## Menachot Daf 82a

###### Menachot 82a:1
[Menachot 82a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:1)

וּשְׁלָמִים ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר. וּמִינַּהּ: מָה שְׁלָמִים אֵין גּוּפָן מַעֲשֵׂר – אַף תּוֹדָה נָמֵי אֵין גּוּפָהּ מַעֲשֵׂר, וְהָנֵי חִיטֵּי הַלְּקוּחוֹת בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי נָמֵי אֵין גּוּפָן מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the *halakha* that **a peace offering** may be brought from second-tithe money is derived by a verbal analogy between **“there”** and **“there” from** the verse discussing second **tithe.** The verse states with regard to a peace offering: “And you shall sacrifice peace offerings and you shall eat there” (Deuteronomy 27:7), and the verse states with regard to second tithe: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there” (Deuteronomy 14:23). **And from this** it may be concluded: **Just as peace offerings are not themselves** brought from second **tithe,** as they are not produce, **so too** with regard to the loaves of **a thanks offering, they are not themselves** brought from second **tithe. And that wheat which is purchased with second-tithe money is also not itself** second **tithe;** it may therefore be used for the loaves of the thanks offering.


###### Menachot 82a:2
[Menachot 82a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:2)

אֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי: תּוֹדָה מֵהֵיכָא קָא יָלֵיפְנָא לַהּ? מִשְּׁלָמִים, וּשְׁלָמִים – ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר. מָה שְׁלָמִים אֵין מִין מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף תּוֹדָה אֵין מִין מַעֲשֵׂר, לְאַפּוֹקֵי חִיטִּין הַלְּקוּחוֹת בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, דְּמִין מַעֲשֵׂר נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Now **I will say my reasoning** for why one may not prepare the loaves of a thanks offering with wheat that was purchased with second-tithe money: **From where do I derive** the *halakha* that **a thanks offering** may be brought from second-tithe money? I derive it **from** the *halakhot* of **a peace offering. And** the *halakha* that **a peace offering** may be brought from second-tithe money is derived by a verbal analogy between **“there”** and **“there” from** second **tithe.** Therefore, **just as a peace offering is not** of the same **species** as second **tithe, so too** the loaves of **a thanks offering** may **not** be of the same **species** as second **tithe.** This serves **to exclude wheat purchased with second-tithe money, which is** of the same **species** as second **tithe.**


###### Menachot 82a:3
[Menachot 82a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמַּתְפִּיס מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לִשְׁלָמִים – לֹא קָנוּ שְׁלָמִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא אַלִּימָא קְדוּשָּׁה דִּשְׁלָמִים לְמֵיחַל אַקְּדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ami says:** In a case involving **one who designates second-tithe money for a peace offering,** the money does **not assume** the status of **a peace offering. What is the reason?** The reason is **that the sanctity of the peace offering is not strong** enough **to take effect upon** items that have **the sanctity of second tithe.**


###### Menachot 82a:4
[Menachot 82a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַלּוֹקֵחַ חַיָּה לְזִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּבְהֵמָה לִבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה – לֹא יָצָא הָעוֹר לְחוּלִּין. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּקָנֵי שְׁלָמִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 1:4): Ideally, one should use second-tithe money to purchase peace offerings. If one purchases a peace offering with second-tithe money, only the flesh of the animal is consecrated, while its hide is non-sacred. The mishna teaches: With regard to **one who** uses second-tithe money in an improper manner and **purchases an undomesticated animal for a peace offering,** a purpose for which an undomesticated animal cannot be used, **or** purchases **a domesticated animal for meat of desire,** i.e., ordinary meat, the Sages penalized him and decreed that **the hide does not become non-sacred.** The Gemara asks: **Is that not to say that** the hide of the animal purchased with the second-tithe money **assumes** the status of **a peace offering,** and it must be sold and the money used to purchase a peace offering, in contradiction to the statement of Rabbi Ami?


###### Menachot 82a:5
[Menachot 82a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:5)

הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב: לָא קָנֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּמַאי ״לֹא יָצָא הָעוֹר לְחוּלִּין״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת לָצֵאת הָעוֹר לְחוּלִּין, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: נַעֲשָׂה כְּלוֹקֵחַ שׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Wasn’t it stated concerning that** mishna that **Rav said:** The hide of the animal purchased with the second-tithe money does **not assume** the status of **a peace offering; and what** is the meaning of the mishna that **the hide does not become non-sacred? This** is what the mishna **is saying:** The hide, as part of an undomesticated animal, is **not in the category of** a peace offering at all so that its **hide would become non-sacred. What is the reason? Rabba says:** Since he used the second-tithe money in an improper manner, **it is considered as if he purchased an ox for plowing,** to which no sanctity of second tithe applies.


###### Menachot 82a:6
[Menachot 82a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:6)

אִיתְּמַר, הַמַּתְפִּיס מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לִשְׁלָמִים: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: קָנֵי, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לָא קָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated** that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to **one who designates second-tithe money for a peace offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The money **assumes** the status of a peace offering, and **Rabbi Elazar says:** The money does **not assume** the status of a peace offering.


###### Menachot 82a:7
[Menachot 82a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:7)

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן הֶדְיוֹט הוּא – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּקָנֵי. כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: מַעֲשֵׂר מָמוֹן גָּבוֹהַּ הוּא. מַאן דְּאָמַר לָא קָנֵי – כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר קָנֵי – כֵּיוָן דְּמַעֲשֵׂר (קרי) [קָרֵיב] לֵיהּ שְׁלָמִים, כִּי מַיתְפְּסַתְּ לֵיהּ נָמֵי תָּפֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **And according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda, who said:** Second **tithe is non-sacred property, everyone agrees that** the money **assumes** the status of a peace offering. **When they disagree,** it is **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir, who said:** Second **tithe is property** belonging to the **Most High. The one who says** that the money does **not assume** the status of a peace offering holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** and one may not designate property of the Most High for another purpose. **And the one who says** that the money **assumes** the status of a peace offering holds that **since** second **tithe is called a peace offering,** as an animal purchased with second-tithe money without specification is brought as a peace offering, **when he designates** the money for a peace offering, it **as well** is **designated** with the sanctity of a peace offering.


###### Menachot 82a:8
[Menachot 82a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:8)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמַּתְפִּיס מְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לִשְׁלָמִים, כְּשֶׁהוּא פּוֹדָן – מוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם שְׁנֵי חוּמְשִׁין, אֶחָד לְהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְאֶחָד לְמַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rabbi Elazar from a *baraita*: In a case involving **one who designates second-tithe money for a peace offering,** the sanctity of a peace offering is applied to this money in addition to the sanctity of second tithe. Therefore, **when he redeems** this money, **he adds to it two-fifths:** One-fifth **for the** redemption of the **sacrificial** sanctity of a peace offering **and** one-fifth **for** the redemption of second **tithe.** Evidently, the sanctity of a peace offering does take effect on second-tithe money.


###### Menachot 82a:9
[Menachot 82a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:9)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא? הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Do you maintain** that this *baraita* **is agreed** upon **by everyone?** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that second-tithe money is non-sacred property. Accordingly, the sanctity of a **peace** offering takes effect on the money. Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Menachot 82a:10
[Menachot 82a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִנַּיִן לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה״, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְזָבַחְתָּ פֶּסַח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ צֹאן וּבָקָר״. וַהֲלֹא פֶּסַח אֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים וּמִן הָעִזִּים, אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צֹאן וּבָקָר״? לְהַקִּישׁ כׇּל הַבָּא מִן הַצֹּאן וּמִן הַבָּקָר לְפֶסַח: מָה פֶּסַח דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה וְאֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּחוֹבָה אֵין בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **From where** is it derived with regard to **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering, that he may bring** it **only from non-sacred** money? It is derived from a verse, as **the verse states: “And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd”** (Deuteronomy 16:2). The verse is difficult: **Doesn’t the Paschal offering come only from lambs and goats? If so, why does the verse state: “The flock and the herd”?** It is **to juxtapose all** offerings **that come from the flock and from the herd to** the **Paschal offering,** teaching that **just as** the **Paschal offering** is **a matter of obligation and comes only from non-sacred** money, **so too any matter of obligation comes only from non-sacred** money.


###### Menachot 82a:11
[Menachot 82a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:11)

לְפִיכָךְ, הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה״, ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁלָמִים״, הוֹאִיל וּבָאִין חוֹבָה – לֹא יָבֹאוּ אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּנְסָכִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – לֹא יָבֹאוּ אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** in the case of **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering,** or: **It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a peace offering, since** these offerings **come** as **an obligation** due to his vow, **they may be brought only from non-sacred** money. **And libations, in any case, may be brought only from non-sacred** money, and not from second-tithe money, because second-tithe money must be used to purchase items eaten by people, while libations are poured out next to the altar.


###### Menachot 82a:12
[Menachot 82a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** וּפֶסַח גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא לַן? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר פֶּסַח בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְנֶאֱמַר פֶּסַח לְדוֹרוֹת, מָה פֶּסַח הָאָמוּר בְּמִצְרַיִם לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, אַף פֶּסַח הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת לֹא בָּא אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that the *halakha* that any matter of obligation must be brought from non-sacred property is derived from the *halakha* of the Paschal offering. The Gemara asks: **And** concerning **the Paschal offering itself, from where do we** derive that it is brought only from non-sacred property? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer says: “Paschal offering” is stated** in the Torah **with regard to** the offering sacrificed in **Egypt** (see Exodus 12:3), **and “Paschal offering” is stated with regard to** the yearly obligation throughout the **generations** (see Exodus 12:25). Therefore, **just as the Paschal offering stated with regard to Egypt was brought only from non-sacred** property, as there was no second tithe in Egypt, **so too the Paschal offering stated with regard to** the obligation throughout the **generations may be brought only from non-sacred** property.


###### Menachot 82a:13
[Menachot 82a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:13)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וְכִי דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר? אָמַר לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר, רְאָיָיה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא, וְנִלְמַד הֵימֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said to him: But does one derive** the **possible from** the **impossible?** Does one derive the *halakha* with regard to the Paschal offering of the generations, when there exists the possibility of using second-tithe money, from the *halakha* with regard to the Paschal offering sacrificed in Egypt, when there was no second tithe? Rabbi Eliezer **said to him: Even though** it was **impossible** to bring the Paschal offering in Egypt from consecrated money, **it is a great proof, and we shall derive** this *halakha* **from it.**


###### Menachot 82a:14
[Menachot 82a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/82a:14)

חָזַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: מָה לְפֶסַח מִצְרַיִם, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva then presented a different logical derivation** to reject the proof of Rabbi Eliezer: One cannot derive the *halakha* with regard to the Paschal offering of the generations from that of the Paschal offering in Egypt, as **what** is notable **about the Paschal offering** sacrificed in **Egypt?** It is notable in **that** it **did not require** the **placement of blood** on the altar nor that the **sacrificial portions** be consumed **by the altar.**