Menachot 5a — the Talmud in English

For the master said: The nazirite who shaved

at the end of his naziriteship

for

one offering

of the three—

even if he shaved for a sin-offering—

has fulfilled his obligation,

and he was thereby permitted to drink wine. And if so, their qualification is not singular and specific; therefore they come after death.

He raises an objection: A leper’s guilt-offering that was slaughtered not for its sake, or whose blood was not placed on the thumbs and toes

of the leper as prescribed,

behold, it is offered upon the altar and requires

the leper’s guilt-offering

libations

as prescribed. Since it is a valid offering, only it did not count for the leper as an obligation, to qualify him to enter the camp [and to eat sacrificial food],

and

therefore

he requires another guilt-offering to qualify him!?

And we conclude:

A refutation of Rav

who said above that a leper’s guilt-offering that was slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified, since it comes to qualify but did not qualify; whereas here it is explained that the offering is valid.—

A refutation!

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

disagrees with Rav

and said: The omer-offering whose handful was removed not for its sake is valid,

and not as Rav said, that it is disqualified,

but its remainder may not be eaten,

for it is included in the prohibition of hadash, which has not yet been permitted,

until another omer-offering is brought and permits it,

like all new grain that is permitted through the omer-offering.

And we raise a difficulty:

How can it be offered

the omer-offering whose handful was removed not for its sake? But it is written,

“from the drink of Israel,”

and from this verse, which is stated in Ezekiel, we learn that offerings must be brought specifically

from that which is permitted to Israel.

And something that is not permitted to Israel because of some prohibition is likewise not fit to be offered upon the altar. But this offering, whose handful did not accomplish its qualification, is still forbidden to Israel because of the prohibition of hadash; and if so, it is not fit even for the Most High?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Reish Lakish holds that there is no disqualification of

one who is

lacking the proper time—

who brought an offering whose time had not yet arrived—

for that very day.

If its time will arrive on that same day, then if he brought it earlier on that day, he is not considered lacking the proper time. And if so, also in the case of the omer-offering, since later that day the prohibition against eating hadash will be permitted through the other offering that he will bring, this offering too is considered something permitted to Israel and is valid.

Rav Adda, son of Rabbi Yitzhak, raises an objection:

We learned:

There are in

the offerings of

birds

laws

that are not in meal-offerings,

and

there are in meal-offerings

laws

that are not in birds.

There are in birds

that are not in meal-offerings:

birds may be brought as the voluntary offering of two people,

for it is possible to bring a bird-offering in partnership,

and by those lacking atonement

—namely, a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, and a leper bring birds to qualify themselves to eat sacrificial food—

and they were permitted

the birds

from the category of their prohibition

—for they were forbidden to a non-priest—

in the sacred realm.

For a non-priest is permitted to eat unconsecrated birds specifically through slaughter and not through pinching; but in the sacred realm they were permitted through pinching.

Unlike meal-offerings,

there are none of these laws in meal-offerings: they do not come in partnership, because “person” is stated concerning them, implying specifically one; they do not come for those lacking atonement; and they have no greater permission in the sacred realm than in the non-sacred realm.

And there are in meal-offerings

that are not in birds:

meal-offerings require

being brought in a

vessel

specifically,

and

require

waving and presentation

at the southwestern corner of the altar,

and they exist as communal offerings

—the omer-offering, which is brought by the community—

as well as by an individual; unlike birds,

these laws do not apply to them: they do not require a vessel, since their pinching is performed with a fingernail; waving and presentation are not stated concerning them; and they are not brought as communal offerings, for “his offering” is written concerning them, and it is learned from this that specifically an individual brings a bird-offering, but not the community.

And if it is so

regarding that which Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, that the omer-offering whose handful was removed not for its sake is valid, it follows that one of the distinctions that we said exists in birds—that they were permitted from the category of their prohibition in the sacred realm—also

is found in meal-offerings as well: that they were permitted from the category of their prohibition in the sacred realm. And what is it? The omer-offering,

for the new grain is still forbidden to a non-priest, while it has already been permitted for the Most High?

And we answer:

Since

we said

that lacking the proper time for that very day is not a prohibition,

the matter is considered as though the other offering, which permits the new grain, had already been offered and the prohibition of hadash had been permitted; and this is not “from the category of their prohibition.”

Rav Sheshet raises an objection,

for we learned in a beraita: A leper, whose law is to place blood and afterward oil on his thumbs and toes—if he

preceded the placing of the oil to the placing of the blood, he shall fill it

to the measure of a log

of oil and return and perform the placing of the oil after the placing of the blood

as prescribed; and if he preceded

the placing on the thumbs and toes to the placing of the seven

—for he sprinkles with his finger seven times opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary—

he shall fill it

to the measure of a log

of oil

and sprinkle from it opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary,

and return and perform the placing on the thumbs and toes after the placing of the seven.

And if you say that there is no lacking of the proper time for that very day,

and it is considered as though the offering that permits the new grain had already come,

why

do we need here, in the case of the leper, that he

return and perform the placing

of oil on the thumbs and toes? Let it be said that since he can sprinkle opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary later that same day, there is no deficiency in preceding the placing of the oil on the thumbs and toes to the sevenfold sprinkling, for there is no lacking of the proper time for something that can be repaired on that same day, and the repair is considered for us as though it had already been performed. And if so, since he placed the oil on the thumbs and toes—

whatever he did, he did—

and why should he have to return and place it on them after the sprinkling opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary?

And he answers:

Rav Pappa said: The laws of a leper are different, for existence is written concerning them, as the verse says:

“This shall be the law of the leper,”

“shall be”

implies

it shall be in its existence,

that is, specifically in its prescribed order.

Rav Pappa raises an objection:

The leper’s guilt-offering precedes the sin-offering; and if

he preceded

the leper’s offering,

his sin-offering to his guilt-offering, he does not

say that

there shall be

a person

continually stirring its blood

of the sin-offering, so that it should not coagulate while in the meantime he brings the guilt-offering, sprinkles its blood, and afterward places the blood of the sin-offering in its prescribed order;

rather,

they leave the sin-offering until the next day so that

its form should pass

—so that the appearance of the moisture of flesh should pass from it and it should become disqualified through remaining overnight—

and

then

it shall go to the place of burning . [But so long as it has not become disqualified through remaining overnight, it is burned only when the disqualification is in its substance.] And if so, we have found that there is lacking of the proper time for that very day, for if not, why does it become disqualified? The sin-offering is fit for that very day.

And we are astonished:

What is Rav Pappa raising as an objection? But Rav Pappa

himself

is the one who said

regarding the earlier difficulty:

“The laws of a leper are different, for existence is written concerning them,”

and they must be performed specifically in their prescribed order; and if so, here too they must be performed specifically in their prescribed order?

And we say:

Rather, this is Rav Pappa’s difficulty: Say that this matter

which we said—that the leper’s [rites] must be in their prescribed order because existence is stated concerning him—applies specifically to

the service,

because the verse was stated regarding the service. But

slaughtering

is

not a service,

for it is valid even when performed by a non-priest, and existence was not written concerning it, so that it should specifically be in its prescribed order, and if so, the difficulty returns to its place:

And if there is no

lacking of the proper time for that very day, should there be someone continually stirring its blood

and offer the guilt-offering and afterward offer the sin-offering?

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is the reason of Reish Lakish,

who said, “The omer-offering whose handful was removed not for its sake is valid,” although apparently it is not from that which is permitted to Israel, since hadash is still forbidden:

for he holds that the rising of the east

—the dawning of the sixteenth of Nisan—

permits

the new grain, even if the omer-offering has not yet been offered, because the day itself permits it. And

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, who both say: Even while the Temple is standing

and they bring the omer-offering,