Menachot — Daf 4b

ואשם מצורע ששחטן שלא לשמן פסולין הואיל ובאו להכשיר ולא הכשירו

תנן כל המנחות שנקמצו שלא לשמן כשירות אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה חוץ ממנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות ואם איתא ליתני נמי חוץ ממנחת העומר

כי קתני באה יחיד באה צבור לא קתני כי תני באה בגלל עצמה באה בגלל זבח לא קתני

כי קתני הנך שאין קבוע להן זמן הא דקבוע לה זמן לא קתני:

אמר מר וכן אתה אומר באשם נזיר ואשם מצורע ששחטן שלא לשמן פסולין הואיל ובאו להכשיר ולא הכשירו

תנן כל הזבחים ששחטן שלא לשמן כשרין אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשום חובה חוץ מפסח וחטאת ואם איתא ליתני נמי חוץ מאשם נזיר ואשם מצורע דבאו להכשיר ולא הכשירו

כיון דאיכא אשם גזילות ואשם מעילות דלכפרה אתו לא פסיקא ליה

מאי שנא אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע דבאו להכשיר ולא הכשירו הני נמי באו לכפרה ולא כפרו

א"ר ירמיה מצינו שחלק הכתוב בין מכפרים ובין מכשירין מכפרין אית בהו דאתו לאחר מיתה מכשירין לית בהו דאתו לאחר מיתה דתנן האשה שהביאה חטאתה ומתה יביאו יורשין עולתה עולתה ומתה לא יביאו יורשין חטאתה

מתקיף לה ר' יהודה בריה דר' שמעון בן פזי מכשירין נמי מי לית בהו דאתו לאחר מיתה והתנן המפריש מעות לנזירותו לא נהנין ולא מועלין מפני שראויין לבא כולן שלמים

מת והיו לו מעות סתומין יפלו לנדבה מפורשין דמי חטאת יוליך לים המלח לא נהנין ולא מועלין דמי עולה יביא בהן עולה ומועלין בהן

דמי שלמים יביא בהן שלמים ונאכלין ליום אחד ואין טעונין לחם והא עולה ושלמים דנזיר דמכשירים נינהו וקא אתו לאחר מיתה

אמר רב פפא הכי קא אמר ר' ירמיה לא מצינו הכשר קבוע דבא לאחר מיתה ודנזיר הכשר שאינו קבוע הוא

and the guilt-offering of the leper, viz., if one slaughtered them under any name other than their own they are invalid, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit1 and they have not done so. [An objection was raised:] We have learnt: ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS FROM WHICH THE HANDFUL WAS TAKEN UNDER ANY OTHER NAME THAN THEIR OWN ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEY DO NOT DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION OF THE OWNER, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. Now if the [above ruling of Rab] were correct, then it should have also stated ‘with the exception of the meal-offering of the ‘Omer’! — It only states those [meal-offerings] which are brought by an individual and not that which is brought by the whole community;2 furthermore, it only states those which are brought by themselves and not that which accompanies an animal-offering;2 furthermore, it only states those which are brought at no fixed time and not that which is brought at a fixed time.2 ‘In like manner you may say with regard to the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper, viz., if one slaughtered them under any name other than their own they are invalid, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so’. [An objection was raised:] We have learnt: All animal-offerings that were slaughtered under any name other than their own are valid, save that they do not discharge the obligation of the owner, with the exception of the passover-offering and the sin-offering.3 Now if [the above ruling of Rab] were correct, then it should have also stated with the exception of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper’, for they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so! — Since there is also the guilt-offering for robbery and the guilt-offering for sacrilege which are brought for atonement,4 [the Tanna] therefore could not have stated it absolutely.5 Why is it that the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper [if slaughtered under another name are invalid]? It is, is it not, because they are brought in order to render [the person] fit and they have not done so? Then with the other [guilt-offerings] too, it might be said, they are brought to make atonement and they have not done so! — R. Jeremiah answered, It is because we find that Scripture distinguishes between sacrifices that bring about atonement and those that render [the person] fit; those that bring about atonement are sometimes brought after death;6 whereas those that render [the person] fit are never brought after death. As we have learnt:7 If a woman had brought her sin-offering and then died, her heirs must bring her burnt-offering; but if she had first brought her burnt-offering and then died, her heirs need not bring her sin-offering.8 R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi demurred: But are not sacrifices that render the person fit also brought after death? Surely we have learnt: If a man set apart money for his Nazirite offerings,9 it is forbidden to make any other use of it, yet there would be no infringement of the law of sacrilege, since it may all be used for the purchase of peace-offerings.10 If he died and the money was not yet apportioned [for the respective offerings], it all goes for freewill-offerings;11 if it was apportioned, the price of the sin-offering must be cast into the Dead Sea12 — no use may be made of it; yet [if one did] there would be no infringement of the law of sacrilege;13 with the price of the burnt-offering a burnt-offering must be brought and the law of sacrilege applies to it; with the price of the peace-offering a peace-offering must be brought which must be eaten the same day14 , but it does not require the Bread-offering.15 Now are not the burnt-offering and the peace-offering of the Nazirite brought in order to render him fit and yet are brought after death? — Said R. Papa. This is what R. Jeremiah meant: We do not find an absolute offering,16 serving to render the person fit, that can be brought after death, for as regards the Nazirite, the offering which serves to render him fit is not absolute, uncleanness, rendered him fit to resume his Nazirite mode of life; cf. Num. VI, 12. The guilt-offering of the leper rendered him fit to partake of consecrated food. another name, is valid; v. infra. sin-offering and the guilt-offering’, for the rule in the latter case is not general but varies according to the kind of guilt-offering. sin-offering in order to render her fit to partake of consecrated food; cf. Lev. XII, 6. It is clear from this Mishnah that only the sacrifice which brings atonement is brought after death. sprinkling of the blood) since they are not regarded as consecrated property. with the established law that a sin-offering whose owner had died must be left to die. the law of sacrilege; cf. Me'il, 3a. peace-offering which is limited to one day. the loaves) upon the hands of the Nazirite, cannot be fulfilled; Me'il, 11a. Nazir 24b.