Menachot 9

דאמר מר גילח על א' משלשתן יצא

for a Master has said, If [the Nazirite] shaved [his head] after [the sacrifice of] any one of the three offerin he has fulfilled his obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nazir 45a.');">¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XIV, 17.');">²</span>

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

[of the one to be cleansed], it may nevertheless be offered upon the altar, and it requires the drink-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 90b.');">³</span> but another guilt-offering is necessary in order to render him fit.

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

This is indeed a refutation of Rab's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I. e., it may be offered upon the altar.');">⁵</span>

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

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?

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

It is written, From the liquor of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷</span>

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

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span>

ומחוסרי כפרה (זב וזבה יולדת ומצורע)

it is brought by those that lack atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁹</span> and an exception to the general prohibition is made for consecrated birds;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span>

והותרו מכלל איסורן בקודש משא"כ במנחות

these, however, do not apply to meal-offerings. And some conditions apply to meal-offerings: a meal-offering requires a vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span>

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

it requires waving and bringing nigh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 60a.');">¹²</span> it may be the offering of the community or of the individual;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹³</span>

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

these, however, do not apply to bird-offerings. Now if [the aforesaid view] were correct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁴</span>

כיון דאין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום לאו איסורא הוא

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁵</span> - Since the prohibition of 'out of time' does not apply to the same day, it is not regarded as a prohibition at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁶</span>

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'

R'Shesheth raised an objection: If the application of the oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁷</span> 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.

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

If [th 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?

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

After all, what is done is done!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> - 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 sh be the law of the leper;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 2.');">¹⁹</span>

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

'shall be' implies that it shall always be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without any variation in the routine.');">²⁰</span> R'Papa raised an objection: If his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the leper's.');">²¹</span>

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

sin-offering was [slaughtered] before his guilt-offering, one should not be appointed to keep stirring the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should not become congealed.');">²²</span> [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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. vyhja');">²³</span>

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

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' i 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';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it does not require the services of a priest but a layman may slaughter the sacrifice. V. Tosaf. s.v. 1.');">²⁴</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when the eastern sky has lit up'.');">²⁵</span> [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