מנחות ד

מנחות ד

מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם מַחְשָׁבָה דְּמִינַּכְרָא לָא פָּסְלָה, וְהָא מַחְשָׁבָה דְּמִינַּכְרָא הוּא.

what should I understand that Rabbi Shimon says with regard to such a case? Is the reason of Rabbi Shimon, who says that a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of another meal offering is valid and effects acceptance, that intent that is recognizably false does not disqualify an offering? And if so, this meal offering from which a handful is removed for the sake of an animal offering is also a case of intent that is recognizably false, and therefore the meal offering should not be disqualified.

אוֹ דִילְמָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה״, וְזֶבַח לָא כְּתִיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם הִגַּעְנוּ לְסוֹף דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?

Or perhaps the reason of Rabbi Shimon is that it is written: “And this is the law of the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:7), which indicates that there is one law for all meal offerings. If so, then a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of an animal offering should be disqualified, since it is not written: And this is the law of the meal offering and a slaughtered offering. Rav Asi said to Rav Hoshaya: Have we ascertained the depth of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in this matter? In other words, Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is not known.

כְּרַבָּה לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְאַבָּיֵי.

The Gemara explains why Rav Asi did not resolve this dilemma. Rav Asi did not resolve the dilemma of Rav Hoshaya in accordance with the resolution stated by Rabba, that there is a distinction between one who removes the handful of a meal offering for the sake of another meal offering and one who removes it for the sake of another owner, because of the difficulty posed by Abaye (2b), that the halakha of both these cases is derived from the same comparison in the Torah between meal offerings and animal offerings.

כְּרָבָא לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת״.

Likewise, Rav Asi did not resolve the dilemma in accordance with the resolution stated by Rava, that the verse “And this is the law of the meal offering” teaches that a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of another meal offering is valid, whereas a meal offering from which a handful was removed for the sake of an animal offering is disqualified. This is because of the difficulty arising from the verse: “And this is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), i.e., despite this verse, the halakha is that a sin offering that was slaughtered for the sake of another sin offering is not valid.

כְּרַב אָשֵׁי לָא מְשַׁנֵּי לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם קוּשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא.

Finally, Rav Asi did not resolve the dilemma in accordance with the resolution stated by Rav Ashi, that there is a distinction between one who removes the handful of a meal offering prepared in one vessel for the sake of a different vessel, and one who removes it for the sake of a meal offering prepared in a different vessel, because of the difficulty posed by Rav Aḥa, son of Rava. This difficulty concerns a case where one removes the handful of a dry meal offering for the sake of one mixed with oil; Rabbi Shimon holds that such a meal offering is valid despite the fact that the person’s intent referred to the meal offering itself, not the vessel.

חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת. בִּשְׁלָמָא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא – ״חַטָּאת״ קַרְיַיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבוֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא וְגוֹ׳״, אֶלָּא מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מְנָלַן?

§ The mishna teaches that all meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake but for the sake of another meal offering are fit for sacrifice, except for the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy. The Gemara asks: Granted, the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when a handful is removed from it not for its own sake, as the Merciful One calls it a sin offering, in the verse: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful” (Leviticus 5:11–12). This verse indicates that just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its own sake, so too, the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when a handful is removed from it not for its own sake. But with regard to the meal offering of jealousy, from where do we derive that this is the halakha?

דְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה.

The Gemara answers that this halakha may be derived from a baraita, as a tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: With regard to money that was designated for a meal offering of jealousy, its surplus, i.e., the money remaining after the purchase of the meal offering, is used to purchase communal gift offerings.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרַתְּ, ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ כְּתִיב בָּהּ, וּבְחַטָּאת כְּתִיב: ״וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם לָשֵׂאת אֶת עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה״, מָה חַטָּאת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה – אַף מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת מוֹתָרָהּ נְדָבָה. וְכַחַטָּאת, מָה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ.

Rav Naḥman said to him: You are saying well, as it is written with regard to a meal offering of jealousy: “Bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15), and it is written with regard to a sin offering: “And He has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17). A verbal analogy is drawn between the two uses of the term “iniquity” in these verses. This teaches that just as in the case of a sin offering, its surplus is used to purchase communal gift offerings, so too, with regard to a meal offering of jealousy, its surplus is used to purchase communal gift offerings. And a meal offering of jealousy is also like a sin offering in another aspect: Just as a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its own sake, so too, a meal offering of jealousy is disqualified when a handful is removed from it not for its own sake.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָשָׁם יְהֵא פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, דְּגָמַר ״עָוֹן״ ״עָוֹן״ מֵחַטָּאת.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the halakha of a meal offering of jealousy is derived from a verbal analogy to a sin offering based on the word “iniquity,” then a guilt offering should also be disqualified if it was sacrificed not for its own sake, as a similar verbal analogy may be derived from the verse that states: “The iniquity [avon] of the congregation” (Leviticus 10:17), with regard to a sin offering, and the verse that states: “And shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17), in connection with a guilt offering.

דָּנִין ״עָוֹן״ מֵ״עָוֹן״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ מֵ״עָוֹן״.

The Gemara responds: One derives a verbal analogy based on the word “iniquity” from a verse that likewise uses the term “iniquity,” but one does not derive a verbal analogy based on the term “his iniquity [avono]” from a verse that uses the term “iniquity.”

מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach the following verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse concerning the priest’s visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. All the more so should a less pronounced difference of one letter between avon and avono not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.

וְעוֹד, לִיגְמַר ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ ״עֲוֹנוֹ״ מֵעָוֹן דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם לֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ״.

And furthermore, let one derive a verbal analogy through the term “his iniquity” stated with regard to a guilt offering, and the term “his iniquity” from the verse concerning the sin offering brought for the iniquity for hearing the voice, i.e., the sin offering of one who takes a false oath that he does not have any information relevant to a matter when another requests that he testify about it, as it is written: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).

אֶלָּא, כִּי גָמְרִי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה, לְמוֹתַר נְדָבָה הוּא דְּגָמְרִי.

Rather, it must be that when the verbal analogy was derived, it was derived only with regard to the halakha that the surplus from the money designated for a meal offering of jealousy is used to purchase communal gift offerings, and not with regard to the halakha that a meal offering of jealousy from which a handful was removed not for its own sake is disqualified.

וְכִי תֵימָא: אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה – גַּלִּי רַחֲמָנָא גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת, ״וְשָׁחַט אוֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת״ – אוֹתָהּ לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה. אֲבָל כׇּל קָדָשִׁים, בֵּין לִשְׁמָן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִים.

And if you would say that there is a principle that there is no partial verbal analogy, that principle does not apply in this instance. As the Merciful One revealed with regard to a sin offering that the halakha of other offerings may not be derived from this case, as the verse states: “And slaughter it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:33). This verse indicates that it, i.e., a sin offering, when slaughtered for its own sake is valid, and when slaughtered not for its own sake is disqualified. But all other sacrificial animals, whether sacrificed for their sake or not for their sake, are valid.

אֶלָּא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת דִּפְסוּלִין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, מְנָלַן?

The Gemara asks: But if the Merciful One revealed that one cannot derive the halakha of other offerings that were sacrificed not for their sake from a sin offering, then from where do we derive the halakha that the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy are disqualified when a handful is removed from them not for their sake?

חַטָּאת טַעְמָא מַאי, מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״, הָכִי נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״הִיא״.

The Gemara explains: With regard to a sin offering, what is the reason that it is disqualified when sacrificed not for its own sake? It is because it is written with regard to this offering: “It,” in a verse discussing the sin offering of the Nasi: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). This indicates that a sin offering is valid only when it is sacrificed for its own sake. So too, it is written with regard to them, i.e., the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy: “It.” In the case of the meal offering of a sinner the verse states: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), and with regard to the meal offering of jealousy it is written: “It is a meal offering of jealousy” (Numbers 5:15).

אָשָׁם נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הוּא״, הָהוּא ״הוּא״ לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

The Gemara challenges: But if so, concerning a guilt offering as well, it is written about this offering: “It,” as the verse states: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5). Accordingly, a guilt offering should likewise be disqualified if it is slaughtered not for its own sake. The Gemara responds: That term “it” is written with regard to the stage after the burning of the sacrificial portions [eimurin] of a guilt offering, which are intended for burning upon the altar.

כִּדְתַנְיָא: אֲבָל אָשָׁם לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ ״הוּא״ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, הוּא עַצְמוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הוּקְטְרוּ אֵימוּרָיו כָּשֵׁר.

As it is taught in a baraita: One derives from the word “it” that if the offering was slaughtered not for its own sake it is disqualified only in the case of a sin offering. But concerning a guilt offering, it is stated about this offering: “It is a guilt offering,” only with regard to the stage after the burning of the sacrificial portions. The baraita adds: One cannot derive that if these portions were burned not for the sake of a guilt offering then the offering is disqualified, since the guilt offering itself is valid if its sacrificial portions were not burned upon the altar at all.

וְאֶלָּא ״הוּא״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר לְשׁוּם עוֹלָה.

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the word “it” stated with regard to a guilt offering? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to a guilt offering whose owner died or whose transgression was otherwise atoned for, and that was therefore consigned by the court to grazing until it develops a blemish so that it can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a burnt offering, if, before it developed a blemish, someone slaughtered it without specification of its purpose, it is fit if it was sacrificed as a burnt offering.

נִיתַּק – אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק – לָא. אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״, בַּהֲוָיָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

The Gemara infers: If it was consigned to grazing, yes, it is fit if it was sacrificed as a burnt offering if slaughtered. By inference, if it was not consigned to grazing, it is not fit. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “It is a guilt offering,” indicating that it shall remain as it is, i.e., as a guilt offering, unless it is consigned by the court to another purpose.

אָמַר רַב: מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁקְּמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – פְּסוּלָה, הוֹאִיל וּבָאת לְהַתִּיר וְלֹא הִתִּירָה. וְכֵן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּאֲשַׁם נָזִיר

§ The mishna teaches that all the meal offerings from which a handful was removed not for their sake are fit for sacrifice but they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation. Concerning this, Rav says: With regard to the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:9–14), if the priest removed a handful from it not for its own sake it is disqualified. It is disqualified since an omer meal offering came for a specific purpose, namely, to permit the consumption of the new crop, and this meal offering did not permit the consumption of the new crop because its rites were performed not for its own sake. And so you say with regard to the guilt offering of a nazirite who became ritually impure, whose proper sacrifice enables the nazirite to restart his naziriteship afresh in purity,

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,