## Menachot Daf 48b

###### Menachot 48b:1
[Menachot 48b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:1)

תֵּרֵד וְתִטַּמֵּא, וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אַף יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *teruma* wine should be allowed to **descend and become impure** on its own, ruining the non-sacred wine in the lower press, **but one** should **not render it impure through** his direct **action** by catching it in an impure vessel, even though catching it would prevent the wine that is *teruma* from mixing with his impure, non-sacred wine. **And Rabbi Yehoshua says:** Since the wine that is *teruma* will become impure in any event, **one** may **even render it impure through** his direct **action** in order to save his non-sacred wine. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to sin with regard to one matter, i.e., the wine that is *teruma*, in order to gain with regard to another matter, i.e., the non-sacred wine.


###### Menachot 48b:2
[Menachot 48b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:2)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּלְטוּמְאָה קָא אָזְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It **is different there,** in the case of the wine, **because** the wine that is *teruma* **is going to** become **impure** in any event. Consequently, his action is not considered a sin, and this is not a case of sinning with regard to one matter in order to gain in another.


###### Menachot 48b:3
[Menachot 48b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:3)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק, תָּנֵי: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of *Shavuot*. **When Rav Yitzḥak came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported traditions that he learned in Eretz Yisrael, and **he taught** a *baraita*: With regard to a case of the two **sheep** of ***Shavuot* where one slaughtered them not in accordance with their mitzva,** e.g., he slaughtered them for the sake of a different offering, they are **disqualified; and** they should be left overnight until **their form decays** and they attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat, **and** then **they are brought out to the place** designated **for burning.**


###### Menachot 48b:4
[Menachot 48b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָר, דְּמַקֵּישׁ לְהוּ לְחַטָּאת – תָּנֵי פְּסוּלִין, תָּנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּגָמַר שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה – תָּנֵי כְּשֵׁרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said** to Rav Yitzḥak: The **Master,** i.e., Rav Yitzḥak, **who compares** the sheep of *Shavuot* **to a sin offering** because they are juxtaposed in a verse (see Leviticus 23:19), **teaches:** The sheep are **disqualified,** like a sin offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake. By contrast, the ***tanna* of the school of Levi, who derives** the *halakha* with regard to **an obligatory peace offering,** e.g., the two sheep of *Shavuot*, **from** the *halakha* concerning **a voluntary peace offering, teaches** that the two sheep remain **valid** offerings, just as a voluntary peace offering remains valid even if it is slaughtered for the sake of a different offering.


###### Menachot 48b:5
[Menachot 48b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:5)

דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: וּשְׁאָר שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – כְּשֵׁרִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Levi teaches: And** with regard to the **other peace offerings of a nazirite that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva,** they are **valid** offerings like voluntary peace offerings, **but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner** to bring the required nazirite peace offerings. **And** these offerings **are eaten for** only **one day and one night,** in accordance with the *halakha* concerning the peace offerings of nazirite, and not for two days and one night like voluntary peace offerings. They **require neither bread nor** the **foreleg,** unlike the required peace offering of a nazirite.


###### Menachot 48b:6
[Menachot 48b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: אָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שָׁנָה – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak from that which was taught in a *baraita*: In a case where one is obligated to sacrifice as **a guilt offering** an animal **in its** first **year,** which the Torah calls a lamb, **and** instead he **brought** an animal **in its second** year, which is considered a ram; or if he is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal **in its second** year **and he brought** an animal **in its** first **year;** the offerings are **disqualified.** They are to be left overnight until **their form decays, and are brought out to the place** designated for **burning.**


###### Menachot 48b:7
[Menachot 48b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:7)

אֲבָל עוֹלַת נָזִיר, וְעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת, וְעוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וּשְׁחָטָן – כְּשֵׁרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in the case of **the burnt offering of a nazirite,** i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed when he completes his naziriteship; **or the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth,** i.e., the lamb she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or on the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter; **or the burnt offering of a leper,** i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed after he is purified; in all of these cases if the animals **were in their second year** instead, **and one slaughtered them,** the offerings are **valid.**


###### Menachot 48b:8
[Menachot 48b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:8)

כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה – כָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, וְכׇל הַפָּסוּל בְּחַטָּאת – פָּסוּל בְּאָשָׁם, חוּץ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **The principle of the matter** is: **Any** animal **that is valid as a voluntary burnt offering is** also **valid as an obligatory burnt offering, and any** animal **that is disqualified as a sin offering is** also **disqualified as a guilt offering, except for** an offering that was sacrificed **not for its own sake,** which is disqualified in the case of a sin offering but not a guilt offering. This demonstrates that the *halakhot* of obligatory burnt offerings are derived from those of voluntary burnt offerings, despite the fact that the burnt offering of a nazirite is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a nazirite (see Numbers 6:14) and the burnt offering of a leper is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:19). Similarly, the *halakha* pertaining to the sheep of *Shavuot*, which are obligatory peace offerings, should be derived from the *halakha* pertaining to voluntary peace offerings, and not from the *halakha* pertaining to a sin offering as Rav Yitzḥak holds.


###### Menachot 48b:9
[Menachot 48b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:9)

הַאי תַּנָּא, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This *tanna*,** who taught this *baraita*, **is** the ***tanna* of the school of Levi** cited earlier, who holds that if one slaughters a sheep of *Shavuot* not for its own sake, it is nevertheless valid.


###### Menachot 48b:10
[Menachot 48b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who maintains that the *tanna* of the school of Levi holds that a sheep of *Shavuot* slaughtered not for its own sake is valid because he derives its *halakha* from that of a voluntary peace offering. **Come** and **hear** what Levi teaches to the contrary, **as Levi teaches: The guilt offering of a nazirite,** i.e., the lamb he brings on the eighth day after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, **and the guilt offering of a leper,** i.e., the lamb he brings at the completion of his purification, **that one slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.**


###### Menachot 48b:11
[Menachot 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:11)

שְׁחָטָן מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּשְׁחָטָן – פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one slaughtered them** when the **time had not yet** arrived **for** their **owners** to sacrifice these offerings, **or they were in their second year** instead of their first year **and one slaughtered them,** they are **disqualified.**


###### Menachot 48b:12
[Menachot 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:12)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיגְמַר מִשְּׁלָמִים? שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים – גָּמַר, אָשָׁם מִשְּׁלָמִים – לָא גָּמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But if it is so** that Levi derives the *halakhot* of an obligatory offering from those of a voluntary one, **let him derive** the *halakha* of the guilt offering **from** that of the **peace offering,** in which case the guilt offerings should be valid even if they were in their second year. The Gemara answers: Levi **derives** the *halakha* concerning an obligatory **peace offering from** the *halakha* concerning a voluntary **peace offering,** but **he does not derive** the *halakha* concerning **a guilt offering from** the *halakha* concerning **a peace offering.**


###### Menachot 48b:13
[Menachot 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:13)

וְאִי גָּמַר שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים, לִיגְמַר נָמֵי אָשָׁם מֵאָשָׁם: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע מֵאֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת, אוֹ אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Naḥman: **But if** Levi **derives** the *halakha* of an obligatory **peace offering from** that of a voluntary **peace offering, let him** similarly **derive** the *halakha* of one **guilt offering from** that of another **guilt offering.** He should derive that **the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper** are valid even if the animal is in its second year **from** the *halakha* concerning **a guilt offering for robbery and a guilt offering for misuse** of consecrated property, which are supposed to be a ram in its second year. **Or,** if one brought a lamb in its first year as **a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse** of consecrated property, Levi should derive that it is valid **from** the *halakha* concerning the **guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper,** which are lambs in their first year.


###### Menachot 48b:14
[Menachot 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:14)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: One can derive** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** e.g., the sheep of *Shavuot* that were slaughtered not for their own sake, **from** the *halakha* with regard to another **item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** e.g., a voluntary peace offering slaughtered not for its own sake. **But one cannot derive** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **not in its valid manner,** e.g., the guilt offering of a nazirite or a leper that is sacrificed when it is in its second year, **from** the *halakha* with regard to **an item that is** prepared **in its valid manner,** e.g., a guilt offering for robbery or for misuse of consecrated property that is sacrificed when it is in its second year.


###### Menachot 48b:15
[Menachot 48b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/48b:15)

וְלָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא, שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** can one **not** derive the *halakha* with regard to disqualified offerings from the *halakha* with regard to fit offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to** an item that **left** the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified **that if** it nevertheless **ascended** upon the altar **it shall not descend?** It is derived from the fact **that** an item that **left is valid** for sacrifice **on** a private **altar.** Here, the *baraita* derives the *halakha* with regard to a disqualified offering from the *halakha* with regard to a fit offering.