Menachot 60b — the Talmud in English

for

it is stated here ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the meal-offering

of the sinner, which is

obligatory, and it is stated

also

here: the freewill meal-offering.

Just as a freewill meal-offering requires presentation,

as it is written concerning the pan meal-offering,

so too an obligatory meal-offering

of a sinner

requires presentation.

And if you would refute:

What is distinctive about a freewill meal-offering is that it requires oil and frankincense;

can you say this concerning a sinner’s meal-offering, which has neither oil nor frankincense?!

The meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery proves it,

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

But there is still room to refute:

What is distinctive about the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery is that it

it

requires waving,

whereas a sinner’s meal-offering and a freewill meal-offering do not require waving?!

A freewill meal-offering proves it,

for it does not require waving and nevertheless requires presentation.

And the argument returns. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common denominator in a freewill meal-offering and in the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery is

that they are both subject to kemitza and both subject to presentation. I, too, shall bring a sinner’s meal-offering, which is subject to kemitza like them,

and therefore it will also

be subject to presentation like them.

But there is still room to refute:

What is distinctive about their common denominator is that

they

were qualified to be brought by a wealthy person as by a poor person; can you say this concerning a sinner’s meal-offering, which was not qualified to be brought by a wealthy person as by a poor person,

for the wealthy person brings an animal-offering or birds?!

Therefore, since the law of presentation in a sinner’s meal-offering cannot be learned through an argument from what is written concerning the latter,

the verse states

a superfluous expression—

“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 rather to add further derivations]:

It is stated at the beginning of the verse

“And you shall bring

the meal-offering”

—to include the Omer meal-offering as requiring presentation.

And the proof that the expression “bringing” comes to include the Omer meal-offering is that

so it says,

the verse,

“And you shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the priest.”

And from the fact that it is stated later in the verse

“And he shall present it,”

we have

to include the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery as requiring presentation.

For

so it says

in the section of the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery—

“And he shall present it to the altar.”

But one must wonder: why was this superfluous expression necessary,

and

is it not

an argument,

for it is possible to teach by a kal va-chomer that the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery requires presentation from the law of a sinner’s meal-offering:

And if a sinner’s meal-offering,

which is lenient,

does not require waving,

nevertheless it

requires presentation, then the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery,

which is more stringent than it,

since it requires waving—is it not certainly subject to presentation?!

And there is room to reject this:

What is distinctive about a sinner’s meal-offering is that it comes from wheat,

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

But there is again room to refute:

The Omer meal-offering,

which comes from barley,

proves it,

for it requires presentation, as we derived it above.

And we answer:

What is distinctive about the Omer meal-offering is that it requires oil and frankincense;

can you say this concerning the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which does not require oil and frankincense?

And there is room to refute:

A sinner’s meal-offering proves it,

for it has no oil or frankincense and nevertheless requires presentation. And if you would say: What is distinctive about a sinner’s meal-offering is that it comes from wheat; can you say this concerning the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which is from barley? The Omer meal-offering proves it. And if you would refute: What is distinctive about the Omer meal-offering is that it requires oil and frankincense, a sinner’s meal-offering proves it.

And the argument returns. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common denominator between them

—between the Omer meal-offering and the sinner’s meal-offering—

is that they are both subject to kemitza and both

also

subject to presentation; I, too, shall bring the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which is subject to kemitza like them,

and therefore it

will be subject to presentation like them.

And if so, this is difficult: why was the superfluous expression of the verse necessary to make the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery subject to presentation?!

And we answer: because there is room to refute:

What is distinctive about their common denominator is that they were not qualified to be brought

when they are

flour,

but only fine flour [which is sifted thoroughly],

can you say

this concerning

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which was qualified to be brought as flour.

Therefore,

the verse states

a superfluous expression concerning the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, for it is stated concerning the pan meal-offering

“And he shall present it.”

Rabbi Judah says:

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

“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 woman suspected of adultery as requiring presentation.

And so it says

in the section of the woman suspected of adultery,

“And he shall bring her offering for her.” But as for the Omer meal-offering,

Rabbi Judah held

a verse is not necessary.

What is the reason

that the Omer meal-offering does not require a verse?—Because

as a matter of law,

from a derivation

it comes:

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

nevertheless is

subject to presentation, then the Omer meal-offering, which requires waving—is it not certainly subject to presentation!

And if you would refute:

What is distinctive about a sinner’s meal-offering is that it comes from wheat—

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery,

which comes from barley,

proves it!

And if you would refute:

What is distinctive about the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery

is that it is important,

for

it

comes to clarify a transgression—

a sinner’s meal-offering proves it.

And the argument returns. This one is not like that one, and that one is not like this one. The common denominator between them is that they are both subject

—the sinner’s meal-offering and the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery—

to kemitza, and both subject to presentation. I, too, shall bring the Omer meal-offering, which is subject to kemitza like them,

and therefore it

will be subject to presentation like them.

And this derivation of the Omer meal-offering from the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery and from a sinner’s meal-offering is a proper derivation—

and what refutation do you have?!

There is no refutation against it.

But this derivation of Rabbi Judah is a difficulty for Rabbi Shimon, who derives from “And you shall bring” concerning the Omer meal-offering: why does he not derive it from the common denominator of the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery and the sinner’s meal-offering? And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon refutes as follows: What is distinctive about their common denominator is that

they are more important than the Omer meal-offering, because they are

frequent

many times throughout the year; can you say this concerning the Omer meal-offering, which is offered only once a year?!

And Rabbi Judah

held,

on the contrary, this one,

the Omer meal-offering,

is more frequent,

for it certainly comes every year, whereas

these, sometimes you do not find them at all.

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

“Or does it not say ‘And you shall bring’ אלא

for an entirely different matter, to teach

that an individual may vow and bring

a type of

another meal-offering, besides those mentioned in the passage [that is, besides the five meal-offerings written in that section: the fine-flour meal-offering, the pan meal-offering, the pan meal-offering baked in a deep vessel, wafers, and cakes of a baked offering], for all those written in the passage come from wheat; and the verse comes to teach you that an individual may also vow to bring a meal-offering from barley?!

And

it is an argument

that an individual should bring a meal-offering from barley, just as we find concerning the communal meal-offering—

the community brings a meal-offering from wheat as an obligation, and it brings a meal-offering from barley as an obligation;

and if so,

even an individual who brings a meal-offering from wheat as a freewill offering may bring

also a meal-offering

from barley as a freewill offering.

The verse states “these”—

I have only these

five mentioned in the passage, and no others.

Or does it not say

the verse

“these” אלא

with reference

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

without specification,

that he brings all five of them,

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

The verse states “from these”

to teach you:

if he wishes one

of these

he brings; if he wishes all five, he brings them.

Rabbi Shimon says, “the meal-offering”

from which we learned through this verse

to include other meal-offerings,

such as a sinner’s meal-offering,

for presentation,

perhaps I should also include

from here

the two loaves and the showbread

so that they would require presentation?

The verse states “from these,”

for it implies limitation, meaning: you present only that which is mentioned in the passage, and not something else, thereby excluding the libation meal-offering.

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

I include other meal-offerings, some of which have

an offering

to the fires, and I exclude the two loaves and the showbread, which have none of them offered to the fires.

But the libation meal-offering is entirely offered to the fires,

and if so,

might it require presentation?

The verse states “And he shall present it,”

for this is a limitation, implying: that one mentioned in the passage you present, but no other—excluding the libation meal-offering.

And we refute:

But you have already used it,

for we already expounded “And he shall present it,” and derived from it above the inclusion of the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery?!

And we answer: It could have written

“And he shall present,”

but it wrote

“And he shall present it.”

And from the extra letter heh we derive the exclusion of the libation meal-offering.

And what did you see that you include other meal-offerings and exclude the libation meal-offering?