Menachot 5a:2מנחות ה׳ א:ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 5a:2"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
5aה׳ א

דאמר מר גילח על א' משלשתן יצא

as the Master said about the nazirite (Nazir 45a): And if he shaved after the sacrifice of any one of the three of them, i.e., after sacrificing his sin offering, burnt offering, or peace offering, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, i.e., he has successfully completed his term of naziriteship. Accordingly, there is no specific offering that renders him fit.

מיתיבי אשם מצורע שנשחט שלא לשמו או שלא ניתן מדמו ע"ג בהונות ה"ז עולה לגבי מזבח וטעון נסכים וצריך אשם אחר להכשירו תיובתא דרב

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to the guilt offering of a leper that was slaughtered not for its own sake, or if none of its blood was placed on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, this guilt offering is offered up upon the altar and it requires libations, in accordance with the halakha of the guilt offering of a leper. But the leper must nevertheless bring another guilt offering to render him fit to partake of offerings. This baraita is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav, who said that the guilt offering of a leper that was slaughtered not for its own sake is entirely disqualified because it did not render the leper fit.

ורשב"ל אמר מנחת העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה כשירה ושיריה אין נאכלין עד שתביא מנחת העומר אחרת ותתירנה

§ The Gemara returns to its discussion concerning the omer meal offering. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, with regard to an omer meal offering from which a priest removed a handful not for its own sake, that it is valid and the handful is burned on the altar. But its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until a priest brings another omer meal offering on the same day and thereby permits the first offering for consumption, as the prohibition against consuming the new crop remains in effect.

(ששיריה אין נאכלין עד שתביא מנחת העומר אחרת) מקרב היכי קרבה (יחזקאל מה, טו) ממשקה ישראל מן המותר לישראל

The Gemara asks: But if its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until they bring another omer meal offering, how can the handful removed from this omer meal offering be sacrificed upon the altar? Before the omer meal offering is sacrificed, the new crop is forbidden for consumption, and the verse states: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings” (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that one may sacrifice only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה קסבר ר"ל אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום

Rav Adda bar Ahava said in response: Reish Lakish holds that an offering is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day. Accordingly, since the new crop will be permitted for consumption on the same day that this handful was removed from the omer meal offering, it is already considered fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.

מתיב רב אדא בריה דרב יצחק יש בעופות שאין במנחות יש במנחות שאין בעופות יש בעופות שהעופות באין בנדבת שנים (אבל מנחות נפש כתיבא)

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, raises an objection to Rav Adda bar Ahava’s explanation from a baraita: There is a halakha that applies to birds that does not apply to meal offerings, and there is a halakha that applies to meal offerings that does not apply to birds. The baraita elaborates: There is a halakha that applies to birds that does not apply to meal offerings, as birds may be brought as a gift offering on behalf of two people, i.e., two people may take a vow to bring a single bird offering jointly. But with regard to meal offerings it is written: “And when one brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only individuals may vow to bring a meal offering.

ומחוסרי כפרה (זב וזבה יולדת ומצורע)

The baraita continues: And another halakha that applies to birds but not meal offerings involves one who has not yet brought his atonement offering, i.e., a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], or woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava], or a woman after childbirth, or a leper, all of whom must bring an offering to complete their atonement process. They bring a bird offering, not a meal offering.

והותרו מכלל איסורן בקודש משא"כ במנחות

And furthermore, with regard to birds, their general prohibition was permitted when they are consecrated, i.e., killing a non-sacred bird by pinching the nape of its neck renders it a carcass, whose consumption is prohibited, and yet pinching the nape of a bird offering enables it to be sacrificed upon the altar and permits it for consumption, which is not so with regard to meal offerings, i.e., there is no prohibition that applies to the non-consecrated ingredients of a meal offering that does not apply to actual meal offerings as well.

ויש במנחות שהמנחות טעונות כלי ותנופה והגשה וישנן בציבור כביחיד מה שאין כן בעופות

The baraita continues: And there is a halakha that applies to meal offerings that does not apply to birds. As meal offerings require placement in a service vessel, and they require waving and bringing, i.e., they must be brought to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. And lastly, there are meal offerings of the community just as there are meal offerings of individuals, e.g., the omer meal offering is a communal meal offering, which is not so with regard to birds. Bird offerings do not require the use of service vessels, they do not require waving or bringing, and there are no communal bird offerings.

ואם איתא במנחות נמי משכחת לה דהותרו מכלל איסורן בקודש ומאי ניהו מנחת העומר

Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, explains his objection: And if it is so that a handful that was removed from an omer meal offering not for its own sake is fit for burning upon the altar, then with regard to meal offerings as well, you find that their general prohibition was permitted when they are consecrated. And what is this meal offering that was permitted? It is the omer meal offering from which a handful was removed not for its own sake, as although the new crop remains prohibited to the Jewish people until another omer meal offering is brought, the handful of this meal offering may be sacrificed upon the altar.

כיון דאין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום לאו איסורא הוא

The Gemara answers: Since an offering is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day, the sacrificing of that handful is not a prohibition that was permitted. Instead, it was initially fit for sacrifice upon the altar, as though another omer meal offering had already been brought to permit it.

מתיב רב ששת הקדים מתן שמן למתן דם ימלאנו שמן ויחזור ויתן שמן אחר מתן דם מתן בהונות למתן שבע ימלאנו שמן ויחזור ויתן מתן בהונות אחר מתן ז'

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita that discusses the ritual purification of a leper: If the priest performed the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe before the placement of blood from the leper’s guilt offering on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, i.e., his actions were in the opposite order from those prescribed in the Torah (see Leviticus 14:14–17), he fills the vessel that holds a log of oil and he then puts oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe again after the placement of blood. If the priest performed the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe before the placement of seven sprinklings of oil before the Lord, he fills the vessel that holds a log of oil and he again puts oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe after the placement of seven sprinklings.

ואי אמרת אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום אמאי יחזור ויתן מאי דעבד עבד

Rav Sheshet explains his objection: And if you say that an offering is not considered as one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day, then why should the priest place the oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe again? What he performed, he already performed, i.e., since the oil was going to be placed on the leper’s right thumb and big toe on that day, the placement should be valid even when done out of order.

אמר רב פפא שאני הלכות מצורע דכתיבא בהו הוייה דאמר הכתוב (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת תהיה תורת המצורע תהיה בהוייתה תהא

Rav Pappa said in response: The halakhot of a leper are different, as it is written concerning them an expression of being, as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The term “shall be” indicates that it shall be as it is, i.e., the purification process of a leper must be performed in accordance with the precise order prescribed in the Torah.

מתיב רב פפא הקדים חטאתו לאשמו לא יהיה אחר ממרס בדמה אלא תעובר צורתה ותצא לבית השריפה

Rav Pappa raises an objection from a baraita: If the priest performed the slaughter of a leper’s sin offering before the slaughter of his guilt offering, i.e., the priest’s actions were in the opposite order from those prescribed in the Torah (see Leviticus 14:13–19), there should not be another priest stirring the blood of the leper’s sin offering to prevent it from congealing in order that his guilt offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled before the blood of his sin offering. Rather, the sin offering is left until its form decays, i.e., until the next morning, at which point it is definitively disqualified due to remaining in the Temple overnight and can be taken out to the place designated for burning. The objection is as follows: If an offering that is to be brought on that day is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived, why must this sin offering be left to decay? It should be considered as though it was slaughtered after the guilt offering.

אמאי קא מותיב רב פפא והא רב פפא הוא דאמר שאני הלכות מצורע דכתיבא בהו הוייה אלא רב פפא הכי קא קשיא ליה אימא ה"מ עבודה שחיטה לאו עבודה היא ואי אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום יהא אחר ממרס בדמה ולקריב אשם והדר ליקרב חטאת

The Gemara asks: Why does Rav Pappa raise this objection? But isn’t it Rav Pappa himself who said: The halakhot of a leper are different, as it is written concerning them an expression of being, which indicates that the order of slaughter of a leper’s offerings must be preserved? Rather, this is what is difficult to Rav Pappa from the baraita: You can say that this statement, the halakha that the order is indispensable to the purification process of a leper, applies only to a sacrificial rite, whereas the act of slaughter is not considered a rite. And if an offering is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day, then another priest should be stirring the blood of the leper’s sin offering to prevent it from congealing, and a priest should sacrifice the guilt offering and present its blood in the meantime, and afterward he should sacrifice the sin offering.

אלא אמר רב פפא היינו טעמא דר"ל דקסבר האיר מזרח מתיר דרבי יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים

Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is the reason of Reish Lakish, who said that the handful of an omer meal offering that was removed not for its own sake is valid and may be burned upon the altar: It is that he holds that the illumination of the eastern horizon on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan permits the new crop to the Jewish people even before the omer meal offering is sacrificed, as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: Even when the Temple is standing,