Menachot 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

It was slaughtered and found to have a blemish,

this is the dispute—according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir—between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It sanctified,

although its disqualification preceded the slaughter, and later in the sugya its reasoning is explained

; Rabbi Yehoshua says: It did not sanctify.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as was explained in our Mishna.

Rabbi Yehuda said

to dispute Rabbi Meir’s statement in two respects:

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree—

about

one who slaughtered it with the intention of eating it

outside its designated time, that it sanctified

the loaves, in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s statement.

And about

an animal that

was found to have a blemish, that it did not sanctify

the loaves—even according to Rabbi Eliezer, and contrary to Rabbi Meir’s statement, who understands Rabbi Eliezer to hold that it did sanctify them.

And about what did they disagree? About

one who slaughtered it with the intention of eating it

outside its designated place,

whether it sanctified the loaves:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It sanctified them, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It did not sanctify them,

contrary to Rabbi Meir’s statement, who holds that they did not disagree in this case, and that the loaves are sacred according to everyone.

Rabbi Yehuda further adds and presents the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concerning a thanksgiving-offering slaughtered with the intention of eating it outside its designated place, whether it sanctified the loaves:

Rabbi Eliezer said: Since outside its designated time is disqualifying

the offering,

and

also

outside its designated place is disqualifying

the offering, we should say:

Just as outside its designated time,

although the offering is disqualified in any event,

sanctified

the loaves brought with it,

so too, outside its designated place,

we should say that although the offering is disqualified in any event,

it sanctified

the loaves brought with it.

He said,

Rabbi Yehoshua

replied to him,

“No; rather, this is how we should reason:

Since outside its designated place is disqualifying, and an animal with a blemish is disqualifying, just as an animal with a blemish did not sanctify the loaves, so too, outside its designated place did not sanctify them.”

He said,

he replied,

Rabbi Eliezer replied to him:

said to him:

I compared it—

the intention to eat it outside its designated place—

to outside its designated time, and

if

you compare it to an animal with a blemish,

then let us

see which it resembles—

If

it is found to

resemble

an offering slaughtered

outside its designated time,

then

we shall reason about it from outside its designated time,

and say that the loaves are sacred.

And

if

it is found to

resemble

an animal

with a blemish, we shall reason about it from an animal with a blemish,

and say that the loaves are not sacred.

Rabbi Eliezer began to reason

which case it resembles:

We derive one disqualification of intention [one who intended to eat it outside its designated place]

from

a disqualification of intention [one who intended to eat it outside its designated time],

[when one intended to eat it after its designated time];

but we do not derive a disqualification of intention

when he intended to eat it outside its designated place

from a bodily disqualification

such as an animal with a blemish.

Rabbi Yehoshua began to reason

which case it resembles:

We derive a disqualification that carries no liability for karet

for eating it, such as the disqualification resulting from the intention to eat it outside its designated place,

from a disqualification that carries no liability for karet

for eating it, such as an animal with a blemish.

And do not refute this from outside its designated time, which is a disqualification that carries liability for karet

for eating it.

Furthermore,

Rabbi Yehoshua added another reason why the loaves should be sanctified when he slaughtered it with the intention of eating it outside its designated place:

We shall reason about it from

a thanksgiving-offering that was slaughtered

not for its own sake,

where the loaves were not sanctified, since it resembles that case according both to your reasoning and to mine:

it is a disqualification of intention

and

carries no liability for karet,

and thus resembles a thanksgiving-offering slaughtered with the intention of eating it outside its designated place.

And

Rabbi Eliezer

was silent.

Here the Gemara returns to Rabbi Meir’s statement, who understands Rabbi Eliezer to hold that if the animal was found to have a blemish, the loaves are sacred, and it raises an objection:

And

to

Rabbi Meir

one should raise a difficulty:

What is different about a case where it was slaughtered and found to be tereifa, whose disqualification preceded the slaughter, and what is different about a case where it was slaughtered and found to have a blemish, whose disqualification did not precede the slaughter!?

That is, what is different about a case where it was slaughtered and found to be tereifa, concerning which you say: Since its disqualification preceded the slaughter, the loaves were not sanctified; and what is different about a case where it was found to have a blemish, concerning which Rabbi Meir says that although its disqualification preceded the slaughter, nevertheless the loaves are sacred!?

And we answer: Rabbi Eliezer said that the loaves are sacred when the animal was found to have a blemish only when it was found to have a blemish

in the eye,

a mark on the eye that impairs vision, so that the blemish is not conspicuous,

and according to Rabbi Akiva, who said:

an animal with a blemish in the eye,

if it ascended

the altar,

it does not descend;

and since it does not descend after the fact, the loaves are sacred even though the thanksgiving-offering was disqualified.

And the Gemara explains:

But the other one,

and Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that according to Rabbi Eliezer, if the animal was found to have a blemish the loaves were not sanctified, gives the following reason:

When Rabbi Akiva said

that

if they ascended, they do not descend,

it was

only with regard to a bodily disqualification,

that is, with regard to the offering itself, so that if it ascended the altar it does not descend;

but with regard to sanctifying the loaves

when an animal with a blemish is slaughtered, he

did not

say this.

It was stated:

Regarding a sin-offering

And if he slaughtered it outside its place:

that was slaughtered outside its designated time: if it ascended, it does not descend.

And if he slaughtered it

outside its designated place:

Rabba said: It descends.

Rava said: It does not descend.

Rabba follows Rabbi Yehoshua

in the beraita cited above, who compares outside its designated place to an animal with a blemish; and in the case of a blemished sin-offering, the law is that if it ascended, it descends—

And Rava follows Rabbi Eliezer

in that beraita, who compares outside its designated place to outside its designated time; and in the case of a sin-offering slaughtered outside its designated time, the law is that if it ascended, it does not descend—

And Rava retracted his position in favor of Rabba, just as Rabbi Eliezer retracted his position in favor of Rabbi Yehoshua, [that is, Rava retracted and conceded to Rabba, since Rabbi Eliezer too retracted and conceded to Rabbi Yehoshua, as is demonstrated by his silence].

[Rava retracted and agreed with Rabba, since Rabbi Eliezer too retracted and agreed with Rabbi Yehoshua, as demonstrated by his silence].

And some say:

Even though Rabbi Eliezer retracted his position in favor of Rabbi Yehoshua, Rava did not retract his position in favor of Rabba, [even though Rabbi Eliezer retracted, Rava did not retract]—

[although Rabbi Eliezer retracted, Rava did not retract]—

For

there he said

to Rabbi Eliezer: “

We shall reason about it—

the case of slaughtering it outside its designated place—

from the case of not for its own sake,”

and it was because of this argument that Rabbi Eliezer retracted—

But here—

with regard to a sin-offering slaughtered outside its designated place and then placed on the altar, whether it must descend—

if you reason about it from the case of not for its own sake

[if you seek to derive the law of a sin-offering slaughtered outside its designated time from that of a sin-offering slaughtered not for its own sake], then certainly

if it ascended, it does not descend,

for in the case of other offerings the offering is valid even initially, except that it does not fulfill the owners’ obligation; therefore, even a sin-offering that is disqualified when slaughtered not for its own sake, nevertheless, if it ascended, it does not descend. And if we compare outside its designated place to not for its own sake, the law will be that if it ascended, it does not descend.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he slaughtered

[the thanksgiving-offering]

not for its own sake,

and likewise the ram of the inauguration and the two sheep of Shavuot, if he slaughtered them not for their own sake, the loaves were not sanctified.

He said,

wondering,

Rav Pappa:

The tanna of our Mishna left out

[left unmentioned]

the nazirite’s ram

which

is a ram brought by a nazirite—

which is brought together with loaves and whose law is like that of all those mentioned in the Mishna—

although it is common,

since it is practiced for all generations,

and mentioned the ram of the inauguration,

which is uncommon, since it is not practiced for all generations.

And

we explain the reason for the tanna of our Mishna:

the tanna stated the primary matter,

that is, the tanna mentioned the ram of the inauguration because it preceded all the offerings that sanctify the loaves brought with them.

Mishna:

The libations—

that are brought with the offering—

that were sanctified in a vessel,

that he placed them in a service vessel and they thereby received the sanctity of the offering,

and

the

offering was found to be disqualified:

If there is

still time that day—before they become disqualified through remaining overnight—

another offering

with which to sacrifice the libations,

they shall be sacrificed

the libations

with it.

But if they remained overnight

[the night passed over them],

they become disqualified through remaining overnight,

for they received the sanctity of the offering and thus become disqualified through remaining overnight.

Gemara:

Ze’iri said: The libations do not become sanctified

with the sanctity of the offering, so as to become disqualified through being taken outside, through contact with impurity, or through remaining overnight,

except through the slaughter of the offering

with which they are brought—even if they were not sanctified in a vessel. But if they were sanctified in a vessel and the offering for which they were intended was not slaughtered, they were not sanctified so as to become disqualified in any of these ways.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says [Leviticus 23]: “

[Leviticus 23]:

An offering

[the term denotes slaughter]

and libations,”

to teach us that the libations depend upon the slaughter with regard to their sanctification.

And we challenge Ze’iri from what

we learned

in our Mishna:

The libations that were sanctified in a vessel, and the offering was found to be disqualified: if there is another offering, they shall be sacrificed with it; but if they remained overnight, they become disqualified through remaining overnight;

and surely:

Is it not referring to a case where it was disqualified during slaughter,

and if so, the slaughter did not sanctify them, yet nevertheless they become disqualified through remaining overnight by virtue of the sanctification of the vessel, contrary to Ze’iri, who says that the sanctification depends solely upon the slaughter of the offering!?

And we answer:

No,

it is not as you interpreted our Mishna, that it deals with an offering disqualified during slaughter. Rather, our Mishna deals with a case where it was

disqualified during the sprinkling,

and the libations had already been sanctified through the valid slaughter; therefore, they become disqualified through remaining overnight.

It was taught above, on 72b: The two sheep of Shavuot do not sanctify the loaves except through slaughter. How so? If he slaughtered them for their own sake and sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are sanctified; if he slaughtered them not for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves were not sanctified; if he slaughtered them for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are sacred but not sacred [that is, the loaves are sacred, but they are not permitted for the priests to eat, as Rava explained above, on 47a]—these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: They are never sacred until he slaughters them for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake.

And the Gemara discusses:

According to whom

is our Mishna, such that you explain it as follows: Since the slaughter of the offering was valid, the libations dependent upon it became sanctified? Apparently, it is

according to Rabbi, who said: Two acts

[slaughter and sprinkling]

that render the offering permitted,

and that render permitted the entity dependent upon it—such as the slaughter and sprinkling of the two sheep of Shavuot, which render the offering fit for burning its fats and for eating it, and render the two loaves fit for eating; or the slaughter and sprinkling of an offering, which render the offering permitted and also render permitted the libations dependent upon it—

each one elevates the other without it.

That is, slaughter alone is sufficient to elevate the entity dependent upon it by one degree, so that it receives the sanctity of the offering, although the dependent entity does not become fully permitted except together with the sprinkling.

The Gemara explains that this is not necessarily so, but

even if you say

that our Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that an entity dependent upon an offering becomes sanctified only when both acts that render it permitted have been performed—

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said only that an entity dependent upon an offering becomes sanctified specifically in a case where there was a disqualification in the sprinkling, such as when the blood was sprinkled not for its own sake. But

here, what are we dealing with

in our Mishna?

For example, when he received their blood

[the blood of the offering]

in a cup,

and it was already fit for sprinkling,

and

afterward

it was spilled

[and was not disqualified through the sprinkling]—