Menahot 49: Managing Sacrificial Shortfalls

0:00Hello, welcome back to Talking Talmud. I'm going to be your host, Jordyn. I'm here with my friend, Richard and Gordon, our deaf today, my son, and I have a deaf member, page 49. We're going to get to new mission, but we're still going to talk about Chavuas and the lambs, and they're sort of a final teaching about it here. Tony Robbobber, Rakhana, Kameda, Rob. So Robbobber, Rakhana, taught the following bracelet in front of Rob. Keepsayat, Sairat, Shachat, Tan, Lishum, Elim. Let's say the Chavuas lambs were slaughtered for the sake of rams. In other words, they thought these lambs were less than a year old, were rams, which were more than a year old, right? And so they slaughtered them for rams, sharing their valid, below Alula, Balim, Lishum, Chava, but they don't count towards the owner for fulfilling their obligation, meaning the community, which is considered the Balim here,

1:05still has to bring lambs in order to fulfill the Korba note for Chavuot. Amar, Ley, Rob, Rob says to him, Alula, Alula, the lambs do actually can't. So Amar, Afreeza, Afreeza says, Misava, Milsa, Derav, Rob's statement makes sense, Kisavur, Elim, Ushchat, Tan, Lishum, Khassim, with the slaughterer thought that the lambs were rams and he slaughtered them for the sake of lambs, right? In other words, you could say that it does count towards fulfilling the community's obligation, Sharia, Khassim, Lishum, Khassim, Nishchatu, because ultimately the lambs were slaughtered for the sake of lambs, right? In other words, it still are lambs that were slaughtered for lambs. Abel, Kisavur, Elim, Ushchat, Tan, Lishum, Elim, but if the case was he slaughtered the lambs thinking they were rams, right? And he slaughtered them for the sake of rams, then, you know, he really didn't want to slaughter a lamb at all, low. Then it's not reasonable to say that he fulfilled the community's obligations fulfilled, Akira, Batalut, Ava, Akira, because uprooting the

2:10offerings designation is an error, is classified as uprooting, meaning the offering, right, was basically not done for its own sake, and they don't count the fulfillment of the obligation. So what they're trying to basically saying here in that first case, right, where they would say it would be okay, is that if they thought the lambs were rams, but he slaughtered them for the sake of rams, right? In other words, he meant to slaughter the offering like Shaloli Shma, thinking that it was a ram, but he slaughtered it for the sake of a lamb, right? He was mistaken about their identity, and then actually he finds out, oh no, actually it was a lamb. Now I'm not clear how this would happen, but in that case, it would be okay. But if he thought that it was a ram, and he was slaughtering it for it to be a ram, and then only later he finds out it's a lamb, then that would be the problem. That would be the case for a wooden camp. But Raba Ma, Raba says, I cure a bit too, Lobaia Akira. Raba holds, right? It would say that Raba holds that a brooding and offering designation and error is not classified as that I'm brooding,

3:14meaning Raba would actually say in both of these cases, right? It still could discharge the community's obligation, and that even though there was an up, you know, there was a mistake with it initially, it doesn't uproot the whole core bond. Then Raba is going to have another difficulty, right? I'm a Raba. Umutavine Ashmiya Tan, we could challenge this teaching though with the following mission. And so he's quoting a mission here from Gitten, a Koenim should plegoob a miksash, Koenim who made something peagle in the temple, Mizidin Khaivine, if deliberately they did it then they're Khaib, how you show a game to Turing, but if it was, you know, by mistake they're not liable. Bhatani Allah, and it was taught in a brace about this mission, a pigulim pigul, their pigul right is still pigul, and the offering is always going to be disqualified even if it was beshoge. Hei Khidami, so what is this case? I'm a lady, Adah, the Khataki, you will say that let's

4:14say it's a case where he knew the offering was a Khatat, which is only left to be eaten for a day in a night. The Kha, Mahshiva, Lashum, Shlumim, okay? And while performing the avodah he intends for it to be eaten for the sake of a Shlumim, right? Like a Shlumim that's eaten for two days in a night, right? High Shogagin, how is this a case of being Shogay? Mizidin, right? Why would any Koen do this right act deliberately? Allah loved Khidami Allah, Shlumim, rather it has to be obvious that the Mizidin is talking about a case where the Koen thought it was a Shlumim offering to begin with to become Mahshiva, Lashum, Shlumim, and therefore he intended it to be eaten like a Shlumim, which is eaten for two days, and then he finds that actually was a Khatas, right? And so he mistakenly makes a pigul because on the second day he really says, oh, he can't really eat this. Victani pigul and pigul. So the bracelet teaches us that even in that case the pigul is still pigul. Amalai, Qura, it's at Uhtavya Qura. So this is a case of of rooting and offering says the nation by mistake

5:18is indeed considered to be uprooting. So how do they sell this? Amalai, Abay. So Abay says, it has to be a case, the Mishnah where the Koen knew it was a Khatas, but Ka Mahshiva, Lashum, Shlumim, and still he intended that it should be eaten for the sake of a Shlumim, right? For two days in a night, Ube Omar Mutar, but in a case where he thought it was permissible to have this intention. Now, I'm not clear exactly what this means. So for this reason, the Mishnah says that it actually was Shoghe, right? And he, he's exempt from paying for the offering he ruined. But if the Koen, you know, accidentally intensity to Khatas in the timeframe of the Shlumim, he doesn't actually make a pigul because an uprooting an heir is not considered an uprooting, right? Again, I don't understand how that would happen. Like maybe he got confused, maybe he thought Khatas could be eaten that way. That's the piece that's not totally clear to me. They're going to continue to challenge this with Raba all the way and discuss this all the way until we get to the new Mishnah.

6:20But this concept of, you know, Akira, Batalutave Akira is really sort of the primary discussion in this section here, right? That, you know, if the offering's designation was, there was a mistake made with it, what, you know, do we say that therefore it just, it remains uprooted or do we say that there's a way for it not to remain uprooted? It's an interesting place to kind of leave that question. No? Yeah, it is. For sure. For sure. Yeah, I kind of wanted to mention it. No, like, I don't know what I think there are some people hold one way and some people hold another way, you know? I know. I'm just, because I feel like we're coming to the end of this whole discussion, I want it tied up in a bow. Okay, I'm going to move on to the Mishnah, which is on the bottom part of a manala. It's a medium-sized Mishnah, I guess. That's a medium in Makhvim at Mushafin, below Mushafin Makhvim at Mishafin. So we're going back to this question of essentiality, and the question of what happens when you have several offerings that are required to be brought

7:22on a given day, meaning you always have the daily offering, but what about when you have additional offerings? For example, a Rochkhodish day or a Yantaf day, that kind of thing. So the position of the Mishnah is that if you, for whatever reason, weren't able to bring the tamid, the daily offering, you still would bring the Mushafs, and vice versa, right? If you weren't able to bring the Mushaf, you would still end up bringing the tamid, the daily offering, below Mushafin Makhvim, and the additional offerings, if you weren't able to bring all of them, let's say you had more than one on a given day, it's Shabbat Rochkhodish, for example, so you're going to have a Shabbat offering and also Rochkhodish offering, you could only bring one of them, you do, you don't wait, you're not stuck because you couldn't bring everything. Glory, Krivel, Khevas, Baboke, Krivel, Benav, are buying. And then the Mishnah says, if the Kwanim did not sacrifice the Khevas, right, the sheep, in as the daily offering, they should still bring the lamp, sheep lamp, in the afternoon as part of

8:23the daily offering, meaning the idea is that you have two daily offerings, and if you don't manage the first one, that doesn't mean you don't do the second one, meaning you specifically do do the second one. I'm Rabbi Shimon Amatai, so when she wants to know, when does this alaqa apply? Because it's clearly, you know, we're talking about the timing of the daily carbonate, so there's implications for when you're considered to have missed it, for example. Bismancha yu anusin o shogagin. Avalyamha yu misidin. Valohe Krivel, Khevas, Baboke, Lohya Krivel, Benav, are buying. The whole point is that if they were not able to offer the morning sacrifice, that lamp, right, or whatever, there's an act of God, they can't get there, or something happens, and for whatever reason, they, you know, reasons beyond their control, they simply weren't able to fulfill the, the commandment of this bringing this daily offering, then clearly they should make it up in the afternoon. But if they intentionally said,

9:26nah, we're not going to bother with this today, then they can't make it up in the afternoon, meaning there's no, there's no leeway for being slackers. It's only if you were truly unable to bring it. Lohy Krivel, Krivel, Baboke, Yuktu, Benav, are buying. Now, incense was burned in the morning, and also in the afternoon, and the statements here in the missions, if they didn't burn, the part that they're supposed to burn in the morning, they should burn it in the afternoon, meaning, again, that same principle of, well, you couldn't do it, so make it up. I'm Rabbi Shimon. The Khulahi Takriva, Benav, are buying. Shain Makhranfina, it's a misbah khazhav, Ella Buktu, it's a sami. Lohmi's Bakhola, Ella Buktu, me, Shail Shacher. Okay, so I'm going to close and we'll come back to the rest of this kind of like one long thought from Rabbi Shimon, that the whole amount of the Qatura would be offered in the afternoon, if you miss the morning, meaning instead of just taking half a measure for the morning and half a measure for the afternoon, you'd end up with the whole measure of the Qaturas of the incense in the afternoon.

10:28And what happens then is that these the incense itself would be burned on the golden altar, that's the internal altar. And they would, again, they burn the whole measure of it. And then when you come to bring the burnt offering on the altar, that's where you would have your daily offering. And it's usually what happens is that every day, you kind of start that altar up with the fact of the daily offering, the tamid Shail Buker, the morning offering. So it seems to be that, that's how you would begin, even in the case of if you for some reason missed it in the morning, you would come back to that same altar and offer your offering at that time. And then when you're talking about a Shail Khan, the new table, you'd only use that new table with the arrangement of the Lechema Punning, that Shoubred on Shabbat. And likewise, you'd only use the

11:31new menorah, the candles, right? You only would do so if you would begin the lighting of those seven lamps in the afternoon. Meaning usually, I guess you would take care of it. I don't know, the light of the candle is supposed to be going the whole time. So what happens when it goes out and when you start it up again? Now, the Gomara is going to come to explain this mission specifically about, it starts its discussion about the Oloat of the daily offerings, the burnt offerings of the daily offerings, and the Musafin, and how they don't prevent each other from meaning each should be offered regardless of the success of offering the others. And then the Gomara wants to explain that what would happen if a given community did not have the resources to bring both the daily offerings and the Musafin, what's going to take precedence? And I'm reminded of certain discussions in the Gomara, including in the mission, actually, in Masachat-Migilah, where they would, you know, set up, which is, there's nothing between these two cases except for this thing, and

12:36other cases where we'll be set up if you don't have, if you only have money for this and for that, for wine and for chala, right? So you don't have money for both, you can only take one, which should you do? And we had all these general principles of that which is most common, right? That should take precedence and so on. So here, the question is, what are the circumstances that he's talking about? When he says, Tiborsha-e-Anlahen-Timidinu Musafin is a Mokodem meaning you can only choose one. And so then the Gomara is going to clarify this to say, he's talking about a case where you would, he says as follows, Echidami, in Lema-Timidin du Yomei, Musafin du Yomei Pshita-Timidin-Edi-Fei, clearly the Timidin, the daily offerings would have precedence to Havelu-Tadir, Umagdash, because they are given more frequently, meaning anything daily is more frequent than something that's the occasional additional offering. And likewise, they are sanctified. So then the question is, well, maybe that's not his case, maybe he's talking about

13:40situation where you have animals for today, but maybe you don't have everything for tomorrow, so then what are you going to set up as preferential for the next day? And the Gomara is going to go on to dress these kinds of dilemmas on through, I guess through Amabette, where we do end up with, you know, certain wrinkles, I would guess, in the cases as per the cases of the temple's treasury, if they don't really have the proper animals for the offerings that they're supposed to be offering in that given time. And part of what I find to be very interesting about this whole discussion is that it seems to be, um, on the one hand it's theoretical, right? Like they're not actually implementing this in their daily way, but on the other hand, I feel like it's such a down to earth kind of example, I wonder if it did happen or if they're truly just trying to plug it through for the sake of covering all the bases. Yeah, I hear what you're saying. There's

14:43something about it that sounds practical. That doesn't seem like it's just, you know, theoretical here. Right, but I mean, let's put it this way, it's very reasonable to think that something could go wrong, right? On the other hand, I might think certainly from my distance of time, I might say, well, it was a bit of a dash, they would never not have had the right animals to sacrifice. And yet, I think the stages are taking a very practical view of saying, well, it really could happen. Well, right, well, we saw this, right? That in other words, if you didn't have the lambs for shovel, oh, so the question is, were there times in Jewish history where people were poor? There was economic issues and you couldn't get the animals that you needed. Remember, the animals had to be of a certain age. They had to be tummy-like. They had to be unblemished. Like, I don't know. I don't know enough of how this worked. I don't know enough about animals, but maybe this was harder than it seems. That's our adopted discussion for the day. Thank you for joining us, Rancas Reviews, where you get your podcasts. Come talk to us on our Facebook page

15:43and tell us what you think of this stuff. Thank you, drop it in Michelle Farber for hosting us on the Hotman website. And until tomorrow, go and learn.