משנה: נִטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְתִיפָּדֶה. וְאִם מִשֶּׁקָּדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְתִישָּׂרֵף. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּנְחוֹתֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפוֹת הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵיאָה אֲנִי לָךְ וְשֶׁבָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא טְמֵיאָה וְהָאוֹמֶרֶת אֵינִי שׁוֹתָה וְשֶׁבַּעֲלָהּ אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁקוֹתָהּ וְשֶׁבַּעֲלָהּ בָּא עָלֶיהָ בַדֶּרֶךְ. וְכָל הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים מִנְחוֹתֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפוֹת. MISHNAH: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed167Its holiness is transferred to a sum of money which then is used to buy a replacement offering. The original offering then becomes profane (Mishnah Menaḥot 12:1)... After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned168Outside of the holy precinct, on the burning place organized for invalid sacrifices.. The flour offerings are burned169Even if they are pure and still in the palm-leaf basket. in the following cases: One who says, I am impure for you, or that witnesses declared that she was impure; one who refuses to drink, or whose husband does not want to let her drink, or whose husband slept with her on the road. In addition, the flour offerings of women married to Cohanim are burned170Where it has to be burned is a matter of dispute in the Halakhah..
הלכה: נִטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי כול׳. תַּנֵּי. נִיטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי. הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְתִיפָּדֶה. מִשֶּׁקָּדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי. הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַמְּנָחוֹת וְתִישָּׂרֵף. HALAKHAH: “If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel,” etc. It was stated: If her flour offering became impure before it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be redeemed; after it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, it is treated like all other flour offerings and should be burned171This statement is that of the Mishnah (the one missing word, ואם, is also missing in most mss. of the Babli and of the Maimonides tradition of the Mishnah). The quote seems to be in opposition to statements similar to Tosephta 2:4: “After it was sanctified in a Temple vessel, one has to wait until it spoils and then one takes it out to be burned.”.
וְהָאוֹמֶרֶת. טְמֵיאָה אֲנִי. לֹא כְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֵיהָ הִיא. וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֵיהָ יֵלְכוּ הַמָּעוֹת לְיַם הַמֶּלַח. דַּמְיָיא לְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אִם לְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אֲפִילוּ מִשֶּׁקָדְשָׁה בַכֶּלִי. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָיה. דַּמְיָא לְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ. הַדָּם יִשָּׁפֵךְ וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה. “One who says, I am impure” Is it not like a purification offering whose owners died? And for a purification offering whose owners died, the money should be thrown into the Dead Sea172From the Rome ms. Word missing in the Leiden ms. by an oversight.. It is compared to a hung reparation offering173The sacrifice of a person who worries that possibly he could have sinned, Lev. 5:17–19. Similarly, the offering of the suspected wife is brought for a case of doubt.. If it is compared to a hung reparation offering, even if it was sanctified in a Temple vessel174This is compared to the reparation offering introduced into the Temple courtyard.! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is compared to a hung reparation offering that was slaughtered, as we stated there: “If it became clear to him after it was slaughtered, the blood has to be poured out and the meat has to be taken out to the burning place.175It became clear either that an inadvertent sin was committed, and then a purification offering is required, not a reparation offering, or that no sin was committed, and then no offering is required. In the latter case, since the offering was brought for peace of mind, it certainly was the intention of the person to have a valid sacrifice even in case he did not sin. This differs from the case of a sacrifice brought in error which is treated according to the rules of profane animals introduced in error into the Temple; Mishnah Keritut 6:1–2. (In the Mishnah, there are dissenting opinions that the hung reparation offering is a valid offering in all cases.)
R. Mattaniah compares transferring the offering into the Temple vessel to slaughtering the animal since the transfer enables the priest to offer a fistful on the alter just as slaughter enables the priest to bring the blood to the altar.”
תַּנֵּי. נִיטְמֵאת מִנְחָתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרֵב הַקּוֹמֶץ. מֵתָה הִיא וּמֵת בַּעֲלָהּ. הַשְּׁיֵּרִיים אֲסוּרִין שֶׁעַל סָפֵק בָּאת מִתְּחִילָּתָהּ. כִּיפְּרָה סְפֵיקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ. בָּאוּ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא טְמֵיאָה. בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מִנְחָתָהּ אֲסוּרָה. מַהוּ בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ. בֵּין שֶׁקָּמַץ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא קָמַץ. בֵּין שֶׁהִקְטִיר וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הִקְטִיר. רִבִּי אִילָּא אָמִר. בֵּין שֶׁקָּמַץ וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא קָמַץ בְּשֶלֹּא הִקְטִיר. אֲבָל אִם הִקְטִיר הַשְּׁיֵּרִיים מוּתָּרִין. It was stated: If her offering became impure before the fistful was sacrificed177It is unclear what this sentence implies here. It is obvious that an impure sacrifice is forbidden as sacrifice and as food. In the Babli (note 178), the entire text of the Mishnah is quoted. Therefore, it seems that the sentence is simply a quote from the Mishnah; the note “etc.” is missing.; 178Tosephta 2:5 and Babli 6b. There, the text reads: “If her husband or she died before the fistful was sacrificed, the rest is forbidden. But if the fistful was sacrificed and then her husband or she died, the rest is permitted because it was brought from the start to resolve a doubt. Her doubt was atoned for and went away.” For most flour offerings, a fistful is offered on the altar, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim under the rules of most holy food. if she died or her husband died, the rest is forbidden because it was brought from the start to resolve a doubt. Her doubt was atoned for and went away179This clause makes more sense in the Tosephta/Babli text, that the rest is permitted to the Cohanim if it became permitted by the rules, i. e., that the fistful was duly put into the fire on top of the altar. It is reasonable that a permitted remainder cannot retroactively become forbidden since the doubt of adultery either was resolved by the procedure or became moot by the death of one of the parties.. If there came witnesses declaring that she was impure180Tosephta 2:5. Cf. Note 161; then there no longer is any doubt; the procedure becomes inactive and the offering should not be brought., in any case her offering is forbidden. What means “in any case”? Whether the fistful was taken or not, whether it was sacrificed or not. Rebbi Hila said, whether the fistful was taken or not as long as it was not sacrificed, but if it was sacrificed the rest is permitted181Once it was food for the Cohanim it cannot lose that status except by impurity..
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלַּכֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת. וְהַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַשְּׁיֵרִיים קְרֵיבִין לְעַצְמָן. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דּוֹרְשִׁין. וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה. רַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. הֲרֵי הִיא כְמִנְחַת נִדְבָתוֹ. מַה מִנְחַת נִדְבָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה בְבָלוּל. אַף זוֹ קְרֵיבָה בְבָלוּל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּכֹּהֵן כַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מַה עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּיִּשְׂרָאֵל נִקְמֶצֶת אַף זוֹ נִקְמֶצֶת. אִי מַה זוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אַף זוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל. אִילֵּין שְׁיֵרִיים מִשֵּׁם מַה הֵן בָּאִין. מִשֵּׁם קוֹמֶץ מִשֵּׁם שְׁיֵרִיים. אִין תֵּימַר. מְשׁוּם קוֹמֶץ. אֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָן בַּלַּיְלָה וְאֵינוֹ נוֹתְנָן לְאַחַר מִיתָה וְאֵינוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב לָהֶן. וְאִין תֵּימַר. מִשּׁוּם שְׁיֵרִיים. נוֹתְנָן בַּלַּיְלָה וְנוֹתְנָן לָאַחַר מִיתָה. מַהוּ שֶׁיְּחַשֵׁב לָהֶם. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַשְּׁיֵרִיים מִתְפַּזְּרִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַדֶּשֶׁן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּדֶשֶׁן שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן. כְּבַר אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָין לְדֶשֶׁן שֶׁלְּמַעֲלָן תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָין לְדֶשֶׁן שֶׁלְּמַטָּן. הָדָא אָמְרָה. נוֹתְנָם בַּלַּיְלָה וְנוֹתְנָן לְאַחַר מִיתָה וּמְחַשֵׁב לָהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אֵינוֹ מְחַשֵׁב לָהֶן. שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לֹא לָאֲכִילַת אָדָם וְלֹא לָאֲכִילַת מִזְבֵּחַ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. הַךְ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַּת אָבִיו אוֹ בְשִׁיטַּת חֲכָמִים. אִין בְּשִׁיטַּת אָבִיו. יִקָּרֵב לְמַעֲלָן. אִין בְּשִׁיטַּת חֲכָמִים. לֹא יִקְמוֹץ. בְּשִׁיטַּת אָבִיו הוּא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּכֹּהֵן כַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מַה עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלַּיִּשְׂרָאֵל נִקְמֶצֶת אַף זוֹ נִקְמֶצֶת. אִי מַה זוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אַף זוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל. וּתְהֵא כָלִיל. וְלֹא תֵאָכֵל הִיקְשִׁתֵיהּ. לֹא הִקְשִׁתֵיהּ לְכָלִיל תָּקְטָר. We have stated there182Mishnah Menaḥot 6:1. In that Mishnah, the anonymous rabbis hold that the entire offering is burned on the altar in one piece.: “Rebbi Simeon says, a fistful is taken from the sinner’s flour offering183The flour offering of the very poor person who either refused to testify, was unmindful of his impurity in dealing with the Temple and its appurtenances, or had forgotten an oath he had imposed on himself, Lev.5:11–13. of a Cohen. The fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is sacrificed separately.” Both of them explained the same verse: “It shall be the Cohen’s as a flour offering184Lev. 5:13. Since one speaks of a flour offering, it is diffult to understand why “it should be like a flour offering”..” The rabbis say, it is like his voluntary flour offering. Since his voluntary flour offering is brought entire, that one also is brought entire185Voluntary flour offerings are described in Lev. 2:1–11. It is stipulated in Lev. 6:16 that no part of a priest’s flour offering may be eaten. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5) disagrees with the Yerushalmi; it interprets Lev. 6:16 to deal mainly with the Cohen’s obligatory offerings and only in a derivative fashion with voluntary offerings.. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha186The amount of flour required for the purification sacrifice, Lev. 5:11. An epha was 3 seah. of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten187This shows that the offering of a Cohen cannot simply be compared to that of an Israel since the result would contradict biblical precepts.? The verse188Lev. 6:16. says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” The rest, under which category is it brought, under the rules of a fistful or under the rules of remainders189This question is about the opinion of R. Simeon. For the rabbis, the offering is brought to the altar in one piece and burned as a sacrifice. But for R. Simeon, since the fistful is brought to the altar as a sacrifice, it makes sense to inquire whether the rest is burned under the same rules or not. If the same rules were to apply, it is difficult to see why there should be two distinct offerings.? If you want to say, under the rules of a fistful, one cannot bring them during the night, one cannot bring them after death, and he is forbidden to think about them190Sacrifices can be offered in the Temple only between the morning and evening daily sacrifices. Remainders of sacrifices for which blood and fat were offered during daytime can be brought to the altar during the night.
A sacrifice can be brought only during one’s lifetime.
In talmudic theory (Mishnah Zebaḥim 2:2), a sacrifice is either valid or invalid from the start. Therefore, the biblical prohibitions of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר (Lev. 19:5–7) are interpreted to mean that the sacrifice becomes permanently prohibited if any of the prescribed actions in the Temple were executed with the idea that the meat should be eaten out of its allotted time or place. This means that the Cohen, by thinking to eat from the rest of the offering the next day or outside the Temple courtyard while dealing with the fistful taken for the altar, will invalidate the offering. This danger is restricted to the fistful, whose correct treatment will permit the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim. What these think while eating the rest is irrelevant; the only actions which are invalidated by wrong thoughts are those on which something else depends, either that part of the sacrifice becomes permitted as food, or that people are purified or otherwise enabled by it.. If you want to say, under the rules of a remainder, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death. Is he forbidden to think about them? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon191While both mss. read here “R. Simeon ben Eleazar”, the continuation of the paragraph shows that the author must be R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon. The Babli, 23a/b, and the Tosephta, 2:6, read: Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest is dispersed. says, the fistful is sacrificed separately and the rest dispersed over the ashes. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, where are we holding? If the upper ashes192The ashes on the top of the altar are hot and spreading the offering out means burning it on the altar. If that were the meaning, R. Eleazar’s position is that of his father and does not have to be mentioned., Rebbi Simeon already said it. If it cannot refer to the upper ashes, let it refer to the lower ashes193The ashes removed from the altar to the floor of the courtyard (Lev.6:2).. That means, one can bring them during the night, one can bring them after death, and he can think about them194Anything not destined for the altar cannot permit anything else. Therefore, any wrong intention the Cohen may have while depositing the rest on the ashes is irrelevant; he may think what he wishes. Similarly, since the burning of the fistful permits the consumption (or dispersion) of the remainder by the Cohanim, if the owner of the offering dies after the burning of the fistful it cannot have any influence on the status of the rest.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he is forbidden to think about them since they are not qualified as food either for humans or for the altar195The argument of the previous Note is valid only for the offering of an Israel, for whom the fistful really permits the remainder to the Cohanim. But for the offering of a Cohen, the offering of the fistful according to R. Eleazar ben R. Simon does not permit anything, not even to bring the rest onto the altar. Therefore, the sacrificing of the fistful cannot lift the rules of פִּגּוּל and נוֹתָר for the Cohen’s offering.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon follow the rules of his father or the rules of the rabbis? According to the rules of his father, it should be brought on top [of the altar]. According to the rules of the rabbis, why should he take a fistful196They require that the entire offering be burned, cf. Note 182.? He follows his father’s rules. Rebbi Simeon says, the tenth of an epha of a Cohen is like the tenth of an epha of an Israel. Since a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of an Israel, so a fistful is taken from the tenth of an epha of a Cohen. Maybe, since this one is eaten, the other is also eaten? The verse says, “Any flour offering of a Cohen shall be totally burned; it shall not be eaten.” Then it should be burned totally! You bound it to “it shall not be eaten”; you did not bind it to “it has to be sacrificed in its entirety.197R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon accepts the comparison of the obligatory to the voluntary offering of a Cohen, called “binding (הֶקֵּשׁ) of one verse to the other”; it is only to modify the rule of Lev. 6:16, which deals with voluntary offerings, not that of Lev.6:15, which deals with an obligatory offering of another kind.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. רָאָה רִבִּי דַעֲתּוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְשָׁנָה כְיוֹצֵא בוֹ. רִבִּי בָא בַּר כֹּהֵן בָּעֵי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלָמָּה לִי כְרִבִּי לְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲפִילוּ כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָבִיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִיכּוּל בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְאֵין שְׂרֵיפָה בְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. הָתִיב רִבִּי חֲנִינָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. וְהָא תַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה וּפְלִיג. לִיקָּרֵב כָּלִיל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה מִפְּנֵי שׁוּתָפוּתָהּ שֶׁלָּאִשָּׁה. לְהֵיאָכֵל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה מִפְּנֵי שׁוּתָפוּתוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. רִבִּי רָאָה דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרִבִּי חִיָיה רוֹבָה רָאָה דַעְתּוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָבִיו. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon and taught accordingly198He holds that the last sentence of the Mishnah can be explained only following R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: Why Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon? Even following his father, Rebbi Simeon! He said to him, “eating” is on the altar, “burning” is not on the altar199Rabbinic usage follows biblical usage in this case. The burning of sacrifices on the altar is never called “burning”, but “eating (by the fire)”, cf. Lev. 6:3. On the other hand, the burning outside the Temple is always called “burning”, cf. Lev. 4:12,21; 16:27. If the Mishnah uses the expression “burning”, it implies that this cannot be on the altar.. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya disagree: “It cannot be burned completely because of the wife’s part200The offering for a Cohen’s suspected wife. The first clause is in Tosephta, 2:6. For the intelligible full text of this discussion, cf. Chapter 2:1, Note 7 ff.; it cannot be eaten because of the husband’s part.” He said to him, Rebbi accepted the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya accepted the opinion of the latter’s father Rebbi Simeon.