Menachot 110a (קי.) — the Talmud in English

As it is stated: “

On that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan”! !(pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

and swearing allegiance to the Lord of Hosts, [

the city of destruction shall be called one of them]”.

Those

royal princes

went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar, and offered sacrifices upon it for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: “

On that day there shall be an altar to the Lord

in the midst of the land of Egypt...”

And this beraita is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that this verse does not refer to the Temple of Onias, since that was a house of idolatry, but rather to this altar.

It is written later in the verse: “On that day there shall be five cities”...

“the city of destruction shall be called one of them”:

And we explain:

What does

“the city of destruction shall be called one of them” mean?

As Rav Yosef translated

that verse: “

The city of Beit Shemesh, which is destined to be destroyed, shall be called one of them” [the city of Beit Shemesh, which is destined to be destroyed, is one of the five cities]. That is, “the city of destruction” is interpreted in two ways: the city of the sun [since heress means “sun,” as explained below], and “the city of destruction” in its plain sense—that it will be destroyed.

The Gemara explains:

The Gemara explains:

And from where do we know that

“the city of destruction”

is an expression referring to the sun [from where do we know that heress means “sun”]?

As it is written [Job 9]:

“

Who says to the sun, and it does not rise.”

It is written in Isaiah 43: “And now, so says the Lord, your Creator, O Jacob, and He Who formed you, O Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you... Do not fear, for I am with you; from the east I shall bring your offspring, and from the west I shall gather you. I shall say to the north [to the northern wind], ‘Give forth [the exiles in the north],’ and to the south [to the southern wind], ‘Do not withhold yourself [but rather]]

bring My sons from afar, and My daughters from the end of the earth”: “

Bring My sons from afar,”

said

Rav Huna:

He explained:

These are the exiles of Babylonia, whose minds are settled—

like sons,

since in Babylonia they are not subject to the harsh yoke of the government. “

And My daughters from the end of the earth”:

These are the exiles of the other lands, whose minds are not settled—

like daughters,

since in the other lands the government imposes its yoke heavily upon the Jews.

Rabbi Abba bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav Ḥisda said; and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

From Tyre to Carthage,

between Tyre and Carthage,

recognize

the gentiles

Israel

as they were in their original honor, and therefore they do not impose their yoke heavily upon them,

and

they also recognize

their Father in Heaven [they believe in Him], and do not believe in idolatry.

But

if one proceeds westward from Tyre and eastward from Carthage:

they do not recognize Israel, nor their Father in Heaven.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav:

But it is written [Malachi 1]: “

From the rising of the sun to its setting, My Name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My Name, and a pure meal-offering”!?

He said to him

Rav to Rav Shimi: “You are

Shimi, are you?”

That is, are you the Shimi who is a great sage, and are you raising this question to me even though it is no question!?

But this is the meaning of the verse:

Are you the Shimi who is a great scholar, that you raise this question to me, when it is not a difficulty at all?

“They call Him the God of gods” [the gentiles call the Holy One, Blessed be He, the God of the idols]; that is: they believe in idolatry, but they also believe in the Lord, Who is above their idols.

It is written: “

In every place incense is offered to My Name”:

And we raise an objection:

“In every place”

incense is offered to the Lord—

is this conceivable!?

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan

said:

These are Torah scholars who engage in Torah study everywhere,

and

I regard them as though they offer incense and present offerings to My Name. “

And a pure meal-offering”:

This is one who studies Torah in purity,

who

takes a wife

in order to purify his thoughts

and afterward studies Torah.

marries a woman

in order to purify his thoughts,

It is written [Psalms 134]: “

A Song of Ascents. Behold, bless the Lord, all servants of the Lord who stand in the house of the Lord

at night.”

What is meant by

“at night”?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

These are Torah scholars who engage in Torah study at night,

for

Scripture regards them as though they were engaged in the Temple service, as the verse says, “in the house of the Lord.”

It is written [II Chronicles 2]: “And Solomon sent to Hiram, king of Tyre, saying: As you dealt with David my father, and sent him cedars to build him a house in which to dwell, so I am building a house for the Name of the Lord my God, to sanctify it for Him, to offer before Him... burnt-offerings morning and evening, on Shabbatot and on the New Moons and on the appointed festivals of the Lord our God,

forever this shall be for Israel”:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

This refers to a built altar, with Michael, the great minister, standing and offering a sacrifice upon it.

the verse regards them as though they are engaged in the Temple service,

as the verse says: “who stand in the house of the Lord.”

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

These are Torah scholars who engage in the halakhot of the Temple service,

for

Scripture regards them as though the Temple were built in their days.

Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written [Leviticus 7]: “

This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, the meal-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering”?

It comes to teach you:

Anyone who engages in Torah study is regarded as though he sacrificed a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering.

the verse regards them as though the Temple were built in their days.

Reish Lakish said:

Rava

said in astonishment:

This “

for the burnt-offering and for the meal-offering”—if it is as you explained, should it have said “for the burnt-offering and for the meal-offering”!? Surely “This is the Torah”—

a burnt-offering and a meal-offering

should have been what it said, since then it would imply that the Torah itself is a burnt-offering and a meal-offering!? Rather, Rava said:

Anyone who engages in Torah study does not require a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, or a guilt-offering.

wondered

and said:

This expression, “

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

What is the meaning of that which is written “

This is the Torah of the sin-offering,”

and

what is the meaning of that which is written “

This is the Torah of the guilt-offering”?

It comes to teach you:

Anyone who engages in the study of the Torah of a sin-offering is regarded as though he sacrificed a sin-offering, and anyone who engages in the study of the Torah of a guilt-offering is regarded as though he sacrificed a guilt-offering.

Mishna: It is stated with regard to the burnt-offering of an animal, “ a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,”

and with regard to the burnt-offering of a bird, “

a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,”

and with regard to the meal-offering, “a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,”

in order

to teach you:

Whether one offers much [he brings an animal sacrifice, which is a substantial sacrifice]

or whether one offers little [he brings a bird sacrifice or a meal-offering, which is a smaller sacrifice], they are all acceptable,

provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.

Gemara:

Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse from which this is derived?

From where do we learn further that whether one offers much or little in sacrifices, his reward is equal? As it is stated: “

Sweet is the sleep of the laborer [the labor of the sacrifices]

whether he eats little or much [of his reward].”

Whether one offers much

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: From here: “

When goods increase, those who consume them increase; and what advantage is there to their owner?” That is, when the sacrifices increase, the priests who eat them increase; and what advantage is there in this to their Owner, the Holy One, Blessed be He? For He looks only to see whether his intention is good, while the increase in meat is of no significance except to the priests.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said:

Come and see what is written in the passage of sacrifices: They are not referred to by either “

God”

or “

gods,”

but only by “the Lord,”

in order

not to give a litigant an opening to argue

and say that there are many authorities: one commanded that this sacrifice be offered to him, and another commanded that a different sacrifice be offered to him. Therefore, “a pleasing fragrance to the Lord” is stated with regard to all of them, for they all come from the One Whose Name is the Lord.

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai further expounded:

And with regard to the large ox it is stated, “

a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,”

and with regard to the small bird, “ a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,” and with regard to the meal-offering, “

a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance,”

in order

to teach you: Whether one offers much or whether one offers little, provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.

And lest you say: He [the Holy One, Blessed be He]

requires

the sacrifices

for food, therefore

the verse states [Psalms 50]: “

If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and all that fills it are Mine”;

and it is stated [in earlier verses]: “

For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the animals on a thousand mountains. I know every bird of the mountains, and the creature of the field is with Me.” [And it is stated in a later, adjacent verse to “If I were hungry”:]

“Do I eat” [do I eat]

the flesh of mighty ones, and

do I drink

the blood of goats [do I]?”

I did not say to you “

Sacrifice”

so that you would say, “I shall do His will” [I shall give Him pleasure through the sacrifices]

and He will do my will,

for

it is not for My will [My pleasure]

that you sacrifice, but you sacrifice for your own will,

for your own needs, to fulfill My mitzvot, so that you may thereby achieve atonement,

as it is stated: “

You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance.”

Alternatively: “

You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance,”

in order to teach:

Sacrifice for your acceptance; sacrifice knowingly—

as Shmuel asked Rav Huna:

From where is it derived that one who is occupied with sacred offerings [he is occupied with a knife to cut something else

and slaughtered an animal consecrated as an offering]

renders it unfit, as it is stated [Leviticus 1]: “

And he shall slaughter the young bull”—

the slaughter must be performed for the sake of the young bull,

and not while merely occupied with something else.

as it is stated: “

You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance.”

Alternatively: “

You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance,”

in order to teach:

Sacrifice for your acceptance; sacrifice knowingly—

as Shmuel asked Rav Huna:

From where is it derived that one who is merely occupied with sacred offerings—

one who was using a knife to cut something else

and slaughtered a consecrated animal with it—

He said to him:

We already know this, meaning: I already knew this verse, and from here we learn that it is a mitzva to have the proper intention; but I asked:

From where is it derived that it is indispensable, since with sacred offerings we require that “the verse repeat it in order to make it indispensable”?

and not by one who is merely occupied with something else?

He said to him: “

You shall sacrifice it for your acceptance,”

sacrifice knowingly; the verse has therefore repeated the matter in order to make it indispensable.

We have completed Chapter “I Take Upon Myself a Tenth,” and the tractate of Menachot is concluded

but in Ḥullin 110a he explained: for example, one who was handling a knife in order to lift it or throw it, and slaughtered a consecrated animal with it.

We have completed Chapter “I Take Upon Myself a Tenth,” and the tractate of Menachot is concluded 47a cited the words of

Rashi

in Ḥullin,

and raised the following difficulty: In such a case, even with non-sacred animals, the sacrifice would be unfit according to the Rabbis. Even if he intended to cut something—for example, he threw the knife to embed it in a wall, which is considered an intention to cut—nevertheless, the Rabbis deem it unfit until he intends to cut the animal’s signs. [See there as well.] It appears that “one who is merely occupied with sacred offerings” refers to one who intends to cut the signs but not to slaughter; with non-sacred animals this is valid, but with sacred offerings it is invalid.

There is also another type of one who is merely occupied with something else: for example, one who thinks the animal is non-sacred. All these cases are derived from “And he shall slaughter the cattle.”

It is possible that the text should read: “He said to him: As it is stated...”

He said to him: But this is the intention of the verse: meaning: I already knew this verse, and from it we learn that one must have the proper intention. But I asked:

;

From where is it derived that this requirement invalidates the sacrifice? For with regard to sacred offerings, we require that “the verse repeat the matter in order to make it indispensable.” According to the emendation mentioned above in note 8, “He said to him” refers to Shmuel speaking to Rav Huna. He said to him: “ But this is the intention of the verse: sacrifice knowingly. The verse has repeated the requirement in order to make it indispensable. Written according to the emendation in the margin. ; We have completed for you the chapter “I undertake to bring a tenth,” and the tractate Menahot is concluded. it is possible to say that he said: as it is stated He said to him This we know

that is, I would know this from the verse, and from here we learn that intention is required; but I asked

where does the requirement of invalidation come from

for in sacred offerings the verse must be repeated to make the condition disqualifying

According to the emendation above in note 8, “he said to him” refers to Samuel speaking to Rav Huna He said to him

We already know this, meaning: I already knew this verse, and from here we learn that it is a mitzva to have the proper intention; but I asked:

according to your view, slaughter it

the verse repeated the condition to make it disqualifying

Written according to the emendation in the margin We have completed the chapter “The One Who Vows a Tenth,” and the tractate Menahot is complete