the morning and half a measure in the afternoon. If they did not burn the half-measure of incense in the morning, they should burn the half-measure in the afternoon.,Rabbi Shimon said: And in such a case, the entire measure was sacrificed in the afternoon. The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is that the daily service on a new golden altar is initiated only with the burning of the incense of the spices in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. And the daily service on a new altar of the burnt offering, on which the daily offerings were sacrificed, is initiated only with the daily morning offering. And use of a new Table was initiated only with the arrangement of the shewbread on Shabbat, and use of a new Candelabrum was initiated only with the kindling of its seven lamps in the afternoon.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the daily offerings and the additional offerings each do not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. Concerning this, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: In the case of a community that did not have the resources to sacrifice both the daily offerings and the additional offerings, which of them takes precedence over the other?,The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances to which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin is referring? If we say that he is referring to a case where the choice is between the daily offerings of that day and the additional offerings of that same day, it is obvious that the daily offerings are given preference, as the sacrifice of the daily offerings is more frequent than the sacrifice of the additional offerings, which are sacrificed only on special occasions, and the daily offerings are also sanctified.,Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin must be referring to a case where they have enough animals for the daily offerings of today and also for either the daily offerings for tomorrow or the additional offerings for today. In such a case, are the daily offerings given preference since their sacrifice is more frequent? Or perhaps the additional offerings are given preference because they are considered more sanctified because they are sacrificed on a holy day.,Rav Ḥisda said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: The resolution to this dilemma can be derived from that which you learned in the mishna: Failure to sacrifice the daily offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the additional offerings, and likewise, failure to sacrifice the additional offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the daily offerings. And failure to sacrifice some of the additional offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the other additional offerings.,What are the circumstances to which the mishna is referring? If we say that it is referring to a case where the Temple treasury has all of the animals necessary for both offerings, and the only question is in terms of sacrificing one before the other, isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that no sacrifice should precede the sacrifice of the daily offering of morning? The baraita continues: It is derived from that which the verse states: “And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby, it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning; and he shall lay the burnt offering in order on it, and shall cause the fats of the peace offering to go up in smoke upon it” (Leviticus 6:5).,And Rava says in explanation of this derivation in the baraita that the term “the burnt offering,” with the definite article, is referring to the first burnt offering of the day, which is the daily offering. Consequently, one may not sacrifice the additional offerings before the daily offering.