Menachot 102b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

it shall graze until it becomes blemished [

a blemish shall occur in it],

and

then

it shall be sold, and its value shall fall to a voluntary offering.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

He shall sacrifice

the guilt-offering,

for if it does not come on account of this sin, behold, it comes on account of another sin

unknown to him.

And if

after it was slaughtered

the guilt-offering—but it had not yet been sprinkled—

it became known to him

that he had not sinned:

The blood shall be poured out

for it is unconsecrated,

and the flesh shall be burned

according to the law of unconsecrated animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.

And if it became known to him when

the blood had been sprinkled:

The flesh shall be eaten

like the other guilt-offerings, because at the time of the sprinkling, which effects atonement, the matter was still uncertain; and a provisional guilt-offering, from its beginning, comes to atone for uncertainty.

Rabbi Yose says:

Even

if it became known to him while

the blood

was still

in the cup—

it shall be sprinkled

the blood,

and the flesh shall be eaten.

And Rava said

to explain Rabbi Yose’s reason, that he does not regard it as unconsecrated:

Rabbi Yose stated his view according to the method of Rabbi Shimon, for he said

Rabbi Shimon:

Anything that is destined to be sprinkled is considered as though it had been sprinkled;

and just as when the blood has been sprinkled this is not unconsecrated food in the Temple courtyard, but the flesh shall be eaten, so too, when it was only destined to be sprinkled, it is not unconsecrated food; rather, the blood shall be sprinkled and the flesh shall be eaten.

And if so, this is difficult for Rav Naḥman and Rav Ashi, who hold that “if he wishes, he may sprinkle” is not said!?

And we answer:

Is that the reason [

is the reason of Rabbi Yose indeed like the reason that was explained]!? But:

They say in the West [

in the Land of Israel]

in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina:

This is Rabbi Yose’s reason,

because

he holds

that once he placed the blood in a cup, a service vessel, behold,

service vessels sanctify invalid things—

with an invalidity like the case under discussion—

initially, to be sacrificed.

He said

in astonishment

to Rav Kahana, Rav Ashi

according to Rava’s reasoning, that Rabbi Yose stated his view according to the method of Rabbi Shimon:

According to Rabbi Shimon, since “

anything that is destined to be sprinkled is considered as though it had been sprinkled” [

according to Rava’s reasoning], then we should also say, “

anything that is destined to be burned is considered as though it had been burned.” And if so, this is difficult:

If so, this is difficult:

Notar and the red cow—

concerning which Rabbi Shimon said that they impart food impurity, as explained above, 102b—

why do they impart food impurity,

for surely they are like burned things and

are merely dust [

they are merely dust]!?

He said to him

Rav Kahana to Rav Ashi:

The affection of the holy sanctifies them

to make them food; it is like what we find with wood and frankincense, which are not food, and nevertheless they receive impurity because the affection of the holy sanctifies them.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

Granted that it benefits them—

the frankincense and the wood, and likewise the notar and the red cow—

the affection of the holy for the invalidity of their bodies,

that is, they themselves become impure when they come into contact with impurity; but

to call them impure, and also to count in them first and second, does it benefit them as well!?

That is, does the affection of the holy make them impure and cause them to impart impurity to others? If they came into contact with a primary source of impurity, would they be first-degree impurity, so that if they touched another food, that food would become second-degree impurity, like any first-degree impurity!?

But if so,

resolve

that

which Reish Lakish asked:

The dry portion

of meal-offerings [

it is dry fine flour that was not mixed with oil, and was not yet made fit to receive impurity through liquid; its impurity is because of the affection of the holy]

do we count in it a first-degree

of impurity

and a second-degree

of impurity,

or do we not count in it a first and a second?

And if it is as you say, that what we learned concerning notar and the red cow—that they “impart food impurity”—is because of the affection of the holy, it follows that they are impure and impart impurity to others!?

And we answer: In truth, what we learned—that they “impart food impurity”—is because of the affection of the holy, and indeed this is not merely an ordinary invalidity, but impurity that imparts impurity to others. Nevertheless, you cannot resolve Reish Lakish’s question, because—

when Reish Lakish’s question was asked—

whether it is impure because of the affection of the holy or is merely invalid—

it was concerning a Torah law,

and

when we say

that the notar and the red cow are impure and impart impurity, it is

by rabbinic law.

Mishna:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me

to bring a meal-offering

in a flat pan,”

and he brought it in a deep pan—

or he said, “It is incumbent upon me

in a deep pan,”

and he brought it in a flat pan—

in either this case or that case,

what he brought, he brought,

for we say: He did not bring it for the sake of his vow, but it is another voluntary meal-offering,

and he did not fulfill his obligation.

If a tenth-measure of fine flour was placed before him, and he said, “

This”—

this tenth-measure—“is incumbent upon me

to bring in a flat pan,”

and he brought

the tenth-measure

in a deep pan—

or he said, “This is to be brought

in a deep pan,”

and he brought

it

in a flat pan—

in either this case or that case,

this is invalid,

for he designated this tenth-measure to bring it in another vessel.

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenth-measures in one vessel,”

which is one large meal-offering and one handful,

and he brought

the two tenth-measures

in two vessels,

which are two meal-offerings and two handfuls—

or he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenth-measures

in two vessels,”

and he brought

them

in one vessel—

what he brought, he brought,

for he brought it for the sake of another voluntary offering,

and he did not fulfill his obligation.

And if two tenth-measures were before him and he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

these

and bring them

in one vessel,”

and he brought

them

in two vessels—

or he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring these in

two vessels,”

and he brought

them

in one vessel—

in either this case or that case,

these are invalid.

And if he said, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenth-measures in one vessel,”

and he brought them in two vessels,

and

they said to him:

Behold,

you vowed for one vessel,

but he did not answer them, “I am bringing it for the sake of another meal-offering,” and

he sacrificed them

These

in two vessels—

These are

invalid,

for he intended not another meal-offering, but the meal-offering that he vowed, and he brought it improperly; therefore it is invalid.

And if he listened and sacrificed

in one vessel,

these are

valid.

And if he said, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenth-measures

in two vessels,”

and he brought them in one vessel,

and

they said to him:

Behold,

you vowed for two vessels—

and he divided them and

sacrificed them in two vessels,

these are

valid.

But if he

placed them in one vessel,

they are

like two meal-offerings that became mixed together: If he can take a handful from each one separately, these are valid; and if not, they are invalid.

and it is necessary for the Mishna to teach both clauses, so that it will teach that if he specified the vessel at the time of his vow—including the type, size, and number of vessels—his specification is binding and he may not change it. This is because:

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “It is incumbent upon me in a flat pan, and he brought it in a deep pan; in a deep pan, and he brought it in a flat pan … he did not fulfill his obligation; it is incumbent upon me to bring two tenth-measures in one vessel, and he brought them in two vessels; in two vessels, and he brought them in one vessel … he did not fulfill his obligation”:

The Gemara explains

and it is necessary

for the Mishna to teach us both cases: If he designated the vessel also at the time of his vow [that is, the type of vessel, its size, and its number], his designation is binding and he cannot change it, because:

If it had taught us this first case [

the first clause], when he changed the type of vessel, I would say that he failed to fulfill his obligation only in this situation,

because

behold,

he said “in a flat pan,” but he brings it in a deep pan, which is a change of vessel—

he has also fulfilled his vow.

but here,

in the final clause,

both this and that are in a flat pan, and both this and that are in a deep pan [

both his designation and the manner in which he brought it were in the same type of vessel], and the change is in the number of vessels—

I might say [

I would say] that

he also fulfilled his vow.

And if it had taught us

only

this [

the final clause], I would say only

because he divided them [

he divided one meal-offering into two meal-offerings] he did not fulfill his obligation,

but there,

in the first clause—when he changed the type of vessel—

he did not divide them

but merely changed the vessel—

I might say: No,

the change does not prevent him, and he fulfills his obligation—

therefore

it is necessary

to teach us both laws.

The Sages taught:

One who changes the vessel or the number of vessels:

what he brought, he brought, and he did not fulfill his vow

as explained in the Mishna.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Whether he changed the vessel or changed the number of vessels,

he also fulfilled his vow,

for according to his view he cannot designate in which vessel or in how many vessels he will bring the meal-offering, but brings it as he wishes.

We learned in the Mishna:

“This is to be brought in a flat pan”

and he brought it in a deep pan … this is invalid. And we raise a difficulty concerning what is stated in the Mishna, that the meal-offering is invalid:

But it was taught: “This is to be brought in a flat pan,” and he brought it in a deep pan,

for sacrifice when the vessel was changed,

they did not sanctify it

for the meal-offerings,

the service vessels

in which he placed them to sanctify them; they are unconsecrated and not an invalid meal-offering, unlike our Mishna!?

He said

in answer

Abaye:

They did not sanctify it

the service vessels

to be sacrificed

with the change of vessel,

but they did sanctify it

the service vessels in order

to make it invalid.

And Abaye said

further

:

They taught

that if he designated bringing it in a flat pan, he cannot change it to a deep pan and conversely—