Menachot 44b — the Talmud in English

And Reish Lakish said: Whoever puts on tefillin prolongs his days, as it is stated

in Isaiah

“Through them shall they live, and in all of them is the life of my spirit; and You shall restore me and make me live,”

and this means that those who bear upon themselves the Name of the Lord in tefillin shall live!

Mishna:

Burnt-offerings of an animal or peace-offerings [whether they belong to an individual or to the community], and a sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper, require a meal-offering of libations. But other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, as well as a firstborn, tithe, and Paschal offering, and all bird-offerings, do not require a meal-offering of libations.

The libations are: a meal-offering of fine flour mixed with oil, which is called “a meal-offering of libations,” and wine, which is called a “libation.” The measures of the flour, oil, and wine are set forth in the Torah [Numbers 15:4–10], and this meal-offering is entirely burned and offered upon the altar.

The Mishna explains whether the meal-offering and the wine invalidate one another, and in the discussion of the Gemara it is considered which comes first for offering—the meal-offering of libations or the wine.

The flour and the oil,

which come for “a meal-offering of libations,”

do not invalidate

in their absence

the wine,

but one brings wine for the libations without flour and oil.

And the wine does not invalidate them,

for in the absence of wine one brings flour and oil alone, and it is possible to bring the wine at another time.

I ha-GriZ otvetil na vopros Tosafoт: osoboe uchenie o minhat nesakhim trebuetsya tolko o tom, chto malenkoe kolichestvo masla prepyatstvuet bolshomu. Poskolku nedobrovolnaya mincha sostavlyaet odin lug, a minhat nesakhim — tri luga, nuzhen istochnik, chtoby skazat, chto i v minhat nesakhim maloe kolichestvo prepyatstvuet bolshomu. No chto kasaetsya zakona o muke i masle, iz smysla veshchey sleduet: kak v nedobrovolnoy minhe odno prepyatstvuet drugomu, tak eto i v minhat nesakhim.

All

the applications

that are given from the blood, whether by sprinkling or by placing with a finger upon the horns of the altar,

that

are given

upon the outer altar do not invalidate

after the fact

one another,

and even if he gave one application from among them, that application effects atonement.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The verse repeated, regarding the offerings of Sukkot, on each day—

“And their meal-offering and their libations,”

and from here we learn that the order of bringing the libations is:

Bring the meal-offering,

which is the flour mixed with oil of the libations, which is called “a meal-offering of libations,”

and afterward bring

the wine of

the libations.

This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

Rabbi says:

This is not the order, for the verse says in the portion of Emor, “To offer a fire-offering to the Lord, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering,

a sacrifice and libations,”

and we expound:

Bring a sacrifice, and afterward,

immediately after the offering itself,

bring libations.

That is, the wine adjacent to the “sacrifice” comes before the meal-offering of libations.

And we object:

But Rabbi too,

how can he hold that the wine comes first?

Is it not written, “And their meal-offering and their libations,”

and apparently this verse came to teach that the order is as the Rabbis say, that the meal-offering comes first?

And we answer:

That

verse is not superfluous, but

is needed

for another derivation,

for

the teaching of the law that

“their meal-offering and their libations” may be brought at night,

that is, the libations can be separated from the sacrifice and offered by themselves at night, which is not the time for offering a sacrifice. And likewise we derive from

“their meal-offering and their libations”

that they may be brought by themselves,

even on the next day

[so long as they have not been sanctified in a vessel, for if they have been sanctified, they become disqualified through remaining overnight].

And we refute:

But the Rabbis too—does the verse not write

as Rabbi expounded? The “libations,” which are the wine, are close to the sacrifice and come immediately after it, as the verse says,

“a sacrifice and libations,”

and if so, they should come before the meal-offering?

And we answer:

That

verse of “a sacrifice and libations”

is needed

according to the Rabbis

for

the derivation of

Ze’iri. For Ze’iri said: Libations are not sanctified

to be fixed with this sacrifice [even though he designated the libations for this sacrifice], so that he cannot change them and offer them with another sacrifice,

except through the slaughtering of the sacrifice,

which sanctifies them to become part of the sacrifice.

And therefore the Rabbis do not expound it as Rabbi does, because the verse is needed for the other derivation.

And now the Gemara raises an objection according to both of them, that the verses mentioned above are not superfluous, and we object:

But Rabbi too,

how did he learn from “a sacrifice and libations” the order of the meal-offering after the libations? Surely it

is needed

to expound “a sacrifice and libations”

for the teaching of Ze’iri?

And

according to

the Rabbis too,

there is a difficulty: How did they derive the precedence of the meal-offering to the libations from “their meal-offering and their libations”? Surely they

need

the verse

to

expound:

“Their meal-offering and their libations” may be brought at night, and “their meal-offering and their libations” even on the next day?

And we conclude:

Rather, this is the reason of the Rabbis:

They hold that the meal-offering of libations comes before the libations because

it is written

in the portion of Emor, “To offer a fire-offering to the Lord”—

“a burnt-offering and a meal-offering.”

The verse teaches that the “meal-offering,” which is the flour and oil of the libations, is the one adjacent to the “burnt-offering,” which is the sacrifice, and it comes before the wine!

And we object:

But Rabbi too,

how can he hold that the wine comes before the meal-offering, when

“a burnt-offering and a meal-offering” is written?

And we conclude:

Rather,

Rabbi and the Rabbis did not disagree in every circumstance. And when the libations

come

with the sacrifice—

with the sacrifice—

everyone agrees!

For both according to Rabbi and according to the Rabbis, the order is

that the meal-offering

of flour and oil comes first

and afterward the libations

of wine.

For

it is

written, “a burnt-offering and a meal-offering,”

and we expound that the meal-offering should be adjacent to the sacrifice.

When do they disagree?

Rabbi and the Rabbis regarding the order of the meal-offering and the libations,

when they come by themselves,

without a sacrifice [as was explained above in the Gemara, the libations may be brought at night or on the next day without the sacrifice]; and in this circumstance they disagree:

The Rabbis hold: From

what we find regarding libations

that come with the sacrifice,

that the order of bringing them is

the meal-offering and afterward

the libations,

and just as we expound from the verse “a burnt-offering and a meal-offering,” so is the law when the libations come

by themselves as well,

for here too this is their order—

the meal-offering, and afterward the libations.

But Rabbi

holds that one must distinguish:

There,

in the verse “a burnt-offering and a meal-offering,” when they come with the sacrifice,

it is speaking

of the verse saying that the meal-offering comes first. And the reason is: Since he

began

with the sacrifice

with eating,

for the altar’s consumption of the blood or the sacrificial parts is called “eating,” therefore

he completes the entire matter of eating,

and he brings the meal-offering of libations immediately, since it too is considered “eating,” whereas the wine is considered “drinking.”

But,

when they come

by themselves

and there is then no reasoning of “I began with eating,” on the contrary,

the libations are preferable

with regard to precedence,

since song is recited

by the Levites, in a sacrifice that requires song,

over them

—specifically over the libations—for “song is recited only over wine.” From this you learn its importance, and therefore it comes before the meal-offering when they come by themselves. We learned in our Mishna:

The applications upon the outer altar do not invalidate one another.

The Sages

taught: From where do we know that every

blood

given upon the outer altar, when he gave it in one application,

effects atonement,

even when its mitzva is to give several applications?

As it is stated

in the portion of Re’eh:

“And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord your God,”

and the wording “shall be poured out” indicates even one pouring. [From the fact that it does not say: upon the altar “around,” which would imply several applications.] In the portion of Pinchas, the orders of the additional offerings of the New Moon were stated: “two young bulls, one ram, seven yearling sheep without blemish.” And so too is the offering of Shavuot, called “Atzeret.” In addition to the burnt-offerings that come as additional offerings on Shavuot, there are also burnt-offerings that come with the two loaves, which were stated in the portion of Emor, and they are “seven sheep, one young bull, and two rams.”

On Sukkot, the composition of the offering changes from day to day in the number of bulls; however, every day “two rams and fourteen yearling sheep” are offered as an additional offering.

Mishna:

The bulls, the rams, and the sheep

[and the goats]

stated regarding the offering of a particular day

do not invalidate one another,

for the absence of one of the species does not invalidate the others. And likewise, if they do not have the required number from each species, they bring according to what is in their possession. And likewise, the bulls, the ram, and the sheep that come as additional offerings on Shavuot do not invalidate the rams, the bull, and the sheep that come with the two loaves.

Rabbi Shimon said: If they had many bulls

as required for the offering of the day

but did not have libations,

do not say that they should now bring all the bulls without libations and complete the libations afterward. Rather,

they should bring one bull and its libations,

and reduce the number of bulls required for the offering of the day [for, as stated, the number of offerings does not invalidate]

and they should not offer all of them without libations.

Although, if they offered them now without libations, they could complete their libations after the proper time, nevertheless, regarding a communal offering, ideally one must bring the libations together with the sacrifice, since if he brings them on the next day he nullifies the mitzva of song.

Gemara:

And we inquire about it:

These bulls and sheep,

regarding which it was stated in the Mishna that they do not invalidate one another,

where is that?

Of which festival day are they?

If you say it is Sukkot,

then

“according to the ordinance,” “according to their ordinances,” is written concerning them,

and this wording teaches about something that is indispensable. If so, regarding the offerings of Sukkot, one indeed may not offer if they did not find enough for the entire offering, and our Mishna cannot be interpreted as speaking of these offerings.

Rather,

our Mishna speaks of the additional offerings

of the New Moon, and

likewise of the offerings of

Atzeret

stated in the portion of Pinchas,

in the Book of Numbers

[the Book of Numbers].