Menachot

for 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.1 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 toe2 [of the one to be cleansed], it may nevertheless be offered upon the altar, and it requires the drink-offerings;3 but another guilt-offering is necessary in order to render him fit. This is indeed a refutation of Rab's view.4 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,5 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,6 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.7 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,8 it is brought by those that lack atonement,9 and an exception to the general prohibition is made for consecrated birds;10 these, however, do not apply to meal-offerings. And some conditions apply to meal-offerings: a meal-offering requires a vessel,11 it requires waving and bringing nigh,12 it may be the offering of the community or of the individual;13 these, however, do not apply to bird-offerings. Now if [the aforesaid view] were correct,14 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!15 — Since the prohibition of ‘out of time’ does not apply to the same day, it is not regarded as a prohibition at all. 16 R. Shesheth raised an objection: If the application of the oil17 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!18 — 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;19 ‘shall be’ implies that it shall always be so.20 R. Papa raised an objection: If his21 sin-offering was [slaughtered] before his guilt-offering, one should not be appointed to keep stirring the blood22 [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!23 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’;24 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 daybreak25 [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 invalid, i.e., one may not proceed to burn it upon the altar. whatsoever is forbidden to Israel may not 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. individual, is used in connection with it; v. infra 104b. In cur. edd. this reason is, expressly stated in the text. 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. Nevertheless this was the prescribed method for ‘killing bird-offerings, and the flesh was eaten by the priests. had to be done with the priest's finger-nail. brought only by individuals and never by the community. although the new harvest was still under the prohibition. to bird-offerings in that in each case there is an exception to a general prohibition. exception to a general prohibition, as there is really no prohibition at all. 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. in the least. 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. 1.