Menachot 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

For

it is stated here

the meal-offering

of a sinner, which is

an obligation, and it is also stated

here

the voluntary meal-offering.

Just as a voluntary meal-offering requires presentation,

as it is written with regard to the meal-offering baked in a shallow pan,

so too a mandatory meal-offering

of a sinner

requires presentation.

And if you would refute this:

What is the reason for the voluntary meal-offering? It is different, since it requires oil and frankincense;

can you say the same with regard to a sinner’s meal-offering, which contains neither oil nor frankincense?!

The meal-offering of a sota can prove it,

for it contains neither oil nor frankincense, and nevertheless it requires presentation, as we will derive below.

But there is still room to refute this:

What is the reason for the meal-offering of a sota? It is different, since

it

requires waving,

whereas neither a sinner’s meal-offering nor a voluntary meal-offering requires waving?!

A voluntary meal-offering can prove it,

for it does not require waving, and nevertheless it requires presentation.

And the argument returns to its starting point. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common aspect of the voluntary meal-offering and the meal-offering of a sota is

that both are subject to the taking of the handful and both are subject to presentation. I, too, will include a sinner’s meal-offering, which is like them with regard to the taking of the handful,

and therefore it will also

be like them with regard to presentation.

But there is still room to refute this:

What is the reason for the common aspect of these offerings? It is different, since

they

were fit to be brought by either a wealthy person or a poor person. Can you say the same with regard to a sinner’s meal-offering, which was not fit to be brought by either a wealthy person or a poor person,

since a wealthy person brings an animal or birds as his offering?!

Therefore, since the law of presentation for a sinner’s meal-offering cannot be derived by means of a logical inference from these offerings,

the verse states

by means of an inclusion

“the meal-offering,”

to include a sinner’s meal-offering as requiring presentation.

Rabbi Shimon says [Rabbi Shimon did not come to dispute the first tanna, but to add further interpretations]: At the beginning of the verse it is stated

“and you shall bring

”

the meal-offering”

to include the omer meal-offering as requiring presentation.

The proof that the expression “bringing” serves to include the omer meal-offering is that

so too,

the verse

says: “And you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest, to the priest.”

And from the fact that later in the verse it states

“and he shall present it,”

we have

to include the meal-offering of a sota as requiring presentation.

For

so too it says

in the passage concerning the meal-offering of a sota

“and he shall present it to the altar.”

But one must wonder: Why is this additional inclusion necessary,

and

does it not

follow logically

that one can learn by means of a kal va-chomer that the meal-offering of a sota requires presentation from the law of a sinner’s meal-offering:

And if a sinner’s meal-offering,

which is lenient,

as it does not require waving,

nevertheless

requires presentation, how much more so a meal-offering of a sota,

which is more stringent than it,

as it requires waving—does it not follow that it requires presentation?!

And it can be rejected:

What is the reason for a sinner’s meal-offering? It is different, since it comes from wheat,

and therefore it is more stringent than the meal-offering of a sota, which comes only from barley.

But there is again room to refute this:

The omer meal-offering,

which comes from barley,

can prove it,

for it requires presentation, as we derived above.

And we answer:

What is the reason for the omer meal-offering? It is different, since it requires oil and frankincense;

can you say the same with regard to the meal-offering of a sota, which does not require oil and frankincense?

And there is room to refute this:

A sinner’s meal-offering can prove it,

for it contains neither oil nor frankincense and nevertheless requires presentation. And if you would say: What is the reason for a sinner’s meal-offering? It is different, since it comes from wheat; can you say the same with regard to the meal-offering of a sota, which comes from barley? The omer meal-offering can prove it. And if you refute this by saying: What is the reason for the omer meal-offering? It is different, since it requires oil and frankincense, a sinner’s meal-offering can prove it.

And the argument returns to its starting point. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common aspect of them is

that the omer meal-offering and the sinner’s meal-offering

are subject to the taking of the handful and are also subject

likewise

to presentation. I, too, will include the meal-offering of a sota, which is like them with regard to the taking of the handful,

and therefore it

will be like them with regard to presentation.

If so, this is difficult: Why is the additional interpretation of the verse necessary to establish that the meal-offering of a sota requires presentation?!

And we answer: Because there is room to refute this:

What is the reason for the common aspect of these offerings? It is different, since they were not fit to be brought

as

flour

but only as fine flour [as the flour is sifted thoroughly],

whereas

with

the meal-offering of a sota, which was fit to be brought as flour.

Therefore,

the verse states

an inclusion with regard to the meal-offering of a sota, as it is stated concerning the meal-offering baked in a shallow pan

“and he shall present it.”

Rabbi Yehuda says:

We derive it from here, from the fact that at the beginning of the verse it is written

“and you shall bring,”

[from which Rabbi Shimon derives presentation for the omer meal-offering]. From here we learn

to include the meal-offering of a sota as requiring presentation.

And so too it says

in the passage concerning a sota

“and he shall bring her offering for her.” But

Rabbi Yehuda maintains that

the omer meal-offering does not require a verse.

What is the reason

that the omer meal-offering

does not require a verse? Because

it

comes by logical law,

and if a sinner’s meal-offering, which does not require waving,

is nevertheless

subject to presentation, then the omer meal-offering, which requires waving, certainly should require presentation!

And if you would refute this:

What is the reason for a sinner’s meal-offering? It is different, since it comes from wheat—

the meal-offering of a sota,

which comes from barley,

can prove it!

And if you would refute this:

What is the reason for the meal-offering of a sota?

It is distinguished,

since

it

comes to clarify a sin—

a sinner’s meal-offering can prove it.

And the argument returns to its starting point. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common aspect of them is that

the sinner’s meal-offering and the meal-offering of a sota

are subject to the taking of the handful and are subject to presentation. I, too, will include the omer meal-offering, which is like them with regard to the taking of the handful,

and therefore it

will be like them with regard to presentation.

And this derivation of the omer meal-offering from the meal-offering of a sota and a sinner’s meal-offering is a valid derivation—

so what refutation do you offer?!

There is no refutation against it.

But this derivation of Rabbi Yehuda poses a difficulty for Rabbi Shimon, who derives the omer meal-offering from “and you shall bring”: Why does he not derive it from the common aspect of the meal-offering of a sota and a sinner’s meal-offering? And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon refutes it as follows: What is the reason for the common aspect of them? It is different, since

they are more significant than the omer meal-offering, because they are

frequent

many times throughout the year, whereas the omer meal-offering is offered only once a year!

And Rabbi Yehuda

maintains,

on the contrary, this one,

the omer meal-offering,

is more frequent,

as it certainly is brought every year, whereas

those offerings may sometimes not be found at all.

And now the Gemara cites the continuation of the beraita, in which the tanna says:

“Or does ‘and you shall bring’ say only

with regard to an entirely different matter, namely, to teach

that an individual may voluntarily bring

a type of

another meal-offering, apart from those mentioned in the passage

[that is, apart from the five meal-offerings written in that passage: the fine-flour meal-offering, the meal-offering baked in a shallow pan, the meal-offering baked in a deep pan, wafers, and loaves baked in an oven], all of which are brought from wheat; the verse comes to teach you that an individual may also voluntarily bring a meal-offering from barley?!

And it follows logically

that an individual should bring a meal-offering from barley, just as we find with regard to a communal meal-offering:

The community brings a mandatory meal-offering from wheat, and it brings a mandatory meal-offering from barley;

and if so,

even an individual who brings a voluntary meal-offering from wheat should bring

also a meal-offering

from barley as a voluntary offering.

The verse states “these”—

I have only these

five mentioned in the passage, and no others.

Or does

the verse

“these” say only

with regard

to one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering,”

without specification,

that he brings all five,

because he did not specify in his vow which of them he vowed to bring?!

The verse states “from these”

to teach you:

if he wishes to bring one

of these,

he brings it; if he wishes to bring all five, he brings all five.

Rabbi Shimon says: “the meal-offering,”

from which we learned from this verse

to include other meal-offerings,

such as a sinner’s meal-offering,

as requiring presentation,

I might include

from here

also the two loaves and the showbread

as requiring presentation?

The verse states “from these,”

which indicates exclusion: Only something similar to these requires presentation.

And what did you see that led you to include other meal-offerings and exclude the two loaves and the showbread?

I include other meal-offerings, some of which have

an offering

burned on the altar, and I exclude the two loaves and the showbread, none of which has an offering burned on the altar.

But the meal-offering accompanying libations is entirely burned on the altar,

and if so,

might it require presentation?

The verse states “and he shall present it,”

which is an exclusion, meaning: You present that one mentioned in the passage, but not another one—to exclude the meal-offering accompanying libations.

And we refute this:

But you have already used it,

as we already expounded “and he shall present it,” deriving from it above the inclusion of the meal-offering of a sota?!

And we answer: It could have written

“and he shall present,”

but it wrote

“and he shall present it.”

From the superfluous letter heh we derive the exclusion of the meal-offering accompanying libations.

And what did you see that led you to include other meal-offerings and exclude the meal-offering accompanying libations?