## Menachot Daf 49a

###### Menachot 49a:1
[Menachot 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:1)

תְּנָא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna*** of that *baraita* **relies on** the phrase: **“This is the law of the burnt offering [*ha’ola*]:** It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning” (Leviticus 6:2), a seemingly superfluous general phrase which is interpreted homiletically to **include** the *halakha* that any item that ascends [*ola*] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. The verse is the actual source for the *halakha* of the *baraita*, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling. Accordingly, the *baraita* does not contradict the opinion of Rav Shimi bar Ashi.


###### Menachot 49a:2
[Menachot 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:2)

תָּנֵי רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם אֵילִים – כְּשֵׁרִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב: עָלוּ וְעָלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep of *Shavuot*. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught** a *baraita* **before Rav:** In a case of **the** two **sheep of *Shavuot* where one slaughtered them for the sake of rams** and not for their own sake, **they are valid** offerings, **but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner,** i.e., the community, to sacrifice these offerings. **Rav said to** Rabba bar bar Ḥana: That is not so; rather, the sheep **certainly satisfy** the obligation of the community.


###### Menachot 49a:3
[Menachot 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:3)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בִּכְסָבוּר אֵילִים, וּשְׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם כְּבָשִׂים, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָשִׂים לְשׁוּם כְּבָשִׂים נִשְׁחֲטוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said: The statement of Rav is reasonable in** a case where **one thought** that they were **rams** when he slaughtered them, **and** nevertheless **slaughtered them for the sake of lambs.** In such a case, it makes sense that they satisfy the community’s obligation **since** the **lambs were slaughtered for the sake of lambs.**


###### Menachot 49a:4
[Menachot 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:4)

אֲבָל כְּסָבוּר אֵילִים, וּשְׁחָטָן לְשׁוּם אֵילִים – לָא. עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת הָוְיָא עֲקִירָה; וְרַבָּה אָמַר: עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת לָא הָוְיָא עֲקִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a case where **he thought** that they were **rams** when he slaughtered them, **and** therefore **slaughtered them for the sake of rams,** they do **not** satisfy the community’s obligation, even though they were actually lambs. This is due to the fact that the **erroneous uprooting** of the status of an offering **constitutes uprooting,** despite the fact that it was done in error. **But Rabba said:** The **erroneous uprooting** of the status of an offering **does not constitute uprooting.**


###### Menachot 49a:5
[Menachot 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹתְבִינַן אַשְּׁמַעְתִּין, הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּיגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ מְזִידִין – חַיָּיבִין, הָא שׁוֹגְגִין – פְּטוּרִין, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: פִּיגּוּלָן פִּיגּוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We raise an objection to our** own ruling concerning this ***halakha*** from that which was taught in a mishna (*Gittin* 54a): In a case of **priests who disqualified** an offering **through improper intention in the Temple,** by expressing, while sacrificing the offering, the intention to eat it after the appropriate time, if they did so **intentionally, they are liable** to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering. It follows, **therefore,** that if the priests did so **unintentionally they are exempt. And** it **is taught concerning this** case in a *baraita*: Even though they slaughtered it with improper intent unintentionally, **their** act of **improper intention** renders the offering ***piggul*,** despite the fact that they are exempt from paying damages.


###### Menachot 49a:6
[Menachot 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:6)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָדַע דְּחַטָּאת הִיא, וְקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בַּהּ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים – הַאי שׁוֹגְגִין?! מְזִידִין הָווּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** in which this is the *halakha*? **If we say** that it is referring to a case where the priest **knew that** the offering **was a sin offering,** which is eaten for only one day and one night, **and** nevertheless **he intended** the offering to be **for the sake of a peace offering,** which is eaten for two days and one night, and thereby his intention was that it be eaten after its appropriate time, is **this** considered **an unintentional** act by the priests? Certainly **they were** acting **intentionally.**


###### Menachot 49a:7
[Menachot 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:7)

אֶלָּא לָאו דִּכְסָבוּר שְׁלָמִים הוּא, וְקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בַּהּ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים, וְקָתָנֵי: פִּיגּוּלָן פִּיגּוּל, אַלְמָא עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת הָוְיָא עֲקִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case where the offering was a sin offering, which is eaten for only one day and one night, and the priest **thought that it was a peace offering and** therefore **he intended** the offering to be **for the sake of a peace offering,** which is eaten for two days and one night, and thereby his intention was that it be eaten after its appropriate time? **And** with regard to this case the *tanna* **taught: Their** act of **improper intention** renders the offering ***piggul*. Apparently,** this proves that the **erroneous uprooting** of the status of an offering **constitutes uprooting,** contrary to the ruling of Rabba.


###### Menachot 49a:8
[Menachot 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם דְּיָדַע דְּחַטָּאת הִיא, וְקָא מְחַשֵּׁב בַּהּ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים, וּבְאוֹמֵר ״מוּתָּר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: There is no objection from this *baraita*, because **actually** it is referring to a case **where** the priest **knew that it** was **a sin offering and** nevertheless **he intended** the offering to be **for the sake of a peace offering,** and his uprooting was done intentionally. Nevertheless, the *baraita* refers to the priests as acting unintentionally because it is referring to circumstances **where** the priest **says,** i.e., he mistakenly thinks, that it is **permitted** to sacrifice the offering with this intent.


###### Menachot 49a:9
[Menachot 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:9)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כׇּל מְנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרוֹת, וְעָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** to Rabba’s opinion that erroneous uprooting of the status of an offering does not constitute uprooting. A *baraita* teaches that **Rabbi Shimon says: All meal offerings** from which **the handful was removed not for their sake are** entirely **valid, and have** even **satisfied the obligation of the owner,** unlike animal offerings slaughtered not for their sake, which do not satisfy the obligation of the owner.


###### Menachot 49a:10
[Menachot 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:10)

שֶׁאֵין הַמְּנָחוֹת דּוֹמוֹת לַזְּבָחִים, שֶׁהַקּוֹמֵץ מַחֲבַת לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא מַחֲבַת, חֲרֵבָה לְשׁוּם בְּלוּלָה – מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ שֶׁהִיא חֲרֵבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **because meal offerings are not similar to animal offerings. As,** in the case of **one who removes a handful** from a meal offering prepared in a shallow **pan for the sake of** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan, its mode of preparation proves** that **it** is a shallow-**pan** meal offering and not a deep-pan meal offering. Since a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan is hard and one prepared in a deep pan is soft, his intention is plainly false. Similarly, if one removes a handful from **a dry** meal offering, the meal offering of a sinner, which has no oil, **for the sake of** a meal offering **mixed** with oil, his intention is plainly false, as **its mode of preparation proves** that **it** is **a dry** meal offering.


###### Menachot 49a:11
[Menachot 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:11)

אֲבָל בִּזְבָחִים אֵינוֹ כֵּן, שְׁחִיטָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, קַבָּלָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן, זְרִיקָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to animal offerings** this **is not so.** There is **one** mode of **slaughter for all of** the offerings, **one** mode of **collection** of the blood **for all of them,** and **one** mode of **sprinkling for all of them.** Since the only factor that distinguishes between one type of offering and another is the intention of the individuals involved in its sacrifice, their intention is significant. Consequently, if one of the sacrificial rites is performed for the sake of the wrong type of offering, the offering does not satisfy its owner’s obligation.


###### Menachot 49a:12
[Menachot 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:12)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיָדַע דְּמַחֲבַת הִיא, וְקָא קָמֵיץ לָהּ לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת – כִּי מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין, מַאי הָוֵי? הָא מִיעְקָר קָא עָקַיר לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** to which Rabbi Shimon is referring? **If we say** that he is referring to a case **where** the priest **knew that** the meal offering **was** prepared in a shallow **pan, and** nevertheless **he removed a handful** from it **for the sake of** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan,** then although **its mode of preparation proves** that it was prepared in a shallow pan, **what of it?** In any case **he is** consciously **uprooting** its status as a shallow-pan meal offering, changing it to a deep-pan meal offering by means of his intention when he removes the handful.


###### Menachot 49a:13
[Menachot 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:13)

אֶלָּא לָאו דִּכְסָבוּר מַרְחֶשֶׁת הִיא, וְקָא קָמֵיץ לָהּ לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת, וּטְעָה, דְּהָכָא הוּא דְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ, הָא בְּעָלְמָא עֲקִירָה בְּטָעוּת הָוְיָא עֲקִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** the priest **thought it was** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan and** therefore **removed a handful for the sake of** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan, but he was mistaken,** as it was actually a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan? **It is** specifically **here,** in this case, that Rabbi Shimon rules that the offering remains valid, **since its mode of preparation proves** that **it** is a shallow-pan meal offering, which indicates **that in general, erroneous uprooting** of the status of an offering **constitutes uprooting,** contrary the ruling of Rabba.


###### Menachot 49a:14
[Menachot 49a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: לְעוֹלָם דְּיָדַע דְּמַחֲבַת הִיא, וְקָא קָמֵיץ לַהּ לְשׁוּם מַרְחֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira, in response to his objection: This objection to Rabba’s opinion is inconclusive, because one can explain that the *baraita* is **actually** referring to a case **where** the priest **knew that** the meal offering **was** prepared in a shallow **pan, and** nevertheless **he removed a handful for the sake of** a meal offering prepared in **a deep pan.**


###### Menachot 49a:15
[Menachot 49a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:15)

וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ: כִּי מַעֲשֶׂיהָ מוֹכִיחִין עָלֶיהָ מַאי הָוֵי? רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מַחְשָׁבָה דְּלָא מִינַּכְרָא – פְּסַל רַחֲמָנָא, מַחְשָׁבָה דְּמִינַּכְרָא – לָא פְּסַל רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **that which you said** in your question: Although **its mode of preparation proves** that **it** is prepared in a shallow pan, **what of it,** i.e., since he is consciously uprooting its identity, how can it satisfy its owner’s obligation? Abaye answers that **Rava** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as Rava says: The Merciful One disqualifies** an offering due to improper **intent that is not recognizably** false, i.e., when the physical properties of the offering itself do not prove that the intent is mistaken. **The Merciful One does not disqualify** an offering due to improper **intent that is recognizably** false. Consequently, if one removes a handful from a shallow-pan meal offering for the sake of a deep-pan meal offering, even if he did so consciously, the offering remains valid and satisfies the owner’s obligation.


###### Menachot 49a:16
[Menachot 49a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַתְּמִידִין אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמּוּסָפִין, וְלֹא הַמּוּסָפִין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַתְּמִידִין, וְלֹא הַמּוּסָפִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Failure to sacrifice **the daily offerings does not prevent** sacrifice of **the additional offerings, and** likewise, failure to sacrifice **the additional offerings does not prevent** sacrifice of **the daily offerings. And** failure to sacrifice some of **the additional offerings** on a day when more than one is sacrificed, e.g., if it was both Shabbat and the New Moon, **does not prevent** sacrifice of the **other** additional offerings. If the priests **did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning** as the daily offering, nevertheless, **they should sacrifice** a lamb **in the afternoon** as the daily offering, as failure to sacrifice one daily offering does not prevent sacrifice of the other. In all of these cases, if they failed to sacrifice one offering, they should still sacrifice the other.


###### Menachot 49a:17
[Menachot 49a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ אֲנוּסִין אוֹ שׁוֹגְגִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ מְזִידִין וְלֹא הִקְרִיבוּ כֶּבֶשׂ בַּבּוֹקֶר – לֹא יַקְרִיבוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: When** does this *halakha* apply? It applies **at a time when** the failure to sacrifice the daily morning offering was because **they were** prevented from sacrificing it due to **circumstances beyond their control or** they failed to sacrifice it **unwittingly. But if** the priests acted **intentionally and did not sacrifice a lamb in the morning** as the daily offering, **they should not sacrifice** a lamb **in the afternoon** as the daily offering.


###### Menachot 49a:18
[Menachot 49a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:18)

לֹא הִקְטִירוּ קְטוֹרֶת בַּבּוֹקֶר – יַקְטִירוּ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Incense was burned twice a day, half a measure in the morning and half a measure in the afternoon. If **they did not burn** the half-measure of **incense in the morning, they should burn** the half-measure **in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 49a:19
[Menachot 49a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכוּלָּהּ הָיְתָה קְרֵיבָה בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁאֵין מְחַנְּכִין אֶת מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב אֶלָּא בִּקְטוֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים, וְלֹא מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה אֶלָּא בְּתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר, וְלֹא אֶת הַשּׁוּלְחָן אֶלָּא בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בְּשַׁבָּת, וְלֹא אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבְעָה נֵרוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said: And** in such a case, **the entire** measure **was sacrificed in the afternoon.** The reason for the difference between the daily offerings and the incense is **that** the daily service on a new **golden altar is initiated only with** the burning of **the incense of the spices** in the afternoon, at which time they would burn a full measure. **And the** daily service on a new **altar of the burnt offering,** on which the daily offerings were sacrificed, is initiated **only with the daily morning offering. And** use of a new **Table** was initiated **only with** the arrangement of **the shewbread on Shabbat, and** use of a new **Candelabrum** was initiated **only with** the kindling **of its seven lamps in the afternoon.**


###### Menachot 49a:20
[Menachot 49a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:20)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: צִיבּוּר שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין, אֵי זֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the daily offerings and the additional offerings each do not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. Concerning this, **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda:** In the case of **a community that did not have** the resources to sacrifice both **the daily offerings and the additional offerings, which of them takes precedence** over the other?


###### Menachot 49a:21
[Menachot 49a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:21)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא תְּמִידִין דְּיוֹמֵיהּ וּמוּסָפִין דְּיוֹמֵיהּ – פְּשִׁיטָא תְּמִידִין עֲדִיפִי, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ תָּדִיר וּמְקוּדָּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **What are the circumstances** to which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin is referring? **If we say** that he is referring to a case where the choice is between **the daily offerings of that day and the additional offerings of that** same **day,** it is **obvious** that **the daily offerings are given preference, as** the sacrifice of the daily offerings **is** more **frequent** than the sacrifice of the additional offerings, which are sacrificed only on special occasions, **and** the daily offerings are also **sanctified.**


###### Menachot 49a:22
[Menachot 49a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:22)

אֶלָּא, תְּמִידִין דְּלִמְחַר וּמוּסָפִין דְּהָאִידָּנָא – תְּמִידִין עֲדִיפִי, שֶׁכֵּן תָּדִיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא מוּסָפִין עֲדִיפִי, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ מְקוּדָּשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin must be referring to a case where they have enough animals for the daily offerings of today and also for either **the daily offerings for tomorrow or the additional offerings for today.** In such a case, are **the daily offerings given preference since** their sacrifice is more **frequent? Or perhaps the additional offerings are given preference because they are** considered more **sanctified** because they are sacrificed on a holy day.


###### Menachot 49a:23
[Menachot 49a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:23)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: הַתְּמִידִין אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַמּוּסָפִין, וְלֹא הַמּוּסָפִין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַתְּמִידִין, וְלֹא הַמּוּסָפִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to** Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: The resolution to this dilemma can be derived from that which **you learned** in the mishna: Failure to sacrifice **the daily offerings does not prevent** sacrifice of **the additional offerings, and** likewise, failure to sacrifice **the additional offerings does not prevent** sacrifice of **the daily offerings. And** failure to sacrifice some of **the additional offerings does not prevent** sacrifice of the **other** additional offerings.


###### Menachot 49a:24
[Menachot 49a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:24)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ, וּלְקַדֵּם, וְהָתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר קוֹדֵם לְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ הָעֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What are the circumstances** to which the mishna is referring? **If we say** that it is referring to a case where the Temple treasury **has** all of the animals necessary for both offerings, **and** the only question is **in** terms of sacrificing one **before** the other, **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **that no** sacrifice **should precede** the sacrifice of the **daily offering of morning?** The *baraita* continues: It is derived from that which **the verse states:** “And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereby, it shall not go out; and the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning; **and he shall lay the burnt offering in order on it,** and shall cause the fats of the peace offering to go up in smoke upon it” (Leviticus 6:5).


###### Menachot 49a:25
[Menachot 49a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/49a:25)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הָעֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says** in explanation of this derivation in the *baraita* that the term **“the burnt offering,”** with the definite article, is referring to **the first burnt offering** of the day, which is the daily offering. Consequently, one may not sacrifice the additional offerings before the daily offering.