Menachot 2b — the Talmud in English

And since it is offered as a voluntary offering, certainly one should not continue to entertain a thought not for its sake in its other services,

and

because an offering that is

voluntary—

is it permitted to alter its designation?!

Is it permitted to alter its designation in its services? But the verse says, “If his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings,” and it is learned from this that the slaughter must be for the sake of peace-offerings. And we raised the difficulty:

Let us say that our Mishna

which states that the meal-offerings whose handfuls were removed not for their sake do not count for their owners as an obligation was

not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

for we find that Rabbi Shimon said that they even count for their owners as an obligation.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: All the meal-offerings whose handfuls were removed not for their sake,

and even the sinner’s meal-offering, which in our Mishna is stated to be disqualified, are

fit, and

even

count for their owners as an obligation,

because

the meal-offerings are not comparable to the animal-offerings.

Therefore, although with animal-offerings Rabbi Shimon concedes that the slaughter of a sin-offering not for its sake disqualifies it, and that with the other offerings it does not count as an obligation, with meal-offerings Rabbi Shimon disagrees and declares fit even the sinner’s meal-offering, so that it counts as an obligation!

And the reason for the distinction between meal-offerings and animal-offerings according to Rabbi Shimon is that

the handful

of a meal-offering of a

pan,

which is fried on a completely flat utensil and becomes hard,

for the sake of a deep vessel,

which is a meal-offering fried in a deep utensil that bubbles with oil and becomes soft,

its actions

as a pan are recognizable in reality, and

prove concerning it

that it is made

for the sake of a pan

and not for the sake of a deep vessel. And even when he says that he is making it for the sake of a deep vessel, it is apparent from his actions that he is lying in his statement!

Likewise, the handful of a sinner’s meal-offering, which is

dry,

dry without oil,

for the sake of

another meal-offering that is

mixed

with oil—

its actions,

which did not have oil poured upon it and left it dry,

prove concerning it

that it was not made for the sake of a mixed offering,

for

it is

dry,

and it is apparent that he is lying in his statement.

But with animal-offerings it is not so,

for there is no distinguishing sign in the services of the animal-offerings between one offering and another, since the services of all the animal-offerings are equal:

one slaughter for all of them, one sprinkling for all of them, and one receiving for all of them.

Therefore, if he altered their designation and thought not for their sake, the alteration is effective, and their law is that they do not count for their owners as an obligation.

The Gemara below brings a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon’s statements concerning a meal-offering that he made not for its sake: in the beraita here he said that it counts for its owners as an obligation, whereas in another beraita he said that it does not count for its owners as an obligation. Several ways were stated there to reconcile the contradiction in his statements, and from the words of the amoraim there in explaining Rabbi Shimon’s view, it is necessary to consider whether our Mishna is also in accordance with his view.

And we say:

This works out for

the resolution of

Rav Ashi

there: it is possible to establish our Mishna even in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, because the beraita in which Rabbi Shimon says that it counts for the owners as an obligation deals with a different circumstance from our Mishna.

That is,

as

Rav Ashi

said:

Here,

“I am removing the handful of a pan for the sake of a deep vessel,”

he did not say “for the sake of a meal-offering of a deep vessel,” but only mentioned the name of the utensil, “deep vessel”; thus his words are words of wind and are not considered a change of the sacred designation. Whereas

here,

in the beraita in which Rabbi Shimon said, like our Mishna, that it does not count as an obligation, the case is

of

one who says, “I am removing the handful of

a meal-offering of a pan for the sake of a meal-offering of a deep vessel,”

and this is a change of the sacred designation, for he changed from a meal-offering of a pan to a meal-offering of a deep vessel. In this, Rabbi Shimon agrees with our Mishna that it does not count for the owners as an obligation, since also in the

Mishna

the case concerns the removal of the handful of one

meal-offering

for the sake of another

meal-offering,

which

it is. And as our Mishna states explicitly: “How is it ‘not for their sake and for their sake’ [with the sinner’s and the suspected adulteress’s meal-offerings]?—For the sake of a voluntary meal-offering, for the sake of a sinner’s meal-offering.” Therefore, it works out according to Rav Ashi that Rabbi Shimon did not disagree with our Mishna.

is the case. As our Mishna explicitly states: “What is meant by not for their designated purpose and for their designated purpose [in the case of a sinner’s offering or a suspected adulteress’s offering]? For the sake of a voluntary meal offering, for the sake of a sinner’s offering.” Accordingly, it is understandable according to Rav Ashi that Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with our Mishna.

But according to Rabbah and Rava,

who did not reconcile the contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s statements as Rav Ashi did, but offered other resolutions that will be explained below,

what is there to say?

Is our Mishna indeed not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

And if you should say,

perhaps you will say that it is possible to reconcile it

as Rabbah resolves

the contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s statements:

Here,

where Rabbi Shimon says that it counts for the owners, the case concerns

a change of sacred designation,

where the change he made was from a meal-offering of a pan to a meal-offering of a deep vessel. Since the actions of the pan prove concerning it that it is a pan, he is lying in his statement that he is making it for the sake of a deep vessel, for it was not made like a deep vessel. Therefore such a change is not considered damaging. Whereas

here,

where Rabbi Shimon said that it does not count for the owners as an obligation, the case concerns

a change of owners,

where the priest thought that it should count for someone who is not the owner of the meal-offering. Its actions do not prove for whom it is being made, and therefore a thought of changing the owners is effective to damage it, so that the offering does not count for its owner as an obligation. And our Mishna, which states that it does not count for the owners as an obligation, deals with a change of owners.

It is therefore impossible to reconcile our Mishna in this manner and establish it also in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

for

in the

Mishna

the case concerns

a change of sacred designation! For it teaches: How is it “for their sake and not for their sake”?

For example, a sinner’s meal-offering whose handful was initially removed

for the sake of a sinner’s meal-offering and

afterward

for the sake of a voluntary meal-offering.

That is, a change in the type of meal-offering, and not a change of owners. If so, it is impossible to establish our Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Shimon according to Rabbah’s resolution.

Alternatively—

we may wish to reconcile

as Rava resolves

the contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s statements:

Here—

where Rabbi Shimon said that it counts—

when he removes the handful of a meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering,

such as a meal-offering of a pan for the sake of a meal-offering of a deep vessel, because it is written in the verse, “This is the law of the meal-offering,” and it is learned from this that there is one law for all the meal-offerings.

Here—

where Rabbi Shimon said that it does not count—

when he removes the handful of a meal-offering for the sake of an animal-offering,

for it was not stated concerning a meal-offering and an animal-offering that they have one law. Therefore, with such a change it does not count for the owners as an obligation. And it is impossible to reconcile it in this manner and establish our Mishna as referring to removal for the sake of an animal-offering and in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, for—

our Mishna concerns a meal-offering for the sake of a meal-offering, as it teaches

explicitly in the Mishna:

“not for their sake and for their sake, for the sake of a voluntary meal-offering, for the sake of a sinner’s meal-offering,”

and not for the sake of an animal-offering.

Rather, according to

the resolutions of

Rabbah and Rava,

it necessarily follows that

it is clear that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And now the Gemara brings the apparent contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s statements and the resolutions of the amoraim concerning it.

And they raised a contradiction between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says,

it is stated concerning a meal-offering,

“It is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering.”

A meal-offering is called a sin-offering and is also called a guilt-offering. How so? If it is

a sinner’s meal-offering, it is like a sin-offering,

whose law is that if it is sacrificed not for its sake it is disqualified, as it was stated at the beginning of Zevahim: “All the animal-offerings that were sacrificed not for their sake are fit, except that they do not count for their owners as an obligation, except for the Paschal-offering and the sin-offering,” which are completely disqualified;

therefore, if its handful was removed not for its sake,

it is

disqualified like a sin-offering.

And if it is

a voluntary meal-offering, it is like a guilt-offering; therefore, if its handful was removed not for its sake,

it is

fit,

like all the animal-offerings,

and

its law is

like that of a guilt-offering: just as a guilt-offering is fit but does not effect atonement,

as we learned in the Mishna at the beginning of tractate Zevahim, that the offering is fit, except that it does not count for the owners as an obligation,

so too a voluntary meal-offering is fit but does not effect atonement!

If so, this is difficult against Rabbi Shimon above, who said that all the meal-offerings whose handfuls were removed not for their sake are fit and even count for their owners as an obligation. Here we see that even a voluntary meal-offering, which is fit, does not count as an obligation?

And we answer:

Rabbah said: It is not difficult; here it is a change of sacred designation, and here it is a change of owners.

As was explained above, in a change of sacred designation it counts for the owners as an obligation, while in a change of owners it does not count.

Abaye said

to Rabbah:

Since,

after all,

the thought that the Torah disqualified

in a meal-offering

is by means of an analogy,

for this matter is learned through an analogy between a meal-offering and animal-offerings, as it is written, “It is most holy, like the sin-offering and like the guilt-offering.” Just as thought disqualifies animal-offerings, as it is written, “He who offers it, it shall not be reckoned,” so too thought disqualifies a meal-offering. If so, since we learn from animal-offerings,

what difference is there between a change of sacred designation and a change of owners?

With animal-offerings both of them are disqualified; from where do you have to distinguish their laws with a meal-offering?

He said to him,

Rabbah to Abaye:

“Its actions prove concerning it,”

for Rabbi Shimon says

to distinguish between meal-offerings and animal-offerings—

it is a logical consideration, and Rabbi Shimon expounds the reason of the verse,

its reason. Therefore he holds that

a thought that is not recognizable,

where it is not recognizable through his action that he is lying, such as a change of owners, for it is not recognizable from the action whether he is doing it for the sake of this owner or that one,

the Torah disqualified

even with a meal-offering, since this is considered a disqualifying thought. But

a thought that is recognizable,

such as a change of sacred designation, where he removed the handful of a voluntary meal-offering for the sake of a sinner’s meal-offering, and it is recognizable from his actions that he is lying in his thought, since he puts oil and frankincense in it, which are not present in a sinner’s meal-offering—in this case

the Torah did not disqualify.

Therefore, although there is an analogy between a meal-offering and animal-offerings, by force of the logical consideration Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between a change of sacred designation and a change of owners.

Mnemonic: a burnt-offering, a burnt-offering, pinching and draining; the bird sin-offering; most holy offerings; lesser holiness offerings.

Mnemonic: A burnt offering, a burnt offering—pinching and draining; a bird sin offering; most sacred offerings; lesser sacred offerings.

And now the Gemara raises difficulties and answers from various cases of alteration, in which, apparently, one could say that its actions prove concerning it.

And we raise a difficulty:

But from now,

since we said that when its actions prove against his thought, it does not disqualify,

a bird burnt-offering

whose pinching is performed above the red line—if it happened

that he pinched it above

the red line with the thought of making it

for the sake of a bird sin-offering [

for a sin-offering is performed below the red line],

will it effect atonement—will it count as an obligation, since

since

its actions,

which he performed above,

prove concerning it that it is a bird burnt-offering, for if it were a bird sin-offering,

he would have performed it below

as that is the law of a bird sin-offering? And why does the Mishna in Zevahim [65a] state concerning this case that it did not count for the owners?

And we answer: This is not “its actions prove” that it is a burnt-offering and not a sin-offering, because

is it so

that the pinching of a

bird sin-offering above does not exist?!

Does a sin-offering not exist above and is it not fit in that manner?

For the Master said,

“Pinching is fit anywhere on the altar,”

even above. If so, the pinching of a bird burnt-offering above for the sake of a sin-offering is an unrecognizable thought, for it is possible that this is a sin-offering, and that is why it did not count.

And we raise a difficulty from another case:

A bird burnt-offering whose blood he drained above

the red line,

for the sake of a bird sin-offering—will it effect atonement!

For the law of a bird burnt-offering is only draining the blood onto the wall of the altar and above, whereas the law of a bird sin-offering is sprinkling first and afterward draining the blood, and it is performed below the red line. If so,

its actions prove concerning it that it is a bird burnt-offering. For if it were a bird sin-offering, he would have performed it below, and

also

the sprinkling

before the draining

he would have performed for it?