## Menachot Daf 79a

###### Menachot 79a:1
[Menachot 79a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:1)

שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קָדַשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָדַשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **slaughtered** the thanks offering **and it was discovered** that it is **a blemished** animal, **Rabbi Eliezer says:** The loaves were **consecrated,** and **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The loaves were **not consecrated.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir,** consistent with the dispute appearing in the mishna.


###### Menachot 79a:2
[Menachot 79a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁלֹּא קָדַשׁ, וְעַל חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – שֶׁקָּדַשׁ, וְעַל בַּעַל מוּם – שֶׁלֹּא קָדַשׁ. וְעַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קָדַשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא קָדַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to** a case where **he slaughtered** the thanks offering **and it was discovered** that it is **a *tereifa*,** as all agree **that it was not consecrated; and** they did not disagree **with regard to** a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions **beyond its** designated **time,** as all agree **that it was consecrated; and** they did not disagree **with regard to** a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is **a blemished** animal, as all agree **that it was not consecrated. And with regard to what** case **did they disagree?** They disagree **with regard to** a case where he slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions **outside its** designated **area, as Rabbi Eliezer says:** It **was consecrated, and Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It **was not consecrated.**


###### Menachot 79a:3
[Menachot 79a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: הוֹאִיל וְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ פָּסוּל, וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל, מָה חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – קָדַשׁ, אַף חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – קָדַשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הוֹאִיל וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ פָּסוּל, וּבַעַל מוּם פָּסוּל, מָה בַּעַל מוּם – לֹא קָדַשׁ, אַף חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – לֹא קָדַשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: In explanation of his opinion, **Rabbi Eliezer said: Since** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time is disqualified and** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **outside its** designated **area is disqualified,** it is reasonable that **just as** in the case of intent to partake of it **beyond its time** the loaves **were consecrated, so too** in the case of intent to partake of it **outside its area** the loaves **were consecrated. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Since** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **outside its** designated **area is disqualified and** an offering discovered to be **a blemished** animal **is disqualified,** it is reasonable that **just as** in the case of **a blemished** animal the loaves **were not consecrated, so too** in the case of intent to partake of it **outside its area** the loaves **were not consecrated.**


###### Menachot 79a:4
[Menachot 79a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:4)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אֲנִי דִּמִּיתִיהוּ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, וְאַתָּה דִּמִּיתוֹ לְבַעַל מוּם, נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה – אִם דּוֹמֶה לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מֵחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, אִם דּוֹמֶה לְבַעַל מוּם, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מִבַּעַל מוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I compared** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area **to** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time, and you compared it to** an offering discovered to be **a blemished** animal. **Let us consider to which it is similar. If it is similar to** an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time, we will deduce its** *halakha* **from** that of an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time. If it is similar to** an offering discovered to be **a blemished** animal, **we will deduce its** *halakha* **from** that of an offering discovered to be **a blemished** animal.


###### Menachot 79a:5
[Menachot 79a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:5)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָדוּן: דָּנִין פְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה מִפְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין פְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה מִפְּסוּל הַגּוּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer began to reason: We deduce** the *halakha* with regard to **a disqualification** due to improper **intention from** that of **a disqualification** due to an improper **intention,** i.e., the *halakha* with regard to one who slaughters the animal with intent to partake of it outside its designated area should be deduced from the *halakha* with regard to one who slaughters it with the intent to partake of it outside its designated time. **And we do not deduce** the *halakha* with regard to **a disqualification** due to improper **intention from** that of **a disqualification** due to a blemish in **the** physical **body** of the offering.


###### Menachot 79a:6
[Menachot 79a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:6)

הִתְחִיל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לָדוּן: דָּנִין פְּסוּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, מִפְּסוּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, שֶׁפְּסוּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וְעוֹד, נְדוּנֶנּוּ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, שֶׁפְּסוּל מַחְשָׁבָה וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua began to reason** to the contrary: **We deduce** the *halakha* with regard to **a disqualification that does not** include liability for **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*],** i.e., an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area, **from** that of **a disqualification that does not** include liability for ***karet*,** i.e., an offering discovered to be a blemished animal. And the *halakha* with regard to an offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time should** not be brought **as proof, as** it is **a disqualification that** includes liability for ***karet*. And furthermore,** even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that we deduce the *halakha* from a disqualification due to improper intention, **let us deduce** the *halakha* **from** that of an offering slaughtered **not for its sake, as** it is **a disqualification** due to improper **intention and** it also **does not** include liability for ***karet*,** and the loaves of such an offering were not consecrated.


###### Menachot 79a:7
[Menachot 79a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:7)

וְשָׁתַק רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **And Rabbi Eliezer was silent,** conceding to Rabbi Yehoshua. In any event, it is clear in the *baraita* that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Menachot 79a:8
[Menachot 79a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:8)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה, דְּהָוֵי פְּסוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, וּמַאי שְׁנָא שְׁחָטָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, דְּלָא הָוֵי פְּסוּלוֹ קוֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** who says that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and discovered to be a *tereifa* the loaves were not consecrated, but if it was discovered to be a blemished animal Rabbi Eliezer holds that the loaves were consecrated, **what is different** if **he slaughtered it and it was discovered to be a *tereifa*** such **that it is** considered a case where **its disqualification precedes** its **slaughter,** and the loaves were not consecrated; **and what is different** if **he slaughtered it and it was discovered to be a blemished** animal such **that it is not** considered a case where **its disqualification precedes** its **slaughter,** and the loaves were consecrated according to Rabbi Eliezer?


###### Menachot 79a:9
[Menachot 79a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:9)

בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ – בִּפְסוּלָא דְּגוּפֵיהּ, אֲבָל לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי לֶחֶם – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Meir is referring **to** a blemish **on the cornea of the eye, and** his ruling is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who said** with regard to this type of blemish: Although animals with such a blemish are disqualified as an offering *ab initio*, **if they ascended** the altar **they shall not descend,** and they are sacrificed on the altar. The Gemara adds: **And Rabbi Yehoshua,** who holds that if the animal is discovered to be blemished the loaves are not consecrated, says: **When Rabbi Akiva said** that **if they ascended** the altar, **they shall not descend,** he was referring to the **disqualification of** the offering **itself,** i.e., that once it ascended it shall not descend. **But with regard to the consecration of the loaves** through the slaughter of such an animal, he did **not** say this.


###### Menachot 79a:10
[Menachot 79a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:10)

אִיתְּמַר: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, אִם עָלְתָה – לֹא תֵּרֵד. חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, רָבָא אָמַר: תֵּרֵד, רַבָּה אָמַר: לֹא תֵּרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in the *baraita*: It **was stated:** With regard to **a sin offering that one slaughtered** with intent to partake of it **beyond its** designated **time, if it ascended** the altar **it shall not descend.** If one slaughtered it with intent to partake of it **outside its** designated **area, Rava says: It shall descend** and shall not be burned, and **Rabba says: It shall not descend.**


###### Menachot 79a:11
[Menachot 79a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:11)

רָבָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְרַבָּה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rava** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** who deduces the *halakha* with regard to a thanks offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area from that of an offering discovered to have a blemish. Accordingly, just as a blemished sin offering descends from the altar even if it has already ascended, so too a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area descends. **And Rabba** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who deduces the *halakha* with regard to a thanks offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area from that of an offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time. Accordingly, just as a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it beyond its designated time does not descend from the altar, so too a sin offering that was slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area does not descend.


###### Menachot 79a:12
[Menachot 79a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:12)

וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבָּה לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, מִדַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba retracted** his opinion **in favor of** the opinion **of Rava** and ruled that a sin offering slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area descends from the altar, **since Rabbi Eliezer retracted** his opinion **in favor of** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua,** as the *baraita* teaches that he was silent and accepted the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua. Accordingly, the *halakha* with regard to an animal slaughtered with intent to partake of it outside its designated area should be deduced from that of an offering discovered to have a blemish.


###### Menachot 79a:13
[Menachot 79a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:13)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רַבָּה לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא לָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ. הָתָם הוּא דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: נְדוּנֶנּוּ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי דָּיְינַתְּ לֵיהּ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there are** those **who say: Even though Rabbi Eliezer retracted** his opinion **in favor of** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua, Rabba did not retract** his opinion **in favor of** the opinion **of Rava,** because **there,** with regard to the consecration of the loaves of the thanks offering, Rabbi Eliezer conceded to Rabbi Yehoshua because Rabbi Yehoshua **said to him: Let us deduce its** *halakha* **from** that of an offering slaughtered **not for its sake. But here, if you deduce its** *halakha* **from** that of an offering slaughtered **not for its sake,** then the *halakha* should be that **if it ascended** the altar **it shall not descend.**


###### Menachot 79a:14
[Menachot 79a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:14)

שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁבַק תַּנָּא דִידַן אֵיל נָזִיר דִּשְׁכִיחַ, וְנָקֵיט אֵיל הַמִּילּוּאִים? וְתַנָּא דִּידַן – עִיקַּר מִילְּתָא נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **slaughtered** the thanks offering **not for its sake,** and likewise, if one slaughtered the ram of inauguration not for its sake, and likewise, if one slaughtered the communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on *Shavuot* not for their sake, the loaves were not consecrated. **Rav Pappa said** in bewilderment: Why does **the *tanna* of our** mishna **omit** the case of the loaves of the **nazirite’s ram, which is common** and is also not consecrated if the ram was slaughtered not for its sake, **and teach** instead **the ram of the inauguration** of the Tabernacle, which was brought only by the Jewish people in the wilderness? The Gemara responds: **And** what is the reasoning of **the *tanna* of our** mishna? **He taught** the ram of the inauguration because it was **the primary matter,** i.e., it was the first offering to be brought with loaves.


###### Menachot 79a:15
[Menachot 79a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי וְנִמְצָא זֶבַח פָּסוּל, אִם יֵשׁ זֶבַח אַחֵר – יַקְרִיבוּ עִמּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – יִפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case where **the libations** that accompany the offerings **were sanctified in** a service **vessel** when the animal was slaughtered **and the offering was discovered** to be **unfit, if there is another offering** that was slaughtered and requires libations, the libations **should be sacrificed with** that offering; **and if not, they should be disqualified by** being **left overnight,** and then burned.


###### Menachot 79a:16
[Menachot 79a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר זְעֵירִי: אֵין הַנְּסָכִים מִתְקַדְּשִׁין אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַזֶּבַח. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to statement of the mishna concerning a case where the libations of an animal offering were consecrated and the animal was then discovered to be unfit, **Ze’eiri says: Libations are sanctified only upon the slaughter of the offering. What is the reason** for this? The **verse states:** “To bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, **a sacrifice, and libations,** each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37), indicating that the libations complement the offering and are consecrated only upon its slaughter.


###### Menachot 79a:17
[Menachot 79a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:17)

תְּנַן: הַנְּסָכִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי וְנִמְצָא זֶבַח פָּסוּל – אִם יֵשׁ זֶבַח אַחֵר, יִקְרְבוּ עִמּוֹ; וְאִם לָאו – יִפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a difficulty to the statement of Ze’eiri from that which **we learned** in the mishna: In a case where **the libations were sanctified in** a service **vessel** when the animal was slaughtered **and the offering was discovered** to be **unfit, if there is another offering** that was slaughtered and requires libations, the libations **should be sacrificed with** that offering; **and if not, they should be disqualified by** being **left overnight,** and then burned.


###### Menachot 79a:18
[Menachot 79a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:18)

מַאי לָאו דְּאִיפְּסִיל בִּשְׁחִיטָה? לָא, דְּאִיפְּסִיל בִּזְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** so that the mishna is referring to a case **where** the offering **became unfit through** its **slaughter,** and consequently the libations were not sanctified by the slaughter of the offering? Why, then, must the libations be left overnight in order to disqualify them? Evidently, the libations are sanctified upon being placed in a service vessel and not upon the slaughter of the offering, in contradiction to the statement of Ze’eiri. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** the mishna is referring to an offering **that became unfit through the sprinkling** of the blood; the libations were sanctified upon the slaughter of the offering, and therefore they must be disqualified by being left overnight.


###### Menachot 79a:19
[Menachot 79a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:19)

כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים הַמַּתִּירִין מַעֲלִין זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara seeks to clarify: **In accordance with whose** opinion is this mishna? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who said:** If an offering has **two factors that permit** it for consumption or for sacrifice, **they can each elevate** it to sanctified status **without the other.** Accordingly, although the slaughter of the animal and the sprinkling of its blood are both permitting factors for the libations, the libations were sanctified through the slaughter of the animal, despite the fact that the animal became unfit through the sprinkling of its blood.


###### Menachot 79a:20
[Menachot 79a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79a:20)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל דָּמָן בְּכוֹס וְנִשְׁפַּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Even** if **you say** that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and holds that both permitting factors must be performed in order to confer sanctity upon the libations, the mishna can still be explained as follows: **Here, we are dealing with** a case **where** the priest **collected its blood in the cup** for the purpose of sprinkling it on the altar, **but** the blood **spilled** out of the cup and could not be sprinkled. Nevertheless, the libations were sanctified, as the blood was fit for sprinkling upon the altar.