Menachot 4b

וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלִין, הוֹאִיל וּבָאוּ לְהַכְשִׁיר וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ.

and so you say with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, whose proper sacrifice enables the leper to enter the Israelite camp and to partake of offerings of sanctity, that if one slaughtered these offerings not for their sake, they are disqualified. They are disqualified since their sacrifice came to render the nazirite and leper fit, and these guilt offerings did not render them fit.

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁירוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: ״חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר״!

The Gemara asks: We learned in the mishna that all the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit for sacrifice but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy. And if it is so that an omer meal offering from which a handful was removed not for its own sake is disqualified, then let the mishna also teach: Except for the omer meal offering.

כִּי קָתָנֵי בָּאָה יָחִיד, בָּאָה צִבּוּר לָא קָתָנֵי; כִּי תָנֵי בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, בָּאָה בִּגְלַל זֶבַח – לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara responds: When the mishna teaches this halakha , it teaches it only with regard to meal offerings that come on behalf of an individual. The mishna does not teach the halakha with regard to those meal offerings that come on behalf of the community. Additionally, when the mishna teaches this halakha , it is only with regard to a meal offering that comes on account of itself, i.e., as an independent offering. The mishna does not teach the halakha with regard to a meal offering that comes on account of, i.e., together with, a slaughtered offering, e.g., the omer meal offering, which is brought along with two sheep.

כִּי קָתָנֵי הָנָךְ שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן, הָא דְּקָבוּעַ לָהּ זְמַן – לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara adds: Furthermore, when the mishna teaches this halakha , it is only with regard to those meal offerings whose time is not set, i.e., they may be sacrificed on any date. The mishna does not teach the halakha with regard to this omer meal offering, whose time for offering is set on the sixteenth of Nisan.

אָמַר מָר: וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן פְּסוּלִין, הוֹאִיל וּבָאוּ לְהַכְשִׁיר וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ.

§ The Gemara analyzes the statement of Rav. The Master said: And so you say with regard to the guilt offering of a nazirite who became ritually impure, and so you say with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, that if one slaughtered these offerings not for their sake, they are disqualified. They are disqualified since their proper sacrifice came to render the nazirite and leper fit, and they did not render them fit.

תְּנַן: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן כְּשֵׁרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִפֶּסַח וְחַטָּאת. וְאִם אִיתָא – לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, דְּבָאוּ לְהַכְשִׁיר וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ!

The Gemara asks: We learned in a mishna ( Zevaḥim 2a): All slaughtered offerings that one slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner. This is the halakha with regard to all offerings except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering, which are disqualified when slaughtered not for their sake. And if it is so that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rav, let the mishna also teach: Except for the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, since they came to render one fit and they did not render one fit.

כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת, דִּלְכַפָּרָה אָתוּ – לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: Since there are other guilt offerings, i.e., the guilt offering for robbery, which one brings for taking a false oath denying an accusation of robbery, and the guilt offering brought for misuse of consecrated property, that come for atonement, which do not render one fit and are fit for sacrifice if they were slaughtered not for their sake, the tanna of the mishna could not state the halakha with regard to guilt offerings in an absolute manner, and therefore he refrains from mentioning guilt offerings at all.

מַאי שְׁנָא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, דְּבָאוּ לְהַכְשִׁיר וְלֹא הִכְשִׁירוּ? הָנֵי נָמֵי בָּאוּ לְכַפָּרָה וְלֹא כִּפְּרוּ!

The Gemara asks: What is different about the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper? Why are they disqualified when slaughtered not for their sake since they came to render fit and they did not render fit? These, i.e., the guilt offerings for robbery and for misuse of consecrated property, should likewise be disqualified when slaughtered not for their sake, since they came for atonement and they did not atone.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מָצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין מְכַפְּרִים וּבֵין מַכְשִׁירִין, מְכַפְּרִין אִית בְּהוּ דְּאָתוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, מַכְשִׁירִין לֵית בְּהוּ דְּאָתוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. דִּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה חַטָּאתָהּ וּמֵתָה – יָבִיאוּ יוֹרְשִׁין עוֹלָתָהּ, עוֹלָתָהּ וּמֵתָה – לֹא יָבִיאוּ יוֹרְשִׁין חַטָּאתָהּ.

Rabbi Yirmeya said in response: We find that the Torah differentiates between those guilt offerings that atone and those that render fit, and the halakha is more stringent with regard to those that render fit. Rabbi Yirmeya elaborates: With regard to those guilt offerings that atone, there are among them offerings that come after death, i.e., they are sacrificed after the death of their owners, whereas with regard to those that render fit, there are none among them that come after death. As we learned in a mishna ( Kinnim 2:5): With regard to a woman after childbirth who brought her sin offering for her ritual purification and died, the heirs shall bring her burnt offering, which comes to atone. If she set aside her burnt offering and died, the heirs shall not bring her sin offering, as it comes to render her fit to partake of offerings.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: מַכְשִׁירִין נָמֵי, מִי לֵית בְּהוּ דְּאָתוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה? וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לִנְזִירוּתוֹ – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרְאוּיִין לָבֹא כּוּלָּן שְׁלָמִים.

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, objects to this: With regard to offerings that render fit as well, are there not among them offerings that come after death? But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Me’ila 11a): In the case of one who separates funds for the offerings of his naziriteship, i.e., his sin offering, burnt offering, and peace offering, a person may not derive benefit from them ab initio , but if one benefited from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, i.e., he is not required to bring a guilt offering and is not obligated to repay the principal and an additional fifth. This is because the coins are all fit for bringing peace offerings, and there is no misuse of consecrated property with regard to funds fit for a peace offering.

מֵת וְהָיוּ לוֹ מָעוֹת סְתוּמִין – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה; מְפוֹרָשִׁין: דְּמֵי חַטָּאת – יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח, לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין; דְּמֵי עוֹלָה – יָבִיא בָּהֶן עוֹלָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

The mishna continues: If the nazirite died and he had undesignated funds that he set aside to pay for his nazirite offerings without specifying how much money should be allocated toward each offering, they will be allocated for communal gift offerings. If he left behind allocated funds, then with regard to the money for a sin offering, one must take it and cast it into the Dead Sea; one may not benefit from it ab initio , but if one benefited from it after the fact, he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. With regard to the money for a burnt offering, one brings with it a burnt offering, and one is liable for misusing them.

דְּמֵי שְׁלָמִים – יָבִיא בָּהֶן שְׁלָמִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם. וְהָא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים דְּנָזִיר דְּמַכְשִׁירִים נִינְהוּ, וְקָא אָתוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה!

The mishna concludes: With the money for a peace offering, one brings a peace offering with it, and these offerings are eaten for one day, like the peace offering brought by a nazirite, and do not require the loaves that are normally bought with the peace offering of a nazirite. Rabbi Yehuda explains his question: But the burnt offering and peace offering of a nazirite are offerings that render the nazirite fit to drink wine, and yet they come after death.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכִי קָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא מָצִינוּ הֶכְשֵׁר קָבוּעַ דְּבָא לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וּדְנָזִיר הֶכְשֵׁר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָבוּעַ הוּא,

Rav Pappa said in response that this is what Rabbi Yirmeya is saying: We do not find an instance of a fixed manner of rendering fit that comes after death, i.e., there is no instance where the only offering that will render one fit to act in a manner previously prohibited to him may be sacrificed after death. And the offerings of a nazirite are examples of a means of rendering fit that is not fixed,