Menachot 89b — the Talmud in English

And likewise, the libations

of this day

may be mixed

with

the libations

of yesterday

when their mixing is alike.

But one may not mix the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls and rams,

for their mixing is not alike, since the mixing of the meal-offering of the lambs is more fluid than the mixing of the meal-offering of the bulls and rams, and in the Gemara this will be explained further.

And

nevertheless,

if he mixed these

[the meal-offering of the libations of lambs]

separately, and these

[the meal-offering of the libations of a bull or a ram]

separately, and

afterward

they became mixed—

they are

valid

for burning on the altar.

And

if

the meal-offering of the libations of a bull and a ram became mixed with the meal-offering of the libations of the lamb

before he mixed

them, it is

invalid.

The Mishna further explains another law:

The lamb that comes with the omer,

as the verse says [Leviticus 23:12]: “And you shall offer on the day when you wave the omer a year-old male lamb without blemish as a burnt-offering to the Lord. And its meal-offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire-offering to the Lord, a pleasing fragrance; and its libation shall be a quarter of a hin of wine”—

even though its meal-offering

[the meal-offering of its libations]

was doubled,

for he would bring two-tenths for the lamb, whereas the meal-offering of the libations of a lamb is one-tenth, nevertheless

its libations were not

doubled

from the other libations of a lamb, which are a quarter of a hin of oil and wine.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may mix the libations of bulls with the libations of rams; and it entered our minds to interpret our Mishna as referring to mixing the meal-offerings of the libations:

And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita in which we learned: It is written concerning the burning of the sacrificial fats,

“And they shall burn them,”

whereas it should have said “and he shall burn”; rather, the verse comes to teach:

one may not mix the fats

of this sacrifice

with the fats

of another sacrifice. If so, the same law applies: one may not mix the meal-offerings of the libations in the burning on the altar!?

Said

he answered

Rabbi Yohanan:

This that we learned in our Mishna, “one may mix,” is not [a ruling] initially; rather,

he said that if they became mixed,

they are valid, for “and they shall burn them” applies only initially.

If so

if the first clause, which deals with the meal-offerings of bulls and rams, applies only after the fact, one must necessarily interpret what we learned in the latter clause:

“One may not mix the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls and rams,” even if they became mixed

after the fact,

also not

valid—and this is difficult:

But since the latter clause teaches

“If he mixed these separately and those separately, and they became mixed, they are valid,”

by inference, the first clause

—namely, what we learned: “One may not mix the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls and rams”

—is saying this initially, and consequently it is necessarily established that what we learned at the beginning of the Mishna, “one may mix,” means initially!?

Rather,

Abaye said:

It is always forbidden initially to combine the fine flour and the oil, because it is stated: “And they shall burn.” [But if they have already become mixed, it is permitted to burn them, since “and they shall burn” applies only to the initial procedure.] Moreover, even the wine, to which “and they shall burn” does not apply because it is not burned on the altar, may not be combined initially as long as the meal-offering has not been combined, as a safeguard lest one come to combine the fine flour and the oil as well, thereby violating “and they shall burn.”

However, what we learned, “one may mix the libations of bulls with the libations of rams,” means initially, as we proved, and we are not dealing with the meal-offerings of the libations; rather, we are dealing with the wine of the libations, and this is what it says:

One may mix their wine

even initially—the wine of bulls with that of rams—

if their fine flour and oil have become mixed,

since there is no longer a decree lest he mix them and transgress “and they shall burn them.” And we challenge this:

And

if

is their wine initially not

to be mixed if their fine flour and oil have not yet become mixed, as you said!?

But it was taught in a beraita

in the Tosefta [Menahot 10:2]: “

One may not mix the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls and rams;

in what case is this statement said? With regard to fine flour and oil,

but wine may be mixed.”

Rather, Abaye said:

This that we learned, “one may mix those of bulls with those of rams,” namely, their wine, is permitted to be mixed in two situations: a.

where

it has already

been burned, their fine flour and oil

of the meal-offerings,

one may mix the wine initially.

And the beraita in which we learned, “but wine may be mixed,” is likewise dealing with this case.

b.

Where the fine flour and oil have not been burned

:

If their fine flour and oil have become mixed—

one may also mix their wine,

and it is in these two situations that we learned: “one may mix those of bulls with those of rams.”

And if not—

that the fine flour and oil have not become mixed—

one may not mix

the wine,

lest he come to mix

fine flour and oil initially,

for it is forbidden to mix them because of “and they shall burn them.”

We learned in the Mishna:

The lamb that comes with the omer,

even though its meal-offering was doubled, its libations were not doubled:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the lamb that comes with the omer, “

and its meal-offering shall be two-tenths,”

this taught concerning the lamb that comes with the omer that its meal-offering is doubled,

relative to the other meal-offering of the libations of a lamb, which is only one-tenth.

Could it be that, just as its meal-offering is doubled

from the meal-offering of the libations of a lamb,

so its wine is doubled

from the wine libations of a lamb, and he shall bring half a hin of wine for the libations, double the libations of a lamb, which are a quarter of a hin—

The verse says

with regard to the lamb brought with the omer: “

And its libation shall be a quarter of a hin of wine.”

Could it be

as it is said: indeed,

its wine shall not be doubled, since

behold,

it is not mixed with its meal-offering

and the doubling of its meal-offering does not obligate the doubling of its wine—

But its oil shall be doubled—

he shall bring half a hin of oil for mixing the meal-offering, double the oil of the meal-offering of lambs, which is only a quarter of a hin—

since

behold,

it is mixed with its meal-offering

and by law, as it is said: The verse did not alter the softness of the mixture; therefore he shall bring half a hin of oil, so that its mixture will be soft like the other meal-offerings of the libations of the lamb—

The verse says “

and its libation

of a quarter of a hin of wine,” teaching concerning

all its libations—

and even the oil libations—

that they shall be only a quarter.

of a hin.

The Gemara asks:

What is the meaning of “the verse says”

—how are we to learn from this expression, which deals with wine libations, regarding the oil libations?

He said

—he explained—

Rabbi Elazar:

It is written “

and its libation”

its libation, that of the meal-offering], which implies according to the writing that the verse is speaking of the libations of the meal-offering, namely, the oil that is mixed into it,

but we read “

and its libation”

the libation of the lamb], which implies that the verse is speaking of the libations of the lamb, namely, the wine, which has a connection only with the lamb and not with the meal-offering—

How is this:

Its libation, that of the meal-offering, is like its libation, that of the wine; just as the wine is a quarter

as explicitly stated in the verse,

so too the oil is a quarter

of a hin, like the oil of the lamb, and not half a hin.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

a. A guilt-offering that they slaughtered not for its sake is valid, but it does not count for the owners as an obligation, according to the opinion of the Sages in the Mishna at the beginning of Zevahim.

b. A guilt-offering, everywhere, does not require libations at all, except for the guilt-offering of a metzora, which does require libations, as explained in the Mishna below, 90b.

c. It is a positive mitzva that a fire burn constantly upon the altar, as it is said: “A constant fire shall burn upon the altar”… In the morning they arrange wood, and they make upon the top of the altar a large arrangement of fire… And likewise, it is a mitzva to bring up two logs of wood with the morning daily offering, in addition to the wood of the arrangement, as it is said: “And the koen shall burn wood upon it”; and likewise they add two logs with the afternoon daily offering, as it is said: “And they shall arrange wood upon the fire.” By oral tradition they learned that the verse is speaking of the afternoon daily offering. The two logs of the afternoon they bring up by two kohanim, each one with a single log in his hand, as it is said: “And they shall arrange”—here are two; but those of the morning are [brought] by one koen.

The guilt-offering of a metzora that they slaughtered not for its sake,

which is valid, but does not count for the owners as an obligation, is

required to have libations

according to the law of the guilt-offering of a metzora, and not like other guilt-offerings, which are not required to have libations; that is, its original law still remains upon it, that it is required to have libations.

Because

if you do not say so

to require it to have libations according to its original law, then

you have disqualified it.

Rav Menashya bar Gadda challenged this:

But from now: A lamb brought with the omer that they slaughtered not for its sake,

which does not count as an obligation and is like an ordinary burnt-offering,

shall its meal-offering be doubled

from the meal-offering of other burnt-offering lambs, and according to the law of the lamb brought with the omer, whose meal-offering is doubled—

And because

if you do not say so

to give it its original law, then

you have disqualified it!?

And

likewise the

morning daily burnt-offering that they slaughtered not for its sake,

which does not count as an obligation,

shall be required

to arrange

two logs

of wood upon the arrangement

by one koen,

according to the law of the morning daily offering, and not like other burnt-offerings, which are not required to have an additional pair of logs—

And because

if you do not say so

to give it its original law, then

you have disqualified it!?

And

likewise

the afternoon daily offering that they slaughtered not for its sake

and it does not count as an obligation,

shall be required

to arrange

two logs by two kohanim—

And because

if you do not say so,

then

you have disqualified it!?

And if you would say: Indeed, so

then it is impossible to say this—

For

he did not count them

Rabbi Yohanan [he did not mention all of these], except for the guilt-offering of a metzora, which is required to have libations for this reason.

He said

—he answered—

Abaye:

Indeed, the law of all these was changed from that of other offerings, to require them to retain their original law. And the reason Rabbi Yohanan did not count them is that

he stated one of them

Rabbi Yohanan stated one of the cases.

Rava said

not so; rather, in truth, these three do not retain their original law, because:

Granted, these—

the lamb brought with the omer, the morning offering, and the afternoon offering—for

they are burnt-offerings,