Menachot 4b — the Talmud in English

And likewise you say with regard to the guilt-offering of a nazirite

impure

and

likewise with regard to the

guilt-offering of a leper, which

if

they slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified, since they came to render [the person] fit

: the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite comes to render him fit, so that he can count from this point onward the days of his purity-nazirite status, while the first days that he counted before becoming impure are not counted; and the guilt-offering of a leper comes to render him fit to enter the camp,

and

behold, it

did not

render him fit.

And we challenge this:

We learned: All the meal-offerings whose handfuls were taken not for their sake are valid, except that they did not accrue to their owners for the sake of their obligation, except for the meal-offering of a sinner and the meal-offering of jealousy.

And if it is so

according to Rav,

let it also teach “

except for the omer-offering

,” which is not valid when [offered] not for its sake.

And we answer:

When it teaches

the law of meal-offerings in our Mishna, it is with regard to a meal-offering

brought

by a

private individual.

But one

brought

by the

community

, namely, the omer-offering,

it does not teach

, even though it too is disqualified when [offered] not for its sake.

Furthermore,

when it teaches

with regard to the meal-offerings in the Mishna, it is a meal-offering

brought on account of itself

—on its own. But the omer-offering

is brought on account of

[together with] a

sacrifice

: a lamb is brought as an burnt-offering together with the omer-offering, and such a meal-offering

it does not teach.

Furthermore,

when it teaches

with regard to the meal-offerings in our Mishna, specifically

these

meal-offerings

for which no fixed time is established

, but rather they are brought whenever he wishes;

this

—the omer-offering—

for which a time is fixed

, specifically on the sixteenth of Nisan,

it does not teach.

The Master said: And likewise you say with regard to the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper, that if they slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified, since they came to render [the person] fit but did not render him fit.

And we raise an objection:

We learned

[in Zevahim 2a]:

All the animal-offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid, except that they did not accrue

to their owners for the sake of their obligation, except for

the

Paschal-offering and

the

sin-offering.

And if it is so

that the guilt-offering of a nazirite and [the guilt-offering] of a leper are also disqualified when [slaughtered] not for their sake,

let it also teach “

except for the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper”?

And we answer:

Since there are

guilt-offerings that did not come to render [the person] fit, such as

the guilt-offering for robbery and the guilt-offering for misuse, which come for atonement

the tanna would have had to distinguish and say that this type of guilt-offering is valid while that type is disqualified;

it was not possible for him

to say simply “except for a guilt-offering”; therefore he did not teach them.

And we raise an objection:

What is different about the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper

, concerning which Rav said that if they slaughtered them not for their sake they are disqualified, because

they came to render [the person] fit but did not render him fit

, and their essential service was not accomplished;

these

—the other guilt-offerings—

also

should be said to become disqualified, since they

came for atonement but did not atone

, when he brings them not for their sake and they do not accrue to him for the sake of his obligation?

And we answer:

Rabbi Jeremiah said: We find that Scripture distinguished between

the offerings that

atone

—which come to atone for a person—and the offerings that render [the person] fit—which come to render [him] fit, such as an offering that comes to permit him to eat offerings and to enter the Temple, and, in the case of an impure nazirite, to begin the counting of the days of purity-nazirite status. And the distinction is that the offerings that render [the person] fit are more severe, for among the offerings that

atone there are some that come

also

after the death

of their owners who had set them aside, whereas

the offerings that render [the person] fit

,

do not include any that come after death

, and they are always sacrificed only during the lifetime of their owners.

For we learned: The woman

—a woman after childbirth, whose law is to bring two offerings, one a burnt-offering and one a sin-offering—

whose sin-offering she brought, and she died

before she managed to bring her burnt-offering,

her heirs shall bring her burnt-offering .

And behold, the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth comes to atone, as it is written concerning it, “one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, and he shall atone for her”; if so, we have found an offering that comes to atone, which is sacrificed after the death of its owner. But if she brought

her burnt-offering and died

and did not manage to bring her sin-offering, which comes to render her fit to eat sacred food,

her heirs shall not bring her sin-offering

in her place. If so, we see that an offering that comes to render [the person] fit is not sacrificed after the death of its owner. And we have learned that offerings that render [the person] fit are more severe than offerings that atone. Therefore it is also said that offerings that render [the person] fit, when slaughtered not for their sake, are disqualified, whereas offerings that atone, when slaughtered not for their sake, are valid, except that they did not accrue to their owners for the sake of their obligation.

Rabbi Judah, son of Rabbi Simeon ben Pazi, challenged him: The offerings that

render [the person]

fit also—are there not among them

some

that come after death?

And we learned

: A pure nazirite

who set aside money for the

offerings of

his nazirite status

, whose law is that he must bring a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and peace-offerings, but he did not specify which money was for which offering, we say:

one may not derive benefit

from them, by rabbinic decree, because the money for the burnt-offering is included among them,

but one does not commit misuse

with them,

because they are fit

—the money—

to all come as peace-offerings

, since he did not specify which of them was for the sin-offering and which was for the peace-offerings, and there is no misuse with peace-offerings except with their sacrificial portions after the blood has been sprinkled. And if

the

nazirite

died and he had unspecified money

, which he had set aside for his offerings but had not designated for a particular offering, it shall all

fall

to voluntary offerings

, that is, to the collection boxes for burnt-offerings, for this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning a nazirite.

But if the money is

specified

, meaning that he specified which of it was for a sin-offering, which for a burnt-offering, and which for peace-offerings, then:

The money for the sin-offering

among it,

he shall take to the Salt Sea

, in accordance with the law of a sin-offering whose owners died, whose law is death; and with the money for the sin-offering

one may not derive benefit

from it by rabbinic decree,

and one does not commit misuse

with it, since it is destined to be lost and is not considered sacred property of the Most High.

The money for the burnt-offering

among it,

with it he shall bring a burnt-offering, and one commits misuse with it.

The money for the peace-offerings

among it,

with it he shall bring peace-offerings, and they are eaten for one day

, in accordance with the stringency of the peace-offerings of a nazirite, and not like ordinary peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night,

and they do not require bread

, because we need to fulfill the verse, “and he shall place it upon the palms of the nazirite,” and behold, he has already died.

But the burnt-offering and peace-offerings of a nazirite, which are

offerings that

render [the person] fit

, for they permit him with regard to wine, shaving, and impurity,

and

nevertheless

do they come after death?

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said: This is what Rabbi Jeremiah said: We have not found a fixed rendering fit

—one that is specifically his sole means of rendering [him] fit [for the leper and the impure nazirite, the guilt-offering alone renders them fit and there is no other offering]—

that comes after death, and

there is no proof from the offerings

of a nazirite

, for they are not comparable, because there

the rendering fit is not fixed

,