Menachot 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise you say with regard to the guilt-offering of a impure 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 come to render one 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 state of ritual purity as a nazirite; the initial 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

yet

it did not

render him fit.

And we challenge this:

We learned in the Mishna: All meal-offerings whose handfuls were removed not for their sake are valid, but they do not count for their owners as an obligation, except for the meal-offering of a sinner and the meal-offering of jealousy.

And if it is so

according to Rav’s statement,

let it also teach: “

except for the omer meal-offering,”

which is not valid when performed not for its sake.

And we answer:

When it teaches

the laws of meal-offerings in our Mishna, it refers to a meal-offering that

is brought

by an

individual.

But one that

is brought

by the

community—

namely, the omer meal-offering—

it does not teach,

even though it too is disqualified when performed not for its sake.

Furthermore,

when it teaches

the laws of meal-offerings in the Mishna, it refers to a meal-offering that

is brought on its own account—

independently. But the omer meal-offering

is brought because of

a

sacrifice

as well, for a lamb is brought as an olah together with the omer meal-offering; and such a meal-offering

it does not teach.

Furthermore,

when it teaches

the laws of meal-offerings in our Mishna, it refers specifically to

those

meal-offerings

for which no time is fixed

in particular; rather, they are brought whenever one wishes.

But this—

the omer meal-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 were slaughtered not for their sake, they are disqualified, since they come to render one fit but did not render him fit.

And we ask:

We learned

in Zevachim 2a:

All sacrificial animals that were slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they do not count

for their owners as an obligation, except for

the

Paschal offering and

the

sin-offering.

And if it is so

that the guilt-offering of a nazirite and that of a leper are 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 do not come to render one fit, such as

the guilt-offering for theft 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 the guilt-offering.” Therefore, he did not teach them.

And we ask:

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

that Rav says that if they were slaughtered not for their sake they are disqualified, because

they come to render one fit but did not render him fit,

and their essential service was not accomplished?

These

—the other guilt-offerings—

also

should be said to be disqualified, since they

come for atonement but did not atone,

when one brings them not for their sake and they do not count for him as an obligation?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: We find that Scripture distinguished between

sacrifices that

atone—

those that come to atone for a person—and sacrifices that render one fit, which come to render one fit, such as a sacrifice that comes to permit him to eat sacrificial food and to enter the Temple, and, in the case of an impure nazirite, to begin counting the period of nazirite purity. The distinction is that sacrifices that render one fit are more stringent, for among sacrifices that

atone, there are some that come

among them that come also

after death

of their owners who designated them, whereas

those that render one fit

there

are none that come after death,

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

As we learned: The woman

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

who brought her sin-offering and died,

before she managed to bring her olah,

her heirs shall bring her olah,

and the olah of a woman after childbirth comes for atonement, as it is written concerning it: “one for a sin-offering and one for an olah, and he shall atone for her.” Thus, we find a sacrifice that comes to atone and is offered after the death of its owner. But if she brought

her olah and died

without managing to bring her sin-offering, which comes to render her fit to eat sacrificial food,

her heirs shall not bring her sin-offering

in her place. Thus, we see that a sacrifice that comes to render one fit is not offered after the death of its owner. We learn that sacrifices that render one fit are more stringent than those that atone. Therefore, it is likewise said that sacrifices that render one fit, when slaughtered not for their sake, are disqualified, whereas sacrifices that atone, when slaughtered not for their sake, are valid, but do not count for their owners as an obligation.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, challenged him:

Sacrifices that

render one fit also—are there not among them

some

that come after death?

And we learned:

A pure nazirite

who designated money for

the offerings of

his naziriteship,

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

one may not derive benefit

from the money by rabbinic decree, because the money for the olah is included in it,

but one does not commit misuse

with it

because

the money is fit

to all become peace-offerings,

since he did not specify which money 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 sprinkling of the blood. And if

the nazirite dies

and

he had unspecified money,

which he had designated for his offerings but had not assigned to a particular offering,

it shall all fall

to voluntary offerings,

that is, into the collection boxes for olot, as this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai concerning a nazirite.

But if the money is

specified,

with each portion designated as a sin-offering, an olah, or peace-offerings, then:

The money for the sin-offering

among it

shall be taken to the Dead Sea

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

one may not derive benefit

from it by rabbinic decree,

nor does one commit misuse

with it, since it is destined to be destroyed and is therefore not considered sacred property belonging to Heaven.

The money for the olah

among it

shall be used to bring an olah, and one commits misuse with it.

The money for the peace-offerings

among it

shall be used to bring peace-offerings, and they are eaten for one day

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

and they do not require bread,

because we must fulfill the verse, “And he shall place it upon the hands of the nazirite,” whereas he is already dead.

But the olah and peace-offerings of a nazirite, which

are sacrifices that

render one fit,

since 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 Yirmeya said: We have not found a fixed means of rendering one fit—

namely, one that is specifically his sole means of rendering him fit [for in the case of a leper and an impure nazirite, the guilt-offering alone renders them fit]—

that comes after death, and

there is no proof from the offerings

of a nazirite,

as they are not comparable, because there

the means of rendering one fit is not fixed.