## Menachot Daf 102b

###### Menachot 102b:1
[Menachot 102b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:1)

יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יַקְרִיב, שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא זֶה הֲרֵי הוּא בָּא עַל חֵטְא אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
it is treated as a guilt offering that was disqualified and it **should graze until it becomes blemished, and** then **it is sold, and its money** that is received from the sale is **allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** It **should be sacrificed** in its current state, **since if it does not come** to atone **for this sin, it will come for a different sin,** as he certainly committed some sin of which he is unaware.


###### Menachot 102b:2
[Menachot 102b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:2)

מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט, נוֹדַע לוֹ – הַדָּם יִשָּׁפֵךְ, וְהַבָּשָׂר יִשָּׂרֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If, **after** the provisional guilt offering **was slaughtered, it became known to him** that he had not sinned, **the blood** collected in a cup to sprinkle on the altar **should be spilled** into the Temple courtyard drain **and the meat should be burned** in the place of burning, in accordance with the *halakhot* of a disqualified offering.


###### Menachot 102b:3
[Menachot 102b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:3)

נִזְרַק הַדָּם – הַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס – יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **the blood was** already **sprinkled** on the altar when it became known to him that he had not sinned, **the meat** of the offering **is eaten** by the priests in the normal manner. **And Rabbi Yosei says: Even** if he discovered that he had not sinned while **the blood** was still **in the cup,** it is **sprinkled** on the altar **and the meat is eaten.**


###### Menachot 102b:4
[Menachot 102b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:4)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק – כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** in explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: **Rabbi Yosei stated** this ruling **in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says** that for **any** blood **that stands to be sprinkled** on the altar, **it is as if** it has already been **sprinkled.** Therefore, once the blood is in the cup and is ready to be sprinkled, the meat is permitted as though the blood already had been sprinkled. This statement contradicts Rav Ashi’s opinion that with regard to the status of the meat as food, an offering whose blood stands to be sprinkled is not necessarily considered as though it has already been sprinkled.


###### Menachot 102b:5
[Menachot 102b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:5)

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא? אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּקָסָבַר כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַפְּסוּלִין לְכַתְּחִילָּה לִיקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Is that the reason** for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion? They **say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, that this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei:** His reasoning is **that he holds** that **a service vessel sanctifies disqualified** offerings **to be sacrificed** on the altar ***ab initio*,** and in this case the blood was already in the service vessel.


###### Menachot 102b:6
[Menachot 102b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: מִדְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי, כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִשְׂרוֹף נָמֵי כְּשָׂרוּף דָּמֵי – נוֹתָר וּפָרָה אַמַּאי מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין? עַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא נִינְהוּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חִיבַּת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מַכְשַׁרְתָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Since Rabbi Shimon said** that for **any** blood **that stands to be sprinkled** on the altar it **is as if** it has already been **sprinkled,** and for **any** item **that stands to be burned** it **is as if** it is already **burned, why** does he hold, as the Gemara mentioned previously (101b), that meat from an offering that is **leftover, and the** meat of a red **heifer** that is not yet burned on its pyre, **are** both **susceptible to the ritual impurity of food,** since there was a time that they were fit for consumption by the priests? **They are merely dust,** as they stand to be burned, and therefore should no longer retain the status of food. Rav Kahana **said to** Rav Ashi in response: Nevertheless, **regard for the sanctity** of sacred property **renders them susceptible** to the impurity of food.


###### Menachot 102b:7
[Menachot 102b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: נְהִי דְּמַהְנְיָא לְהוּ חִיבַּת הַקּוֹדֶשׁ לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי דְּגוּפֵיהּ, לִיקְּרוֹיֵי טָמֵא נָמֵי, לְמִימְנֵי בֵּיהּ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Granted that the regard for the sanctity** of sacred property **is effective** in order **to disqualify the** meat **itself** if it becomes impure, but is it **also considered impure** to the extent **that** one **counts first- and second-**degree with regard to it, as indicated by the language: Susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? Accordingly, if the meat came into contact with a primary source of impurity, it would have first-degree impurity and it would subsequently transfer second-degree impurity to an item that comes into contact with it.


###### Menachot 102b:8
[Menachot 102b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:8)

תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: צָרִיד שֶׁל מְנָחוֹת, מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי, אוֹ אֵין מוֹנִין בּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If that were the case, one could **resolve** the dilemma **that Reish Lakish raises:** With regard to **a dry portion of** flour taken from one of the **meal offerings** that has not come into contact with a liquid and is therefore susceptible to impurity due only to regard for its sanctity, does one **count first- and second-**degree impurity **with it, or** does one **not count first- and second-**degree impurity **with it?** Since Reish Lakish’s inquiry is unresolved, presumably the same uncertainty applies here.


###### Menachot 102b:9
[Menachot 102b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:9)

כִּי מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן – דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **When Reish Lakish raises the dilemma,** it is with regard to the status of the dry mass of the meal offering **by Torah law,** as consecrated items are burned only when rendered impure by Torah law. **When we said** that leftover meat and the meat of the red heifer are susceptible to the impurity of food, we were inquiring about the status of the leftover meat and of the red heifer **by rabbinic law,** and therefore nothing can be derived from the dilemma raised by Reish Lakish.


###### Menachot 102b:10
[Menachot 102b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּמַחֲבַת״ וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, ״בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת״ וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת – מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא, וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring a meal offering prepared **in** a shallow **pan, and he brought** a meal offering prepared **in a deep pan** instead; or if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared **in a deep pan, and he brought** a meal offering prepared **in** a shallow **pan** instead, the meal offering **that he brought, he brought** as a voluntary meal offering, **but he has not fulfilled his obligation** that he undertook with his vow and he must therefore bring another meal offering.


###### Menachot 102b:11
[Menachot 102b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:11)

״זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת״, וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת; ״בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת״, וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת – הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he said: **This** tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering **to bring in** a shallow **pan, and he brought** it prepared **in a deep pan** instead; or if he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring **in a deep pan, and he brought** a meal offering prepared **in** a shallow **pan, this** offering **is not valid,** because he did not fulfill what he had stated concerning that tenth of an ephah of flour.


###### Menachot 102b:12
[Menachot 102b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:12)

הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד״, וְהֵבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, ״בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים״, וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד – מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא, וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **one who says:** It is incumbent **upon me to bring** one meal offering of **two tenths** of an ephah **in one vessel, and he** divided it and **brought** it **in two vessels,** removing a handful from each; or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenths of an ephah for two meal offerings **in two vessels, and he brought** one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah **in one vessel** and removed one handful from it, then the meal offering **that he brought, he brought** as a voluntary meal offering, **but he has not fulfilled his obligation.**


###### Menachot 102b:13
[Menachot 102b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:13)

״אֵלּוּ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד״, וְהֵבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים; ״בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים״, וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he says: **These** two tenths of an ephah before me are a meal offering **in one vessel, and he** divided them and **brought** them **in two vessels,** removing a handful from each; or if he says: These tenths of an ephah are two meal offerings **in two vessels, and he brought** them **in one vessel,** both of **these** offerings **are not valid,** because in both cases he deviated from the number of handfuls that he vowed to remove.


###### Menachot 102b:14
[Menachot 102b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:14)

״הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד״, וְהֵבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״בִּכְלִי אֶחָד נָדַרְתָּ״. הִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים – פְּסוּלִין, בִּכְלִי אֶחָד – כְּשֵׁרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of one who says: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring a meal offering of **two tenths** of an ephah **in one vessel, and he** divided them and **brought** them **in two vessels,** and others **said to him: You vowed** to bring a meal offering **in one vessel,** then if **he sacrificed** the two tenths of an ephah **in two vessels** they are **not valid** even as voluntary meal offerings, and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill his obligation. His failure to respond and explain that it was not his intention to fulfill his vow with this offering indicates that he does intend to fulfill his vow with it. Since he deviated from his vow, the offering is not valid. If he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah **in one vessel** after he was reminded, it is **valid,** as he fulfilled his vow.


###### Menachot 102b:15
[Menachot 102b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:15)

״הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים״, וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים נָדַרְתָּ״. הִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים – כְּשֵׁרִין, נְתָנוֹ לִכְלִי אֶחָד – כִּשְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, in a case where one says: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring two meal offerings totaling **two tenths** of an ephah **in two vessels, and he brought** it all **in one vessel,** and others **said to him: You vowed** to bring meal offerings **in two vessels,** then if **he sacrificed** the two tenths of an ephah **in two vessels** as he had originally vowed, they are **valid.** If **he placed it** all **in one vessel,** its halakhic status is **like** that of **two meal offerings that were intermingled** prior to removal of the handfuls. Therefore, if one can remove a handful from each meal offering in and of itself, they are valid. If not, they are not valid, as the Gemara explained on 23a.


###### Menachot 102b:16
[Menachot 102b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** וּצְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna cites cases where one vowed to bring a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan and instead brought one prepared in a deep pan and vice versa, as well as cases where one vowed to bring two tenths of an ephah in one vessel and instead brought them in two vessels and vice versa. In all these cases, the offering is accepted but he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** for the mishna to mention both types of changes from the initial vow.


###### Menachot 102b:17
[Menachot 102b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:17)

דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר ״בְּמַחֲבַת״ וְקָא מַיְיתֵי בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּמַחֲבַת, וְאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת, אֵימָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָמֵי יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is necessary **because had** the *tanna* **taught us** only **this first** case, one might think that perhaps this individual does not fulfill his obligation **because he said: In** a shallow **pan, and he brought** it instead **in a deep pan. But here, where** he changes the number of offerings but **both this,** the offering specified in his vow, **and that,** the offering that he actually brought, are **in** a shallow **pan, or both this and that** are **in a deep pan, I would say** that **he has indeed fulfilled his vow,** as the difference in number of offerings brought is not significant. Therefore, the *tanna* taught the second case as well, to teach that the change in the number is in fact significant.


###### Menachot 102b:18
[Menachot 102b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:18)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא פָּלֵיג לַהּוֹ, אֲבָל הָתָם דְּלָא פָּלֵיג בֵּיהּ – אֵימָא לָא. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **had** the *tanna* **taught us** only **this** case, where there was a discrepancy between the number of offerings he vowed to bring and the number he actually brought, one might think that he does not fulfill his obligation only **because he divided** the two tenths of an ephah that were supposed to be brought together. **But there, where** he changed the type of pan but did **not divide** the flour to be used, **I would say** that it is **not** a case where he failed to fulfill his obligation. Therefore, it was **necessary** for the *tanna* to teach that where he changes the type of pan, he does not, in fact, fulfill his obligation.


###### Menachot 102b:19
[Menachot 102b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא – הֵבִיא, וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָמֵי יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* a case similar to that of the mishna: If one brings a meal offering somewhat different from that which he vowed to bring, then the one **that he brought, he brought** as a voluntary meal offering, **but he has not fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon says: He has even fulfilled his vow,** as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the type of pan or the number of offerings is not significant.


###### Menachot 102b:20
[Menachot 102b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:20)

זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת – וְהָא תַּנְיָא: לֹא קִידְּשׁוּם כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא קִידְּשׁוּם לִיקְרַב, אֲבָל קִידְּשׁוּם לִיפָּסֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if he says: **This** tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering **to bring in** a shallow **pan,** and he brought a meal offering prepared in a deep pan instead, it is not valid. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that in this case **the service vessel does not consecrate** the flour, since he brought it in a different service vessel than he had vowed? Therefore, the meal offering is still non-sacred and can be used. The Gemara answers that the *baraita* should be understood according to that which **Abaye says:** Under such circumstances, the service vessel **does not sanctify them with regard to being sacrificed** on the altar, **but** it does **sanctify them** in order **to become disqualified.**


###### Menachot 102b:21
[Menachot 102b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/102b:21)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye says** an additional comment about the previous case: The Sages **taught** in the mishna that in the case of a change in the type of meal offering, the meal offering is not valid