Menachot 48b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

let it descend and become impure,

even though thereby he will cause the non-sacred produce below to be lost, since impure teruma, which is forbidden even to a kohen, is mixed with it.

And let him not render it impure

teruma

by hand,

by receiving it in impure vessels in order to save the non-sacred produce.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: He should even render it impure by hand.

And even though there is a prohibition against rendering teruma impure. And from here the questioner sought to prove that we say: commit a sin with teruma so that you may gain with non-sacred produce, even though they are two matters.

And we answer:

There it is different,

for he is not considered a sinner by rendering the teruma impure,

for

even without his receiving it in vessels

it is going to impurity.

And now the Gemara returns to the law of the rams of Shavuot:

When Rabbi Yitzhak came, he taught: The rams of Shavuot that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva,

that he slaughtered them not for their sake,

are disqualified

entirely, and their blood is not sprinkled, and their flesh is forbidden for eating ,

and their form shall pass

through the delay of a night, so that they become disqualified through overnight retention,

and they shall go

afterward

to the place of burning,

for offerings of consecrated things whose disqualification is not in their bodies are not burned immediately; therefore their form must pass. 35 .

He said

to him,

Rav Naḥman: Master,

who brought this beraita,

who compares them

to the rams of Shavuot

with a sin-offering,

as it is written concerning the sin-offering, “And you shall make one goat for a sin-offering and two year-old sheep for a sacrifice of peace-offerings,” so that their law is like that of a sin-offering disqualified when not for its sake,

taught ‘disqualified,’

whereas

the tanna of the school of Levi, who derives

the nazirite’s peace-offerings, which are

obligatory peace-offerings, from voluntary peace-offerings,

whose law is that when they were made not for their sake they are valid but do not count for the obligation,

taught ‘valid,’

even with regard to the rams of Shavuot, which are obligatory peace-offerings.

For Levi taught,

following the beginning of the beraita dealing with the laws of the disqualification of all the offerings of a nazirite:

And the other peace-offerings of a nazirite that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva,

that is, not for their sake,

are valid

as voluntary peace-offerings

but do not count for the owners as their obligation

of the nazirite’s peace-offerings,

and they are eaten for one day and one night

according to the law of the nazirite’s peace-offerings and not according to the law of other peace-offerings,

and they do not require either bread or a foreleg,

for these are among the obligations of the nazirite’s offering, and through this he does not fulfill his obligation.

And from here Rav Naḥman brought proof that there is a tanna who holds that the law of obligatory peace-offerings with regard to not for their sake is like the law of voluntary peace-offerings: they are valid but do not count, even though the nazirite’s peace-offerings were compared to a sin-offering, as it is written, “And one unblemished year-old ewe for a sin-offering and one unblemished ram for peace-offerings.” And the same is the law with the peace-offerings of Shavuot, which are a communal obligation. 36 .

And we raise a difficulty according to Rabbi Yitzhak, who derives an obligatory offering from a sin-offering and not from a voluntary offering.

He raised an objection

from what we learned in a beraita:

A guilt-offering

of an impure nazirite or a leper, whose law is to bring a lamb,

one year old, and he brought one two years old,

which is a ram, or a guilt-offering for robbery and misuse, whose law is to be a ram,

two years old, and he brought one year old, are disqualified.

And if they were slaughtered,

their form shall pass

through overnight retention

and they shall go to the place of burning

after they remained overnight.

But a nazirite’s burnt-offering, a woman after childbirth’s burnt-offering, and a leper’s burnt-offering that were two years old

[and the law of all these is that they be one year old]

and he slaughtered them are valid

as voluntary offerings.

The general rule is: everything valid in a voluntary burnt-offering is valid in an obligatory burnt-offering,

for even though it is obligatory, we derive from a voluntary offering with regard to validity.

And everything disqualified in a sin-offering is disqualified in a guilt-offering, except for not for its sake,

for it is disqualified in a sin-offering and valid in a guilt-offering.

And we learned in this beraita that an obligatory offering is derived from a voluntary offering [and even though the burnt-offering of a nazirite and of a leper are written together with a sin-offering, we do not compare it to a sin-offering to disqualify it]. If so, the peace-offerings of Shavuot, which are obligatory, should likewise be made valid when slaughtered not for their sake, according to the law of voluntary peace-offerings!?

And we answer:

This tanna is the tanna of the school of Levi,

and we already brought above that he holds that an obligatory offering is derived from a voluntary offering, and it is a dispute of tannaim in the beraitot. [And the reason that a guilt-offering not in accordance with its mitzva is more disqualified than a burnt-offering is that a guilt-offering was not compared to a voluntary offering, to derive from it].

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Naḥman’s words, for Levi held that an obligatory offering is derived from a voluntary offering:

Come and hear: For Levi taught: The guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for their sake are valid but do not count for the owners as their obligation; if he slaughtered them when the owners were lacking the proper time,

such as a leper’s guilt-offering before his days of purification had ended, or an impure nazirite’s guilt-offering before the seven days of impurity had ended,

or when they were two years old

although their law is that they be one year old

and he slaughtered them, they are disqualified,

and we do not say that they should be made valid not as the obligatory offering.

And if it is so,

that Levi derives an obligatory offering from a voluntary offering, as we said above,

let him derive

the guilt-offering that is two years old

from peace-offerings,

for a voluntary peace-offering that is two years old is valid, and likewise with a guilt-offering it should count as a voluntary offering when it cannot count as the obligatory offering?

And we answer:

Peace-offerings from peace-offerings

which are similar offerings

he derived,

even an obligatory offering from a voluntary offering. But

a guilt-offering he did not derive from peace-offerings.

And we raise a difficulty:

And if he derived peace-offerings from peace-offerings,

since they are one species of offering,

let him also derive a guilt-offering from a guilt-offering,

and since in a guilt-offering for robbery and misuse they bring a guilt-offering that is two years old, let us derive

the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper from the guilt-offering for robbery and the guilt-offering for misuse

to make one two years old valid in the case of a nazirite and a leper.

And let him likewise return the guilt-offering for robbery and the guilt-offering for misuse

to make one year old valid in them,

let him derive it from the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper?

And we answer:

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: One judges a matter that is not in its valid form

such as not for its sake with the rams of Shavuot

from a matter that is not in its valid form,

from not for its sake with voluntary peace-offerings [and the same is the law for an obligatory burnt-offering that is not in its valid form, from a voluntary burnt-offering that is not in its valid form],

but one does not judge a matter that is not in its valid form

to make the guilt-offering of a nazirite that is two years old valid in place of one year old, and the reverse,

from a matter that is in its valid form,

where one has come to derive from a place where this is its law initially, such as from the guilt-offering for robbery, which is two years old and is valid in that form, to a place where this is not its law.

And we raise a difficulty:

And not? But it was taught in a beraita: From where is it derived concerning an offering that went out

which became disqualified through its going out,

that if it ascended to the

altar

it does not descend,

and it is included in the law “if they ascended, they do not descend”—

for an offering that went out is valid on a private altar.

But on a private altar it was made valid in this form, for there is no law of going out at all, since it has no partitions; if so, we see that one may derive from a matter that is in its valid form to a matter that is not in its valid form!?