About this episode
The case of slaughtering 4 lambs with the 2 loaves of Shavuot (instead of 2 lambs), then how is that error handled? Two of those lambs are not offered for their own sake, since they aren't presented in the right context, as, for example, a generic peace-offering. That is, the first two lambs have already fulfilled the Shavuot requirement. Also, Rav Yitzhak comes from the land of Israel to the study halls of Babylonia, and he teaches: Animals that are offered for the wrong purpose cannot be used, but must be left to burn... And his rationale for disqualifying these offerings is by virtue of comparison with the sin-offering. Until the Gemara turns the argument on its head and suggests that this mandatory peace-offering is more similar to the voluntary peace-offering, which would leave it a valid offering. Plus, if the animal that is brought is the wrong animal, for example, if it is the wrong age, those are disqualified.
Get every episode summarized
Each time Talking Talmud publishes, we email you a written briefing from the transcript — the topics, who appeared, and any specific claims, with the ad reads skipped.
Email me new episodesFree for 3 shows. No card needed.
Hosts & guests
Transcript ready
201 searchable segments. Every word is indexed and playable.
Full transcript
Talking Talmud — Menahot 48: The Parallel of the Voluntary Peace-offering. Machine-transcribed; use the interactive transcript above to jump the player to any line.
Hello, welcome back to Talking Town, but I'm one of your host, Rodin Osman. Here's my friend, I'm going to end Gordon, our Daph today, my supplement, Daph Mem, page 48. Well, we are still talking about Shabewis and the Shlumim and the Loves. So on yesterday's staff, there was a case about two Shlumim lambs of Shabewis that were slaughtered for four Loves. So the gammars now going to discuss the opposite case. Tani Rabbi Khaenina Tireta Kamei de Rabbi Yohanan. So Rabbi Khaenina of Tira taught a Tira, taught a bracelet before Rabbi Yohanan. Shachad Arbaakfa Seem Shaleste Halo. So if the coin slaughters four lambs for two Loves, instead of slaughtering two lambs together with Shaeha Lachan, he slaughtered four.
So in the case of that law is that he throws the blood only of the two lambs for their own sake and then two of the others not for their own sake. So they sort of just become a regular Shlumim. Mosach Naimehem is a raked among Shaloli Shmat. He refers to removed two of the lambs and then he throws their blood, not for their own sake. And then afterwards, what he's going to do is throw the blood of the remaining two lambs for at least Shmat for the sake of the Shlumim was offering. Shaeem Iatat Umarikah, because if you don't say so, rather you, in other words, that you would actually lie the coins that throw the blood of the first two lambs for their own sake and then throw the blood of the remaining two lambs, not for their own sake, he spads it to Iatat Akronim. You will have four fitted the last one. In other words, you would have caused the last two lambs to become forbidden to be eaten. They wouldn't be allowed to be eaten, okay? Now the reason for this is, is because remember, that was the whole discussion that I talked about yesterday where Rubby Zayr said that we never find an offering, which could be
fit at one time for its own sake, is slaughtered for its own sake and then is rejected from use for its own sake, but is valid if it's offered not for its own sake, right? So if the coin throws the blood of the first two lambs for its own sake, therefore he actually fulfilled the Shibuya's offering, then the second two lambs basically, they were fit at one time and even were slaughtered for their own sake at the correct time, but then they rejected why? Because you already fulfilled that particular core bond, so it doesn't help to offer them not for their own sake, right? You can't do it that way. But if the blood of the first two lambs are thrown not for their own sake, right? The meat of those lambs will be allowed to be consumed because the lambs wouldn't have been rejected for use for their own sake, right? You could still eat the meat, they're just like a regular slum in, and then you take the last two lambs and you say, these will be the ones for the actual core bond for Shabu Oat. Okay?
So I'm our logo of a Yokunan. So a Yokunan says said, the chemo, Merlola, Adam, Amud, Vachatab, these fields should he's got. Do we tell a person, go up and sin in order to gain? In other words, it's a sin to go out of your way to perform the avodah on an animal, not for its own sake. So how can you tell them to do that for the first two lambs just so that you can eat all four lambs? Bahat Nahn. And now he's going to quote a brisa, a mission on, this is a mission that we actually learned in Zvachem. Ivrae Khatach, you need to our Vubi, Ivrae Olah. If the lamb of a Khatat, which the coin, right, which is supposed to be eaten by a coin, is mixed with the lamb limbs of an Olah, which are totally burned down the altar, none of it is eaten at all. Rebiliezo Merlola, Rebiliezo says, sorry, you knew La Mala, let the Kohanin put everything on top of the altar, Vurania, Tabasar, Khatat, La Mala, Qiluhu, it seemed. And I'll just view the meat of the Khatat, meat as if it were wood. In other words, I'm just going to burn everything. The Khachem, I'm going to remind you to Varsuartan, the Khachanin say this should be left
until their appearance changes. They too love Vedas, Refa, and then you just take everything out and you destroy it, right? In other words, you don't have any right to put Khatas limbs on the fire and treat them as fuel because you actually were supposed to eat them. So instead, you sort of like leave everything overnight and then it changes and then you just burn everything on my, right? But why should those intermingled limbs be destroyed, according to the Khachem, layma on the Khachem, which failed to get exactly for this principle of a rise and a sin in order to gain? In other words, you're now allowed to put the limbs of the Khachas on the altar, right? Even though they, because you're not really supposed to burn them, you're supposed to be eating them just to gain the benefit of not wasting the limbs of the Allah, which are supposed to be burnt on the altar. So he's using this as an example that that wouldn't be the solution, okay? So from here, the Gammar is going to sort of explore more Moud Vachatah, right? In the case of the Khachas, okay?
And then they're going to compare it to, you know, to the case that we had. I'm not going to read this part of it, I'm going to stop here. But I think that this is a very interesting concept, like, essentially, what Rabiyohan is saying is, when you have these types of cases, you need to make sure that the solution doesn't involve sort of purposefully doing something wrong in order to try to create a net positive outcome. That's not something that you're allowed to do. And I think that's essentially what this principle of Moud Vachatah, these fields should tease a cat, right? Go up and sin in order to gain is not something that we actually allow. I think that math maps, as we say, right? Meaning, I think that that makes good logical sense in terms of establishing, you know, how the sin offering is supposed to be known. Yeah, exactly. It makes sense. Like, in other words, that's not something that you can do. Right. Right. Okay. I'm moving on to a bit.
A little bit from the top, pretty close to the top. Kiyatah, Raviyotskuk, Tunne. So we have here more, honestly, on the sheep of Shavlot. Raviyotskuk, excuse me, in the midst of all this discussion, Raviyotskuk comes from the Land of Israel to Bavila, to Babylonia. And he, of course, is going to teach what he had learned in the Bati Madrashe in the study halls of the Land of Israel. And he brings a brighter that presumably was not known in Bavila. He's saying, at Sarat, Shesha Khatan, Shalokin Hitsvatan, Suleen, the two vayatratan, the Sulea Vaitash Astrefa. So the right is as follows. When you have your two sheep of Shavlot, and they're slaughtered that is not in accord with their mitzvah, which is language that we haven't seen exactly so far, meaning they're slaughtered for a different mitzvah, for a different purpose. Suleen, they're disqualified. They don't count at all, the two vayatratan, and then what happens, they are supposed to
be left overnight until they're to rather form their shape decays, or it's literally the pass on, right? It decays. And then from there, they are brought to be burned, to the place where they would be burned, because it says if they were like left over sacrificial meat, they can't be used for anything, but you also, you can't use them for, I mean, the same way that they're not counting as an offering, as a sacrifice, they can't be used for something else either. Amra Vnaxman, Maid Makish lahulah Khatat, Taneib Suleen, Taneib Baylevi, Shalmeh Khovam, Ishalmeh Nadeva, Taneib Shaheen. So Vnaxman's sister of Yitzvah, hang on. The master, meaning, Yitzvah himself, right? He's talking in third person as an honorary way of speaking to him, to give him honor. The master who compares that sheep of Shavloat to the Khatat to the sin offering, because
we've seen that they appear in the verse in Leviticus, chapter 23, so you're teaching that the sheep are disqualified the same way that the sin offering that was slaughtered but not in the right purpose, not for its own sake, was disqualified. However, Taneib Baylevi, the Taneah, the scholars of the school of Levi, who learned the halakhan namely that when you've got a Shalmeh Khovam, you have a Qorban Shlameh and a peace offering, which is obligatory, right? It's mandated, it's not an optional thing, like, for example, the two sheep of the holiday of Shavloat. So then they are in the parallels drawn, or the comparison is made, to the voluntary peace offerings, and that should teach that they actually would be kosher, they would be valid offerings the same way that a voluntary peace offering would be valid even if it would be offered for a different purpose of Qorban, meaning make sure that you've got your comparison straight to make sure that you end up with the correct conclusion.
If you compare it to a Khatat to a sin offering, when you should be comparing it to a voluntary peace offering, then you're going to end up with the wrong outcome. Because what Levi taught is, as far as Shaya Shalmeh Nazir, Shish Khatan, Shalloh commits fatan, Shamin, when you're talking about the peace offerings of the Nazir, the Nazir would bring their slaughter not in a court, if they were not slaughtered to be with the intent of the Nazir, they're still considered valid, Shamin, like the voluntary peace offerings. Velo Alulabalim, Lashem Khovam, they're still not considered mandatory or obligatory, right? They don't fulfill an obligation for somebody who has an obligation, Vinechalini Yom Valayla, they can be eaten for only just one day and one night, the aint to any Lolecha Velo Zroa, and they did not require, like as a accompaniment to their offering, they don't require any kind of green offering, a kind of bread, nor the Zroa, right, the Zroa, the limb of the animal,
in the way that, or contrasting, the peace offering of the Nazir, right, the peace offering of the Nazir has other component parts that are required, but if you bring it for the wrong reason, then it's not going to, it's not going to matter, you haven't fulfilled the obligation of the offering of the Nazir, but your offering is still a kosher offering. Maytvay, the gmah, has an objection, namely to the opinion of Reviyitschak, which was what we saw, to begin with, in the Breita, Ashen Benchanal, VV Benchanatain, Benchanatain, VV Benchanal, Suleen, if you're supposed to bring, as a guilt offering now, you get another country heard from, right, you're supposed to bring an animal in the first year, like a lamb, right, and instead you bring the second year animal, which would already be considered an older, let's say, a lamb, then you're obligated to bring, as that's saying guilt offering, the animal in the second year, I'm sorry, it goes back and forth, right, if you're supposed to bring a first year animal, but you brought a second year
animal, or you're supposed to bring a second year animal, and you brought a first year animal, then they're Suleen, those kinds of offerings are disqualified, the fact that it's the same kind of animal, but it's a different age, can truly disqualify it, the two bites are a tie, and likewise you have the same treatment of it that you let it decay, lose its form, be it true, levate, destroy, fine, you would take it out for burning, the same way that we already saw, this is comparable to Revius Christ's case, a val, olat Nazir, olat, olat, olat, olat, mitzor, asha, eubination, station, station name, umshkatan, kshurin, when you're talking about the burnt offerings, and now these are the burnt offerings of the Nazir and of the woman after trial, birth, and of the person who's recovering from sarahat, right now these animals are going to be animals in their second year, you come and you slaughter them, they are going to be considered valid, and so the brains that concludes with a general principle, the allosial diva, what's the principle of the matter, namely, ko, ha, kasher, ba, olat, nadeva, kasher, ba, olat, kova, anything that
is valid or kosher, as a burnt offering that's a gift, is also going to be valid of a burnt as a burnt offering that would be obligatory or mandatory, ko, ha, pasul, ba, khatat, pasul, ba, sham, khuts, michael, olishmo, and anything that is disqualified for a sin offering would also be disqualified for guilt offering, unless what we're talking about is, um, something that is not for its own sake, meaning you've offered the offering for the, for the wrong reason, you've, you're offering a guilt offering and instead you say it's a sin offering or vice versa, right? Something like that. Um, so then at the end of the day here, what we're saying is that the, the, the halakh is not quite as, um, hard and fast, as Revietzka presented it to begin with, because we're saying that when we take this back to the, the sheep of Shavvot, right, those are obligatory peace offerings, meaning they're mandatory, but they're shlamim. And so that seems to be, it should line up, perhaps, with voluntary
peace offerings and not compared to the sin offering, which was the rejection that we already saw in terms of the rejection of Revietzka's position. And the gammai explains or, or provides this answer, hi, tana, tana, dave, lavi, who, and the tana, who taught this brighter, meaning now we can kind of like close our eyes to Revietzka is the school of lavi, which was already mentioned that specifically, even the sheep of Shavvot, if it's slaughtered, not for its own sake, it's still going to be valid. That's our depth discussion for the day. We're going to review us on our major podcast. Thank you to Revenue Michelle Farber for hosting us on the hydrogen website. Let us know what you thought about this stuff and are talking down on Facebook page and until tomorrow go and learn.
More episodes
