Menachos 3 - SHOULD R. SHIMON VALIDATE OTHER CASES AS WELL?
1) SHOULD R. SHIMON VALIDATE OTHER CASES AS WELL?
(a) Question #3: If Haza'ah of Chatas ha'Of was done below l'Shem Olas ha'Of, Teratzeh, for the Lo Lishmah is evident; for only Mitzuy is done regarding Olah, and that is done above!
(b) Answer: Indeed, this is correct, it is fully Kosher;
1. R. Shimon said that Menachos are unlike Zevachim, he did not say that they are unlike birds (for also birds Lo Lishmah are sometimes Meratzeh).
(c) Question #4: If Kodshei Kodoshim were slaughtered in the north l'Shem Kodshim Kalim, Teratzu, for the Lo Lishmah is evident - one would not slaughter Kodshim Kalim in the north (Tosfos - lest they be confused with Kodshei Kodoshim!)
(d) Answer: No - the Torah permits slaughter of Kodshim Kalim in the entire Azarah (and often they are slaughtered in the north, we are not concerned for confusion).
1. (Mishnah): Kodshim Kalim are slaughtered anywhere in the Azarah.
(e) Question #5: If Kodshim Kalim were slaughtered in the south l'Shem Kodshei Kodoshim, Teratzu, for the Lo Lishmah is evident - it is forbidden to slaughter Kodshei Kodoshim in the south!
(f) Answer: Indeed, perhaps they are Kodshei Kodoshim, and he transgressed (Rashba - this is no less reasonable than saying that he transgressed by slaughtering Lo Lishmah), the Lo Lishmah is not evident. (Tosfos - this is also a second answer to the previous questions.)
1. Question: If so, the same applies to Kemitzas Minchas Machavas l'Shem Marcheshes - perhaps he vowed to bring Marcheshes, and he transgressed and cooked it in a Machavas (the Lo Lishmah is not evident)!
2. Answer: Even if he vowed to bring Marcheshes, once he cooks it in a Machavas, it becomes Minchas Machavas. (Therefore, the Lo Lishmah is evident.)
i. (Mishnah): If Reuven vowed to bring Marcheshes and he brought Machavas or vice-versa, it is Kosher, he did not fulfill his vow.
3. Question: Perhaps (flour was in front of him, and) he vowed to bring *this* in a Marcheshes, and he transgressed and cooked it in a Machavas!
i. (Mishnah): If Reuven vowed to bring *this* in a Marcheshes and he brought Machavas or vice-versa, it is Pasul.
ii. (Since the Minchah cannot be changed, the above answer does not apply - the Lo Lishmah is not evident, perhaps it really is Marcheshes!)
4. Answer: That is according to Chachamim, R. Shimon argues:
i. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): (It is Kosher,) he even fulfills his vow.
ii. Inference: He holds that specifying to bring in a particular Kli has no significance - it does not matter whether he said 'a Minchah' or 'this'. (The vow is only to bring a Minchah; once he cooks it in a Machavas, it becomes Minchas Machavas, the Lo Lishmah is evident.)
(g) Question #6: If an Olah was slaughtered l'Shem Chatas, Teratzeh, for the Lo Lishmah is evident - an Olah is male, Chatas is female!
(h) Answer #1: No, some Chata'os are male, e.g. a Nasi brings a male goat.
1. Question #6A: If he slaughtered it l'Shem Chatas of a commoner, how can we answer?
2. Question #6B: If a Chatas of a commoner was slaughtered l'Shem Olah, Teratzeh, for the Lo Lishmah is evident - an Olah is male, Chatas is female!
(i) Answer #2 (and Answer to Questions 6A and 6B): The tail covers the female genitals, the gender is not evident.
(j) Question: This applies to a sheep - how can we answer regarding a goat (which has a short tail)?
(k) Answer #3 (or #2): People do not pay attention whether an animal is male or female, the Lo Lishmah is not evident.
(l) Question #7: If a Pesach was slaughtered l'Shem Asham, Teratzeh, for the Lo Lishmah is evident - a Pesach must be in its first year, an Asham must be in its second!
(m) Answer #1: The Asham of a Nazir or Metzora is a first year animal (the Lo Lishmah is not evident.)
1. Question #7A: If a Pesach was slaughtered l'Shem Asham Gezeilos or Asham Me'ilos, Teratzeh, for these Ashamos must be second year animals!
2. Question #7B: If an Asham Gezeilos or Asham Me'ilos was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach, Teratzeh!
(n) Answer #2 (and Answer to Questions 7A, 7B): People do not always discern whether an animal is in its first or second year, for some first year animals look like second year animals, and vice-versa.
(o) Question #8: If a goat was slaughtered l'Shem Asham, Teratzeh, for this is recognizably wrong - an Asham must be a sheep which has (Tosfos -white) wool, whereas goats have (Tosfos - black) hair!
(p) Answer: People will assume that it is a black (Rashba - i.e. shorn) sheep!
(q) Question #9: If a bull or calf was slaughtered l'Shem Pesach or Asham, Teratzeh, for these Korbanos must be sheep (or a kid, regarding Pesach)!
(r) Answer: Indeed, Teratzeh;
1. R. Shimon meant that Menachos are unlike *most* Zevachim (but indeed, sometimes Lo Lishmah is evident in Zevachim, then they are Kesherim, like Menachos.) (This is another answer to those questions in which we said that R. Shimon should Machshir a Zevach Lo Lishmah.)
2) RAVA'S ANSWER
(a) Answer #2 (to Question 4:a, 2B - Rava): R. Shimon is (fully) Machshir only regarding (Kemitzah of) a Minchah l'Shem a different Minchah;
1. Our Mishnah discusses a Minchah l'Shem a Zevach (Rashba - e.g. a Minchas Chotei offered to atone for a rich person who must bring Chatas Behemah for the same transgression), R. Shimon agrees, it is not Meratzeh.
2. Minchah l'Shem a (different) Minchah is Meratzeh - "V'Zos Toras ha'Minchah", there is one law for all Menachos (offering one l'Shem another is like offering Lishmah);
i. Minchah l'Shem Zevach is not Meratzeh - the verse does not equate Minchah to Zevach.
(b) Question: But the Beraisa says that R. Shimon is Machshir (l'Shem) Menachos because the Lo Lishmah is evident!
(c) Answer: It means, even though the intent is not evident (that it is Lishmah - just the contrary, the Lo Lishmah is evident), they are fully Kosher - we learn from "V'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" (Rava holds that if the Lo Lishmah is evident, this is reason to *Posel*, the opposite of Rabah's reasoning.)
(d) Question: How does he explain 'Menachos are unlike Zevachim (because slaughter is the same for all of them)'? (Since Lo Lishmah is not evident in a Zevach l'Shem a different Zevach, according to Rava, all the more so they should be Meratzeh!)
(e) Answer: It means, even though slaughter is the same for all Zevachim (so there is no need to decree on account of Zevachim Lo Lishmah, one might have thought that they are Meratzeh), "V'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" does not discuss Zevachim (therefore, they are not Meratzeh.)
(f) Question: According to Rava, a Chatas (brought for eating) Chelev should be Meratzeh, even if it was slaughtered l'Shem a different Chatas, e.g. one brought for eating Dam, for serving idolatry, or of a Nazir or Metzora;
1. We should learn from "V'Zos Toras ha'Chatas", there is one law for all Chata'os (offering one l'Shem another is like offering Lishmah)!
(g) Answer: Indeed, R. Shimon says that Chatas l'Shem another Chatas is Meratzeh;
1. (Rava): (Chachamim hold that) Chatas Chelev slaughtered l'Shem Chatas Dam or Chatas idolatry is Kosher;
i. If it was l'Shem Chatas Nazir or Chatas Metzora - it is Pasul, for these (do not atone, they) are like Olos. (Alternatively - it is Pasul, for people might think that it was l'Shem the Olah that accompanies it, and that it is permitted to slaughter Lo Lishmah.)
2. (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Chachamim Posel in all cases - "V'Shachat Osah l'Chatas" - it must be l'Shem the right Chatas.
3) THE THIRD ANSWER
(a) Answer #3 (to Question 4:a, 2B - Rav Ashi): R. Shimon is (fully) Machshir only when he said (about a Minchas Machavas) 'l'Shem Marcheshes' (without saying 'Minchah'):
1. Our Mishnah discusses Machavas l'Shem Marcheshes, his intent is for the *vessel*, not a different Minchah, and such intent is meaningless;
2. The Beraisa discusses Minchas Machavas l'Shem Minchas Marcheshes, the intent is for the Minchah itself, it is not Meratzeh. (Rashba - the *Gemara* says that it was truly Minchas Machavas - had the Kohen said this, the Lo Lishmah would be blatant! Rather, he only said 'l'Shem Minchas Marcheshes'.)
(b) Question: But the Beraisa says that R. Shimon is Machshir because the Lo Lishmah is evident!
(c) Answer: It means, even though the intent (Lishmah) is not evident (rather, the Lo Lishmah is evident), and one might have thought that it is Pasul (it is not, for his intent is for the vessel).
(d) Question: How does he explain 'Menachos are unlike Zevachim...'?
(e) Answer: It means, even though slaughter, Kabalah and Zerikah are the same for all Zevachim (so the Lo Lishmah is not evident), intent is Posel, for the intent is in the slaughter itself.
(f) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If Kemitzah of a Minchah Charevah (without oil) was done l'Shem Blulah (mixed with oil), the intent is (evidently Lo Lishmah and) in the Minchah itself (he did not mention a vessel!) - why is it Meratzeh?
(g) Answer (Rav Ashi): His intent is not for a Minchah Blulah, rather, for an unspecified mixed matter.
(h) Question: If so, Olah slaughtered l'Shem Shelamim should also be Meratzeh, we should say that his intent is not for Korban Shelamim, rather, just for Shelamim (peaceful relations)!
(i) Answer: That is different - the Korban is called Shelamim, the Minchah is not called (only) Blulah, it is called Blulah ba'Shemen - "V'Chol Minchah Velulah va'Shemen"!
4) WHY EACH DID NOT LEARN LIKE THE OTHERS
(a) Rava and Rav Ashi did not answer (Question 4:a, Daf 2B) like Rabah, for they hold that there is more reason to Posel when the Lo Lishmah is evident;
(b) Rabah and Rav Ashi did not answer like Rava, for they do not expound "V'Zos Toras ha'Minchah" to teach about a Minchah l'Shem a different Minchah;
(c) Rabah and Rava did not answer like Rav Ashi, on account of Rav Acha's question (they do not accept Rav Ashi's answer.)