מנחות 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for a Master has said, If [the Nazirite] shaved [his head] after [the sacrifice of] any one of the three offerings, he has fulfilled his obligation. An objection was raised: If the guilt-offering of a leper was slaughtered under any name other than its own, or if the blood thereof was not put upon the thumb and great toe [of the one to be cleansed], it may nevertheless be offered upon the altar, and it requires the drink-offerings; but another guilt-offering is necessary in order to render him fit. This is indeed a refutation of Rab's view. R. Simeon b. Lakish said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the ‘Omer under any name other than its own, it is valid, but the rest of it may not be eaten until another ‘Omer meal-offering has been brought and rendered it permitted. But surely, if the rest of it may not be eaten, how may it [the handful] be offered? It is written, From the liquor of Israel, that is, from that which is permitted to Israel! — R. Adda b. Ahabah said, Resh Lakish is of the opinion that the prohibition of ‘out of time’ does not apply to the same day. R. Adda the son of R. Isaac raised an objection: Some conditions apply to bird-offerings which do not apply to meal-offerings, and some conditions apply to meal-offerings which do not apply to bird-offerings. Some conditions apply to bird-offerings: a bird-offering may be brought as a voluntary offering by two people jointly, it is brought by those that lack atonement, and an exception to the general prohibition is made for consecrated birds; these, however, do not apply to meal-offerings. And some conditions apply to meal-offerings: a meal-offering requires a vessel, it requires waving and bringing nigh, it may be the offering of the community or of the individual; these, however, do not apply to bird-offerings. Now if [the aforesaid view] were correct, then with regard to meal-offerings it can also be said that an exception to the general prohibition was made for that which is consecrated, namely, in the case of the meal-offering of the ‘Omer! — Since the prohibition of ‘out of time’ does not apply to the same day, it is not regarded as a prohibition at all. R. Shesheth raised an objection: If the application of the oil was performed before the application of the blood, he [the priest] must fill up the log of oil and must again apply the oil after applying the blood. If [the oil] was applied on the thumb and great toe before it was sprinkled seven times before the Lord, he must fill up the log of oil and must again apply it on the thumb and great toe after the oil has been sprinkled seven times. Now if you are right in saying that the prohibition of ‘out of time’ does not apply to the same day, why must [the priest] do it again? After all, what is done is done! — R. Papa answered, It is different with the rites of the leper since the expression ‘shall be’ is written with regard to them, as it is written, This shall be the law of the leper; ‘shall be’ implies that it shall always be so. R. Papa raised an objection: If his sin-offering was [slaughtered] before his guilt-offering, one should not be appointed to keep stirring the blood [until the guilt-offering had been brought], but the appearance [of the flesh] must be allowed to pass away and it must be taken away to the place of burning! But why does R. Papa raise this objection? Did not R. Papa say that the law is different with regard to the rites of a leper, since the expression ‘shall be’ is used with regard to them? — R. Papa had felt this difficulty: perhaps this law only affected what was a ‘service’, but slaughtering is no ‘service’; now if [it is correct to say that] the prohibition of ‘out of time’ does not apply to the same day, then some one might keep stirring the blood [of the sin-offering] whilst the guilt-offering is being offered and then the sin-offering can be offered! — Rather said R. Papa, This is the reason for Resh Lakish's view: he is of the opinion that the daybreak [of the sixteenth day of Nisan] renders [the new harvest] permitted. For both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish said, Even when the Temple was in existence^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:Nazir 45a.
^ᵇnote:Cf. Lev. XIV, 17.
^ᶜnote:V. infra 90b.
^ᵈnote:For according to Rab whatsoever is brought to render the person fit, if offered under any other name than its own, is invalid, i.e., one may not proceed to burn it upon the altar.
^ᵉnote:I. e., it may be offered upon the altar.
^ᶠnote:Ezek. XLV, 15; referring especially to drink-offerings, but the Rabbis have inferred from this expression that whatsoever is forbidden to Israel may not be offered upon the altar.
^ᵍnote:The prohibition of ‘out of time’, i.e., that the time has not yet arrived when the matter may be offered upon the altar, does not apply where this same matter will later on this very day be permitted to all Israel. Here, after the offering of another ‘Omer, the new harvest will be permitted to all.
^ʰnote:But a meal-offering cannot be brought by two persons jointly, for the expression ‘a soul’ (Lev. II, 1) i.e., an individual, is used in connection with it; v. infra 104b. In cur. edd. this reason is, expressly stated in the text.
^ⁱnote:I.e., those who had suffered uncleanness, viz., a man or woman that had an issue, a woman after childbirth, and a leper, and who had done all that was necessary for their purification except to present their offering. The offering in each case was a bird-offering.
^ʲnote:Generally to nip off the head of a bird would render the whole bird nebelah, I.e. carrion, and forbidden to be eaten. Nevertheless this was the prescribed method for ‘killing bird-offerings, and the flesh was eaten by the priests.
^ᵏnote:I.e., the handful taken out by the priest had to be put into a sacred vessel, whereas the nipping of the head of a bird had to be done with the priest's finger-nail.
^ˡnote:V. infra 60a.
^ᵐnote:The meal-offering of the ‘Omer was brought on behalf of the whole community; bird-offerings, however, were brought only by individuals and never by the community.
^ⁿnote:That if the meal-offering of the ‘Omer was offered under another name, the offering may be proceeded with, although the new harvest was still under the prohibition.
^ᵒnote:For it is offered upon the altar although the new harvest is still forbidden. Consequently meal-offerings are similar to bird-offerings in that in each case there is an exception to a general prohibition.
^ᵖnote:Hence one cannot speak of the offering of the ‘Omer, even though it was offered under another name, as an exception to a general prohibition, as there is really no prohibition at all.
^ᵠnote:In the purification rites of a leper the following duties, inter alia, had to be strictly observed: first, the officiating priest must apply the blood of the guilt-offering on the tip of the right ear, the thumb of the right hand and the great toe of the right foot of the one to be cleansed; secondly, from the log (v. Glos.) of oil the priest must sprinkle seven times before the Lord; thirdly, he must apply oil on those parts on which the blood was previously applied. V. Lev. XIV, 14-19.
^ʳnote:For the priority of services is not vital and the fact that one service was performed out of its time should not matter in the least.
^ˢnote:Ibid. XIV, 2.
^ᵗnote:Without any variation in the routine.
^ᵘnote:Sc. the leper's.
^ᵛnote:That it should not become congealed.
^ʷnote:I.e., the flesh of the sin-offering must be allowed to remain overnight, when the freshness would be gone, and then burnt. The fact that it must be burnt proves that whatever is offered ‘out of time’ is invalid, thus in conflict with Resh Lakish's view.
^ˣnote:Since it does not require the services of a priest but a layman may slaughter the sacrifice. V. Tosaf. s.v. vyhja 1.
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘when the eastern sky has lit up’.

²it was the daybreak that rendered [the new harvest] permitted. This view of Resh Lakish was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following: We have learnt: One may not offer meal-offerings, first-fruits, or meal-offerings that accompany animal-offerings, before the ‘Omer; and if one did so it is invalid. Neither may one offer these before the Two Loaves; but if one did so it is valid. And R. Isaac said in the name of Resh Lakish. This rule applies only [if the offering was brought] on the fourteenth or fifteenth day [of Nisan], but if brought on the sixteenth day it would be valid. It is thus clear that he is of the opinion that the daybreak [of the sixteenth day of Nisan] renders [the new harvest] permitted. Raba said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the ‘Omer under any name other than its own, it is valid, and the rest of it may be eaten; moreover there is no need of another ‘Omer meal-offering [to be brought in order] to render [the new harvest] permitted. For [Raba is of the opinion that] a wrongful intention does not affect the offering unless expressed by one fit for service, in respect of what is fit for service, and in the place that is fit for service. ‘By one fit for service’ — this excludes a priest with a physical-blemish; ‘in respect of what is fit for service’ — this excludes the ‘Omer meal-offering which is not fit for any other offering, for it is exceptional; ‘and in the place that is fit for service — this excludes an altar which has become chipped. Our Rabbis taught: When it says in the next verse Of the herd — which is unnecessary — it does so only to exclude a trefah animal. But surely this can be arrived at by an a fortiori argument: if a blemished animal which is permitted to man is forbidden to the Most High, how much more is a trefah animal which is forbidden to man forbidden to the Most High! The fat and the blood [of the animal], however, can prove otherwise; for these are forbidden to man yet are permitted to the Most High. [And if you retort,] This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from that which is permitted, but will you say the same of a trefah animal which is wholly forbidden? [I reply,] The rite of nipping off [the head of a bird-offering] which [would render the bird] wholly forbidden [to man] could prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet is permitted to the Most High. [But you might retort,] This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden [to man] by this act which renders it consecrated; the same, however, cannot be said of a trefah animal for it is not rendered forbidden by any act which renders it consecrated. And if you reply to this, then [I say that] when it reads in the next verse ‘Of the herd’ — which is unnecessary-it does so only to exclude the trefah animal. What was meant by ‘If you reply to this’? — Rab said, Because one could reply that the ‘Omer meal-offering can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. But this is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering as it renders the new produce permitted! — The [‘Omer meal-offering of the] Sabbatical year was meant. But that surely renders the aftergrowth permitted? — [It is indeed the ‘Omer meal-offering of] the Sabbatical year [that is meant], but the view is in accordance with that of R. Akiba who said that the aftergrowth is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. R. Aha b. Abba said to R. Ashi, Even according to R. Akiba's view one could refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering since it renders permitted the new produce [of the Sabbatical year grown] outside the Land [of Israel] And even according to him who maintains that outside the Land [of Israel] the new produce is not forbidden by the law of the Torah, [one can refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering,] since it serves to raise the prohibition that lies upon it. R. Aha of Difti thereupon said to Rabina, If so, should not a trefah animal also be permitted to be offered as a sacrifice and so it would raise the prohibition [of trefah] that lies upon it? -One could, however, refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering since there is an express command that it shall be so. Resh Lakish said, One could reply that the case of the compounder of the incense can prove otherwise: for he is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. But the compounder is a person! — Say, rather, The compound forming the incense can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High But this is so of the compound forming the incense since there is an express command that it shall be so! Mar the son of Rabina said, One could reply that the Sabbath can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. But this is so of the Sabbath since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of circumcision! — Surely circumcision is not for the sake of the layman. It is a precept [of the Law]! — One could therefore say, This is so of the Sabbath since there is an express command that it shall be so! R. Adda b. Abba said, One could reply that a garment of diverse kinds [of stuff] can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to the layman yet permitted to the Most High. But this is so of diverse kinds since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of the zizith! — Surely the zizith is not for the sake of the layman, it is a precept [of the Law]! — One could therefore say,^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ

^ᶻnote:V. infra 68a. The restriction against partaking of the new harvest is lifted at the dawn of the sixteenth day of Nisan, before the offering of the ‘Omer. Consequently the handful, even though taken under another name, may be burnt upon the altar, for the new harvest is already permitted to all.
^ᵃᵃnote:That the daybreak of the sixteenth day of Nisan renders the new harvest permitted, even before the offering of the ‘Omer.
^ᵃᵇnote:Infra 68b.
^ᵃᶜnote:Of the new harvest.
^ᵃᵈnote:For only that which is permitted to Israel may be offered upon the altar; cf. Ezek. XLV, 15, and supra p. 20.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which were offered on Shabuoth, the Feast of Weeks. These are referred to as ‘a new meal-offering’. I.e., the first (wheaten) meal-offering of the new harvest; v. Lev. XXIII, 16, 17.
^ᵃᶠnote:That whatsoever is offered before the ‘Omer is invalid.
^ᵃᵍnote:Although the ‘Omer meal-offering had not yet been brought.
^ᵃʰnote:In that it was brought of barley (and of bruised grain in contradistinction from the meal-offering of jealousy which was of barley meal) whereas all other meal-offerings consisted of wheat.
^ᵃⁱnote:Cf. Ex. XX, 21: And thou shalt slaughter upon it, implying that the altar shall be whole at the time of the service and not chipped. V. Zeb. 59a, and Hul. 18a.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. I, 3. In the preceding verse 2, the particle ‘of’ that precedes each of the classes of animals mentioned is utilized to exclude from sacrifices such animals as were used for irreligious or immoral purposes.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˡnote:And no verse therefore is required to teach that a trefah animal is unfit for a sacrifice.
^ᵃᵐnote:Sc. to be offered upon the altar.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., the whole of the animal is permitted to be eaten except for these parts.
^ᵃᵒnote:Sc. the nipping. It is with the rite of nipping that the bird becomes consecrated and so forbidden to a layman; before that it was permitted.
^ᵃᵖnote:For without consecration a trefah animal is forbidden to man. And so no verse is really necessary to exclude a trefah animal from being offered as a sacrifice.
^ᵃᵠnote:What reasoning could be adduced to refute the foregoing argument derived from the rite of nipping that it was found necessary to resort to the verse to exclude a trefah animal?
^ᵃʳnote:Whereas a trefah animal does not render anything permitted.
^ᵃˢnote:When there is no new produce to be rendered permitted, for in this year the fields were to rest and lie fallow (cf. Ex. XXIII, 10, 11). Hence the ‘Omer meal-offering of this year is on the same footing as any trefah animal in that neither can render anything else permitted; consequently by analogy with the ‘Omer meal-offering a trefah animal should be permitted as a sacrifice, and therefore the verse is necessary to exclude the trefah animal.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. Pes. 51b. The ‘Omer of this year therefore does not render anything permitted and is on all fours with a trefah animal.
^ᵃᵘnote:And so it is not on a par with a trefah animal which renders naught permitted.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. the prohibition of the new produce. If in the Sabbatical year a man were to eat of the remnants of the ‘Omer meal-offering, he would not be liable for eating of the new produce, for this prohibition has been raised by the offering of the ‘Omer, but would only incur guilt for eating of the produce of the Sabbatical year. V., however, Tosaf. s.v. ifa.
^ᵃʷnote:And whosoever ate thereof would not be liable for eating what was trefah.
^ᵃˣnote:The ‘Omer meal-offering must be brought from the new produce of the year, for that is the very essence of the precept; on the other hand, it is not essential that only a trefah animal shall be offered, any other animal would serve just as well.
^ᵃʸnote:Cf. Ex. XXX, 34ff. Likewise it would be said that a trefah animal, though forbidden to man, is permitted to the Most High. Hence a verse is necessary to exclude a trefah animal.
^ᵃᶻnote:And how can it be said that he is permitted to the Most High?
^ᵇᵃnote:Cf. ibid. 37.
^ᵇᵇnote:But there is no express command to offer a trefah animal!
^ᵇᶜnote:I.e., work on the Sabbath is forbidden to the layman, yet it is permitted to offer thereon the prescribed sacrifices.
^ᵇᵈnote:Which may be performed on the Sabbath. On the other hand there are no exceptions to the general prohibition of trefah!
^ᵇᵉnote:For the Sabbath sacrifices can only be offered on the Sabbath.
^ᵇᶠnote:I.e., a texture blended of wool and linen; v. Lev. XIX, 19; Deut. XXII, 11.
^ᵇᵍnote:The High Priest whilst officiating in the Temple wore a girdle that was blended of wool and linen.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc. the fringes; cf. Num. XV, 38ff; Deut. XXII, 12. It is permitted to attach fringes of wool to a linen garment, for the prohibition of diverse kinds of stuff does not apply to the precept of zizith.