## Menachot Daf 5a

###### Menachot 5a:1
[Menachot 5a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:1)

דְּאָמַר מָר: גִּילַּח עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁלׇשְׁתָּן יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as the Master said** about the nazirite (*Nazir* 45a): And if he **shaved after** the sacrifice of any **one of the three of them,** i.e., after sacrificing his sin offering, burnt offering, or peace offering, **he has fulfilled** his obligation after the fact, i.e., he has successfully completed his term of naziriteship. Accordingly, there is no specific offering that renders him fit.


###### Menachot 5a:2
[Menachot 5a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:2)

מֵיתִיבִי: אָשָׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן מִדָּמוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהוֹנוֹת – הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹלֶה לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְטָעוּן נְסָכִים, וְצָרִיךְ אָשָׁם אַחֵר לְהַכְשִׁירוֹ. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: With regard to **the guilt offering of a leper that was slaughtered not for its own sake, or** if **none of its blood was placed on** the leper’s right **thumb and big toe, this** guilt offering **is offered up upon the altar and it requires libations,** in accordance with the *halakha* of the guilt offering of a leper. **But** the leper **must** nevertheless bring **another guilt offering to render him fit** to partake of offerings. This *baraita* is **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav,** who said that the guilt offering of a leper that was slaughtered not for its own sake is entirely disqualified because it did not render the leper fit.


###### Menachot 5a:3
[Menachot 5a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:3)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ אֵין נֶאֱכָלִין עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר אַחֶרֶת וְתַתִּירֶנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion concerning the *omer* meal offering. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says,** with regard to **an *omer* meal offering** from **which** a priest **removed a handful not for its own sake,** that it is **valid** and the handful is burned on the altar. **But its remainder may not be consumed** by the priests **until** a priest **brings another *omer* meal offering** on the same day **and** thereby **permits** the first offering for consumption, as the prohibition against consuming the new crop remains in effect.


###### Menachot 5a:4
[Menachot 5a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:4)

שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ אֵין נֶאֱכָלִין עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר אַחֶרֶת, מִקְרָב הֵיכִי קָרְבָה? ״מִמַּשְׁקֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – מִן הַמּוּתָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But if **its remainder may not** be **consumed** by the priests **until** they **bring another *omer* meal offering, how can** the handful removed from this *omer* meal offering **be sacrificed** upon the altar? Before the *omer* meal offering is sacrificed, the new crop is forbidden for consumption, and the verse states: **“From the well-watered pastures of Israel;** for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings” (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that one may sacrifice only **from** that **which is permitted to the Jewish people.**


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

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: קָסָבַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֵין מְחוּסָּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said** in response: **Reish Lakish holds** that an offering is **not** considered one **whose time has not yet** arrived if it is to be brought **on that day.** Accordingly, since the new crop will be permitted for consumption on the same day that this handful was removed from the *omer* meal offering, it is already considered fit to be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Menachot 5a:6
[Menachot 5a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:6)

מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק: יֵשׁ בָּעוֹפוֹת שֶׁאֵין בַּמְּנָחוֹת, יֵשׁ בַּמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁאֵין בָּעוֹפוֹת. יֵשׁ בָּעוֹפוֹת – שֶׁהָעוֹפוֹת בָּאִין בְּנִדְבַת שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל מְנָחוֹת ״נֶפֶשׁ״ כְּתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, raises an objection** to Rav Adda bar Ahava’s explanation from a *baraita*: **There is** a *halakha* that applies **to birds that** does **not** apply **to meal offerings,** and **there is** a *halakha* that applies **to meal offerings that** does **not** apply **to birds.** The *baraita* elaborates: **There is** a *halakha* that applies **to birds** that does not apply to meal offerings, **as birds** may be **brought as a gift** offering on behalf **of two** people, i.e., two people may take a vow to bring a single bird offering jointly. **But** with regard to **meal offerings** it **is written:** “And when **one** brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only individuals may vow to bring a meal offering.


###### Menachot 5a:7
[Menachot 5a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:7)

וּמְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה: זָב, וְזָבָה, יוֹלֶדֶת, וּמְצוֹרָע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** another *halakha* that applies to birds but not meal offerings involves one who **has not yet** brought his **atonement** offering, i.e., **a man who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*], or woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [*zava*], or a woman after childbirth, or a leper,** all of whom must bring an offering to complete their atonement process. They bring a bird offering, not a meal offering.


###### Menachot 5a:8
[Menachot 5a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:8)

וְהוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלַל אִיסּוּרָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמְּנָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** furthermore, with regard to birds, **their general prohibition was permitted when** they are **consecrated,** i.e., killing a non-sacred bird by pinching the nape of its neck renders it a carcass, whose consumption is prohibited, and yet pinching the nape of a bird offering enables it to be sacrificed upon the altar and permits it for consumption, **which is not so with regard to meal offerings,** i.e., there is no prohibition that applies to the non-consecrated ingredients of a meal offering that does not apply to actual meal offerings as well.


###### Menachot 5a:9
[Menachot 5a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:9)

וְיֵשׁ בַּמְּנָחוֹת – שֶׁהַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת כְּלִי, וּתְנוּפָה וְהַגָּשָׁה, וְיֶשְׁנָן בַּצִּיבּוּר כְּבַיָּחִיד, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בָּעוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And there is** a *halakha* that applies **to meal offerings** that does not apply to birds. **As meal offerings require** placement in a service **vessel, and** they require **waving and bringing,** i.e., they must be brought to the corner of the altar prior to removal of the handful. **And** lastly, **there are** meal offerings **of the community just as** there are meal offerings **of individuals,** e.g., the *omer* meal offering is a communal meal offering, **which is not so with regard to birds.** Bird offerings do not require the use of service vessels, they do not require waving or bringing, and there are no communal bird offerings.


###### Menachot 5a:10
[Menachot 5a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:10)

וְאִם אִיתָא, בִּמְנָחוֹת נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, דְּהוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלַל אִיסּוּרָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, explains his objection: **And if it is so** that a handful that was removed from an *omer* meal offering not for its own sake is fit for burning upon the altar, then **with regard to meal offerings as well, you find that their general prohibition was permitted when** they are **consecrated. And what is this** meal offering that was permitted? It is **the *omer* meal offering** from which a handful was removed not for its own sake, as although the new crop remains prohibited to the Jewish people until another *omer* meal offering is brought, the handful of this meal offering may be sacrificed upon the altar.


###### Menachot 5a:11
[Menachot 5a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:11)

כֵּיוָן דְּאֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם, לָאו אִיסּוּרָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Since** an offering is **not** considered one **whose time has not yet** arrived if it is to be brought **on that day,** the sacrificing of that handful **is not a prohibition** that was permitted. Instead, it was initially fit for sacrifice upon the altar, as though another *omer* meal offering had already been brought to permit it.


###### Menachot 5a:12
[Menachot 5a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:12)

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הִקְדִּים מַתַּן שֶׁמֶן לְמַתַּן דָּם – יְמַלְּאֶנּוּ שֶׁמֶן וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן שֶׁמֶן אַחַר מַתַּן דָּם, מַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת לְמַתַּן שֶׁבַע – יְמַלְּאֶנּוּ שֶׁמֶן וְיַחֲזוֹר וְיִתֵּן מַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת אַחַר מַתַּן שֶׁבַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet raises an objection** from a *baraita* that discusses the ritual purification of a leper: If the priest **performed the placement of oil** on the leper’s right thumb and big toe **before the placement of blood** from the leper’s guilt offering on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, i.e., his actions were in the opposite order from those prescribed in the Torah (see Leviticus 14:14–17), **he fills** the vessel that holds a *log* of **oil and he** then **puts oil** on the leper’s right thumb and big toe **again after the placement of blood.** If the priest **performed the placement of** oil on the leper’s right **thumb and big toe before the placement of seven** sprinklings of oil before the Lord, **he fills** the vessel that holds a *log* of **oil and he again puts** oil on the leper’s right **thumb and big toe after the placement of seven** sprinklings.


###### Menachot 5a:13
[Menachot 5a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:13)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם, אַמַּאי יַחְזוֹר וְיִתֵּן? מַאי דַּעֲבַד עֲבַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet explains his objection: **And if you say** that an offering is **not** considered as one **whose time has not yet** arrived if it is to be brought **on that day,** then **why should** the priest **place** the oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe **again? What he performed, he** already **performed,** i.e., since the oil was going to be placed on the leper’s right thumb and big toe on that day, the placement should be valid even when done out of order.


###### Menachot 5a:14
[Menachot 5a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:14)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת מְצוֹרָע, דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ הֲוָיָיה, דְּאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצוֹרָע״, ״תִּהְיֶה״ – בַּהֲוָיָיתָהּ תְּהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** in response: **The *halakhot* of a leper are different, as** it **is written concerning them** an expression of **being, as the verse states: “This shall be the law of the leper”** (Leviticus 14:2). The term **“shall be”** indicates that **it shall be as it is,** i.e., the purification process of a leper must be performed in accordance with the precise order prescribed in the Torah.


###### Menachot 5a:15
[Menachot 5a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:15)

מֵתִיב רַב פָּפָּא: הִקְדִּים חַטָּאתוֹ לַאֲשָׁמוֹ – לֹא יִהְיֶה אַחֵר מְמָרֵס בְּדָמָהּ, אֶלָּא תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָהּ וְתֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises an objection** from a *baraita*: If the priest **performed** the slaughter of a leper’s **sin offering before** the slaughter of **his guilt offering,** i.e., the priest’s actions were in the opposite order from those prescribed in the Torah (see Leviticus 14:13–19), **there** should **not be another** priest **stirring the blood of** the leper’s sin offering to prevent it from congealing in order that his guilt offering may be slaughtered and its blood sprinkled before the blood of his sin offering. **Rather,** the sin offering is left until **its form decays,** i.e., until the next morning, at which point it is definitively disqualified due to remaining in the Temple overnight **and** can be **taken out to the place** designated **for burning.** The objection is as follows: If an offering that is to be brought on that day is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived, why must this sin offering be left to decay? It should be considered as though it was slaughtered after the guilt offering.


###### Menachot 5a:16
[Menachot 5a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:16)

אַמַּאי קָא מוֹתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא? וְהָא רַב פָּפָּא הוּא דְּאָמַר: שָׁאנֵי הִלְכוֹת מְצוֹרָע, דִּכְתִיבָא בְּהוּ הֲוָיָיה! אֶלָּא רַב פָּפָּא הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה, שְׁחִיטָה לָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וְאִי אֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם – יְהֵא אַחֵר מְמָרֵס בְּדָמָהּ, וְלַקְרֵיב אָשָׁם, וַהֲדַר לַיקְרֵב חַטָּאת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why does Rav Pappa raise** this **objection? But isn’t it Rav Pappa** himself **who said: The *halakhot* of a leper are different, as** it **is written concerning them** an expression of **being,** which indicates that the order of slaughter of a leper’s offerings must be preserved? **Rather, this is what is difficult to Rav Pappa** from the *baraita*: You can **say** that **this statement,** the *halakha* that the order is indispensable to the purification process of a leper, applies only to a sacrificial **rite,** whereas the act of **slaughter is not** considered **a rite. And if** an offering is **not** considered one **whose time has not yet** arrived if it is to be brought **on that day,** then **another** priest **should be stirring the blood of** the leper’s sin offering to prevent it from congealing, **and** a priest **should sacrifice** the **guilt offering** and present its blood in the meantime, **and afterward he should sacrifice** the **sin offering.**


###### Menachot 5a:17
[Menachot 5a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/5a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּקָסָבַר הֵאִיר מִזְרָח מַתִּיר, דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Pappa said: This is the reason of Reish Lakish,** who said **that** the handful of an *omer* meal offering that was removed not for its own sake is valid and may be burned upon the altar: It is that **he holds** that **the illumination of** the **eastern** horizon on the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan **permits** the new crop to the Jewish people even before the *omer* meal offering is sacrificed, **as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: Even when the Temple is standing,**