Menachot 3aמנחות ג׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Menachot 3a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
3aג׳ א

אמרי דילמא מיצוי דבתר הזאה הוא דאמר מר מיצה דמה בכל מקום במזבח כשירה

The Gemara responds: This is not considered recognizably false intent, as people might say: Perhaps it is actually a sin offering and he has already sprinkled its blood below the red line. And as for the fact that he squeezed its blood above the red line, they will say: It is the squeezing that follows sprinkling, which may be performed above the red line in the case of a sin offering. As the Master said: If one squeezed the blood of a bird sin offering in any place on the altar, the offering is valid. Since people might erroneously think that this bird is actually a sin offering, this intent is not considered recognizably false, so the offering is disqualified.

חטאת העוף שהזה דמה למטה לשם עולת העוף תרצה דמעשיה מוכיחין עליה דחטאת עוף היא דאי עולת העוף היא למעלה הוה עביד לה ומיצוי הוה עביד ליה

The Gemara asks another question: According to Rabba’s resolution, a bird sin offering whose blood a priest sprinkled below the red line for the sake of a bird burnt offering should effect acceptance, as the actions performed on it prove that it is a bird sin offering. Because if it is in fact a bird burnt offering, he would have performed it above the red line, and he would have performed the act of squeezing instead of sprinkling.

ה"נ אלא לפי שאין המנחות דומות לזבחים קאמר לזבחים ולא לעופות:

The Gemara responds: Indeed, according to Rabbi Shimon such a bird offering effects acceptance and fulfills the obligation of the owner. In fact, bird offerings were not discussed by Rabbi Shimon at all. Rather, he said: Because meal offerings are not similar to slaughtered offerings, which means that they are not similar to slaughtered animal offerings, but he did not say that they are not similar to bird offerings.

קדשי קדשים ששחטן בצפון לשם קדשים קלים לירצו מעשיהן מוכיחין עליהן דקדשי קדשים נינהו דאי קדשים קלים בדרום הוה עביד להו

The Gemara asks: But if so, then offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, which is a requirement that applies only to offerings of the most sacred order, for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity, should effect acceptance for their owners, as the actions performed on them prove that they are offerings of the most sacred order. Because if they are in fact offerings of lesser sanctity, he would have performed their slaughter in the southern part of the Temple courtyard.

אימור דאמר רחמנא אף בדרום בדרום ולא בצפון מי אמר דתנן שחיטתן בכל מקום בעזרה

The Gemara answers: The slaughter of an offering in the northern part of the Temple courtyard is not indicative of the type of offering one intends it to be, as one can say that the Merciful One states that offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered even in the southern part of the courtyard. Did He say that these offerings must be slaughtered specifically in the southern part and not in the northern part? This is as we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 55a), that the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity may be performed in any place within the Temple courtyard.

קדשים קלים ששחטן בדרום לשם קדשי קדשים לירצו מעשיהן מוכיחין עליהן דקדשים קלים נינהו דאי קדשי קדשים בצפון הוה עביד להו

The Gemara asks: If so, then offerings of lesser sanctity that one slaughtered in the southern part of the Temple courtyard for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order should effect acceptance for their owners, as the actions performed on them prove that they are offerings of lesser sanctity. Because if they are in fact offerings of the most sacred order, he would have performed their slaughter in the northern part of the Temple courtyard.

אמרי קדשי קדשים נינהו ומיעבר הוא דעבר ושחט להו בדרום

The Gemara responds: The fact that an offering was slaughtered in the southern part of the Temple courtyard is not a clear indication that it was intended as an offering of lesser sanctity, as people might say: They are in fact offerings of the most sacred order, but the priest transgressed the mitzva to slaughter them in the northern part of the courtyard and slaughtered them in the southern part.

אי הכי מחבת לשם מרחשת נמי האי דקא קמיץ לה למרחשת אמר האי במרחשת נדר והא דמייתי לה במחבת דמרחשת היא ומעבר הוא דעבר ואתייה במחבת

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if people might suspect an individual of performing the rite of an offering in an improper manner, then if a priest removes a handful from a pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering as well, one who sees that this priest removes a handful for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering might say: This owner took a vow to bring a meal offering in a deep pan, and as for the fact that he brings it in a pan, it is actually the meal offering of a deep pan and the owner transgressed the mitzva to bring it in a deep pan, and brought it in a pan. Why, then, does Rabbi Shimon maintain that such a meal offering satisfies the obligation of its owner?

התם כי נמי במרחשת נדר כי מייתי לה במחבת מחבת הויא

The Gemara explains: There, where the priest removed the handful from a pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, even if the owner took a vow to bring a meal offering in a deep pan, when he brings it in a pan it is considered a valid pan meal offering, and therefore the priest’s intention is recognizably false.

כדתנן האומר הרי עלי במחבת והביא במרחשת במרחשת והביא במחבת מה שהביא הביא וידי נדרו לא יצא

This is as we learned in a mishna (102b): One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a pan, and he brought it in a deep pan, or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, and he brought it in a pan, the meal offering that he brought, he brought, i.e., it is valid and the priest performs the rites of the meal offering that he actually brought, but he did not fulfill the obligation resulting from his vow, and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill that obligation.

ודילמא אמר זו להביא במחבת והביא במרחשת כדתנן זו להביא במחבת והביא במרחשת במרחשת והביא במחבת הרי זו פסולה

The Gemara asks: But even so, the priest’s improper intent remains indiscernible, as people might think: Perhaps the owner said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must bring in a pan, and in spite of this he brought it in a deep pan. Such a meal offering is disqualified and is not considered a valid pan meal offering, as we learned in that same mishna: One who took a vow, saying: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must bring in a pan, and he brought it in a deep pan, or if he vowed: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering that I must bring in a deep pan, and he brought it in a pan, it is disqualified, as he did not fulfill his vow. If so, how can Rabbi Shimon say that such a meal offering satisfies the owner’s obligation, when the intent is not recognizably false?

לרבנן ה"נ לר"ש כיון דאמר ר"ש אף ידי נדרו יצא אלמא קביעותא דמנא ולא כלום הוא ולא שנא אמר זו ולא שנא אמר עלי

The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, i.e., according to the opinion of the mishna just cited, there is indeed a difficulty. But according to Rabbi Shimon there is no difficulty, since with regard to a case where one took a vow, saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a pan meal offering, and then he brought it in a deep pan, Rabbi Shimon says: He has fulfilled even the obligation resulting from his vow. Evidently, the designation of the vessel for a meal offering is nothing according to Rabbi Shimon, and there is no difference in this regard whether he said: This is for a particular type of meal offering, and there is no difference whether he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a particular meal offering. In both instances the unique actions of each particular meal offering prove its identity, and therefore the owner fulfills his obligation regardless of the priest’s improper intent.

אלא מעתה עולה ששחט לשם חטאת תרצה דהאי זכר והאי נקבה כיון דאיכא שעיר נשיא דזכר הוא לא ידיע

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that in a case where the manner of its preparation proves the identity of an offering the owner fulfills his obligation, then a burnt offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering should effect acceptance. His actions prove that it is a burnt offering, as this, a burnt offering, is always male, and that, a sin offering, is female. The Gemara answers: Since there is one sin offering, the goat of the Nasi, which is male, it is unknown whether this animal was a burnt offering or the sin offering of the Nasi, and its gender is not conclusive proof.

אמר לשם חטאת יחיד מאי איכא למימר ותו חטאת יחיד ששחטה לשם עולה תרצה דחטאת נקבה ועולה זכר מיכסיא באליה

The Gemara continues to ask: But in a case where one said: I am hereby slaughtering this animal for the sake of a sin offering of an individual, which is always female, what can be said? Since a male animal cannot be mistaken for such a sin offering, why doesn’t this burnt offering satisfy the obligation of the owner? And furthermore, a sin offering of an individual that one slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering should effect acceptance, as such a sin offering is always female, and a burnt offering is always male. The Gemara responds: It is difficult to discern whether a lamb is male or female, as its genitals are covered by its tail. Accordingly, its gender is not considered proof of the type of offering being sacrificed.

התינח היכא דאייתי כבשה אייתי שעירה מאי איכא למימר אלא בין זכרים לנקבות לאו אדעתייהו דאינשי

The Gemara asks: This works out well in a case where one brought a female lamb as his sin offering, as its tail makes it difficult to discern its sex. But in a case where he brought a female goat, what can be said? Its gender is easily recognized, as goats do not have tails that cover their genitals. The Gemara answers: Rather, discerning between males and females is not on people’s minds, i.e., they do not take notice of the offering’s gender and therefore this aspect of an animal is not considered discernible.

פסח ששחטו לשם אשם לירצי דהאי בן שנה והאי בן שתים כיון דאיכא אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע לא פסיקא ליה

The Gemara continues to challenge the opinion of Rabba: A Paschal offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a guilt offering should effect acceptance, as this, the Paschal offering, is in its first year, and that, a guilt offering, is in its second year. The Gemara answers: Since there are two guilt offerings that are brought from lambs in their first year, i.e., the guilt offering of a nazirite (see Numbers 6:12) and the guilt offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:10), it is not definitively clear to an onlooker what type of offering this lamb is.

אמר לשום אשם גזילות ולשום אשם מעילות מאי איכא למימר ותו אשם גזילות ואשם מעילות ששחטן לשום פסח לירצו דפסח בן שנה והני בן שתי שנים

The Gemara asks: But if one said: I am hereby slaughtering this lamb for the sake of a guilt offering for robbery, or if he said: I am slaughtering it for the sake of a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, what can be said? These guilt offerings must each be brought from an animal in its second year, and therefore they cannot be mistaken for a Paschal offering, which is in its first year. And furthermore, a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property that one slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering should effect acceptance, as a Paschal offering is always in its first year, and these are in their second year.

אלא בין בן שנה לבין בן שתי שנים לאו אדעתייהו דאינשי דאיכא בן שנה דמיחזי כבן שתים ואיכא בן שתים דמיחזי כבן שנה

The Gemara answers: Rather, the difference in appearance between an animal that is in its first year and one that is in its second year is not on people’s minds, i.e., this is not a clearly recognizable difference, as there can be an animal in its first year that appears as though it is in its second year, and there can be an animal in its second year that appears as though it is in its first year.

שעיר ששחטו לשום אשם לירצי דהאי צמר והאי שיער אמרי דיכרא אוכמא הוא

The Gemara challenges: A goat sin offering that one slaughtered for the sake of a guilt offering should effect acceptance. It is clearly not a guilt offering, as this, a guilt offering, is a ram, with white wool, and that, a goat, has black hair. The Gemara responds: People will say that this goat is actually a black ram, and they may indeed mistake it for a guilt offering.

עגל ופר ששחטן לשום פסח ואשם לירצו דעגל ופר בפסח ואשם ליכא אין הכי נמי

The Gemara challenges: A calf or a bull that one slaughtered for the sake of either a Paschal offering or a guilt offering should effect acceptance. It is clear that such animals cannot be either offering, as a calf or bull offering is not sacrificed either as a Paschal offering or as a guilt offering. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so, as according to Rabbi Shimon such offerings effect acceptance for their owners.