Menachot 82a — the Talmud in English

and peace-offerings

themselves—that he may bring them from money of the second tithe—is learned from

“there” “there”

from the second tithe, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 27:7]: “And you shall slaughter peace-offerings and eat there,” and it is stated concerning money of the second tithe [Deuteronomy 14:26]: “And you shall give the money and eat there.”

как сказано: «И заколи мирные жертвы, и ешь там», а о деньгах второго десятина сказано: «И отдашь деньги, и ешь там». —

And

since thanksgiving is learned from peace-offerings,

from it [

we compare the thanksgiving-offering to peace-offerings]:

Just as peace-offerings are not themselves second tithe

since they are not produce,

so too

the loaves of

thanksgiving—

which come from produce—

also

are brought only when

they are not themselves second tithe.

And from this our Mishna learned that he may not bring the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering from the wheat of the second tithe itself; and just as the peace-offerings are not themselves second tithe—

and therefore you maintain:

and these wheat grains purchased with money of the second tithe also,

behold,

are not themselves second tithe,

and he may make from them the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering.

And

let me state my reason: the thanksgiving-offering—

that is, the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—

from where do we learn it

that he may bring them from the second tithe?

From peace-offerings, and peace-offerings

“there” “there,”

from the second tithe—

and we learn another matter from peace-offerings:

just as peace-offerings are not [

not of the ]

kind of second tithe, so too the thanksgiving-offering is not of the kind of second tithe,

and for this reason we learned in our Mishna that he may not bring the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering from the wheat of the second tithe, since they are of the kind of second tithe; and if so, we also have

to exclude wheat purchased with money of the second tithe,

since

they are of the kind of second tithe.

Rabbi Ami said: One who designates money of the second tithe for peace-offerings,

if he had money with which he redeemed second-tithe produce, and said, “This money shall be for the price of peace-offerings,”

does not acquire peace-offerings,

that is: the sanctity of the value of peace-offerings does not take hold in them, and he may purchase with them whatever he wishes.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because

the sanctity of peace-offerings is not strong enough to take effect upon the sanctity of the second tithe [

the sanctity of peace-offerings does not have the power to take effect upon money sanctified with the sanctity of the second tithe]. a. The principal mitzva of second-tithe money is to purchase peace-offerings with it, and in any event he must purchase food with it; and if he purchased with it something that is not for food, the money does not become unconsecrated.

b. One does not purchase an animal—which is fit for peace-offerings—for meat of desire, that is, in order to eat it.

It was objected:

from a Mishna in the first chapter of tractate Second Tithe: “

One who purchases [with second-tithe money] an animal for the sacrifices of peace-offerings [as its principal mitzva], or a wild animal [which is not fit for peace-offerings] for meat of desire [that is, to eat it and not to offer it; for although this is not the principal mitzva of the money, nevertheless he may purchase a wild animal with it], the hide [which is not fit for eating] becomes unconsecrated [and we do not say: The hide is not food, and the money corresponding to the hide did not become unconsecrated; rather, the money became unconsecrated, and even in the hide the sanctity of the second tithe did not take hold, and he treats it like other unconsecrated property]; and the hide also does not have the sanctity of peace-offerings, and it is like the other peace-offerings whose hide is unconsecrated].”

But

one who purchases

with them

a wild animal—

which is not fit for peace-offerings—

for the sacrifices of peace-offerings, and an animal

which is fit for peace-offerings and he purchased it

for meat of desire, the hide does not become unconsecrated.

And it entered our minds to explain the intent of the Mishna as follows: One who purchases a wild animal for the sacrifices of peace-offerings—since it does not receive the sanctity of peace-offerings, but only the sanctity of the price of peace-offerings—the hide does not become unconsecrated from the sanctity of peace-offerings; and this is because the hide becomes unconsecrated only when he purchased actual peace-offerings with them, but when he purchased with them a wild animal, which is only for the price of peace-offerings, the hide does not become unconsecrated from the sanctity of the price of peace-offerings that is in it.

And we infer from what we learned: One who purchases a wild animal for the sacrifices of peace-offerings... the hide does not become unconsecrated; and is it

not to say that it acquires

the hide’s

peace-offerings

sanctity? That is, this is what we learned: The hide did not leave the sanctity of peace-offerings; and it proves that the sanctity of the second tithe and the sanctity of the price of peace-offerings took effect upon the hide, and this is difficult for Rabbi Ami, who holds that the two sanctities do not take effect simultaneously!?

And we answer:

it was stated concerning it

that Mishna:

Rav said:

It does not acquire

the sanctity of the value of

peace-offerings, and what is “

the hide did not become unconsecrated”

which apparently implies that it has the sanctity of peace-offerings? It is not to say that the hide did not leave the sanctity of peace-offerings, but rather

this is what it says: It is not subject to the rule of the hide becoming unconsecrated,

that is: The wild animal is not subject to the rule of peace-offerings by which the hide leaves the sanctity of the second tithe; and although in the case of an animal for peace-offerings the hide becomes unconsecrated from the sanctity of the second tithe, nevertheless in the case of a wild animal for peace-offerings it does not have this law.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that the hide did not become unconsecrated from the sanctity of the second tithe!?

Rabba said: It was made like one who purchases

with second-tithe money

an ox for plowing,

and not for eating, so that the hide does not become unconsecrated from the sanctity of the second tithe.

It was stated: One who designates second-tithe money for peace-offerings:

Rabbi Yohanan said: It acquires.

Rabbi Elazar said: It does not acquire.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says

“the second tithe

is

the property of an ordinary person,”

everyone agrees that it acquires.

When they disagree, it is according to Rabbi Meir, who says

“the second tithe

is

the property of the Most High”;

and this is their dispute:

the one who says: It does not acquire, follows Rabbi Meir.

А тот, кто сказал: «приобретается»,

And the one who says: It acquires,

holds:

since the second tithe is offered as peace-offerings,

since peace-offerings are offered from the second tithe,

when he designates it, it too is designated,

when he designates the sanctity of the value of peace-offerings in the second-tithe money, the sanctity takes hold in it.

It was objected

from a beraita in which we learned:

a. One who redeems second tithe, or something purchased with money of the second tithe, adds a fifth.

b. One who redeems consecrated things adds a fifth.

c.

One who designates second-tithe money for peace-offerings

the sanctity of peace-offerings takes hold in them upon the sanctity of the second tithe that they contain, and

when he redeems them,

he

adds two fifths to them:

one for the consecrated property, and one for the second tithe,

for there are two sanctities in the money—

And it is explained that he can designate second-tithe money for peace-offerings, and this is difficult for Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Elazar, who hold that he cannot!?

And we answer:

Do you understand—

this beraita—

that it is the view of everyone!?

No; rather,

who is this? It is Rabbi Yehuda,

according to whose view he certainly can designate second-tithe money for peace-offerings.

Mishna:

In the preceding Mishna it was explained that one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanksgiving-offering,” shall bring it from unconsecrated property and not from the second tithe; and in our Mishna the source for this is explained:

From where is it derived concerning one who says

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanksgiving-offering”

that he may bring it only from unconsecrated property?

The verse states [

Deuteronomy 16:2]: “

And you shall slaughter the Passover-offering to Hashem

your God, sheep and cattle.”

But does the Passover-offering not come only from sheep and goats,

and does it not come from cattle? And

if so, what is the purpose of saying

“sheep and cattle”?

To compare everything that comes from sheep and cattle—

that is, all animal-offerings—

to the Passover-offering,

to teach:

Just as the Passover-offering,

which is

a matter of obligation, and comes only from unconsecrated property,

as the source for this will be explained in the Gemara,

so too every matter of obligation comes only from unconsecrated property.

Вот, на мне благодарственная жертва»

Therefore, one who says

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanksgiving-offering”

or who says

“It is incumbent upon me to bring peace-offerings,”

since

these

come as an obligation

to fulfill his vow,

he shall not bring them

from them

except from unconsecrated property.

And the libations

of the thanksgiving-offering and the peace-offerings

in every place,

that is, even if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring them from the second tithe,”

he shall not bring them

from them

except from unconsecrated property,

for the libations are entirely for the altar, and the second tithe was not given for this.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The purpose of comparing everything that comes from sheep or cattle to the Paschal offering is this: just as the Paschal offering is something one is obligated to bring and may be brought only from non-sacred funds, so too anything that one is obligated to bring may be brought only from non-sacred funds. The Gemara asks:

And from where do we know this concerning the Paschal offering itself,

that it may be brought only from non-sacred funds, so that you can compare all other offerings to it?

And we answer: We derive the law concerning the Paschal offering itself from the following source:

it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Paschal offering” is stated concerning the offering in Egypt,

and “Paschal offering” is stated concerning the offering for all generations,

that is, we were commanded to offer a Paschal offering in Egypt and for all generations, and these two offerings can be used to derive laws from one another:

Just as the Paschal offering mentioned with regard to Egypt was brought only from non-sacred funds,

since they did not yet have second tithe, as they became obligated in it only after they entered the Land of Israel,

so too the Paschal offering mentioned with regard to all generations may be brought only from non-sacred funds.

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

Can one derive

the law of the Paschal offering for all generations, which

can

be brought from second tithe,

from

the Paschal offering in Egypt,

which could not

be brought from second tithe, since second tithe did not yet exist!?

Rabbi Eliezer said to

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Although it could not, it is nevertheless a strong proof, and we can derive the law from it;

that is, one may indeed derive a law concerning something possible from something impossible, since in the end the Paschal offering in Egypt was not brought from second tithe.

Rabbi Akiva then returned and presented a different argument,

meaning that Rabbi Akiva raised another difficulty against deriving the law of the Paschal offering for all generations from the Paschal offering in Egypt:

As for the Paschal offering in Egypt,

which was brought only from non-sacred funds,

that is because it does not require the placing of its blood and its portions

on the altar,

because they were commanded only to place the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and the entire offering was eaten.