Menachot 89b (פט:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise, one may mix the libations

of this day

with

the

libations

of the previous day,

when their mixtures are equal.

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

as their mixtures are not equal, since the mixture of the meal-offering of lambs is more fluid than the mixture of the meal-offerings of bulls and rams; and the Gemara will explain this further.

And

nevertheless,

if one mixed these

the meal-offering of the libations of lambs

separately, and those

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

separately, and

then

they became mixed—

these are

fit

for burning on the altar.

And

if

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

before one mixed

them,

it is unfit.

The Mishna further explains another law:

The lamb that comes with the Omer

as the verse states [Leviticus 23:12]: “And you shall offer on the day when you wave the Omer a year-old unblemished lamb as an elevation-offering to the Lord. Its meal-offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of choice flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the Lord, a pleasing fragrance; and its libation shall be a quarter of a hin of wine”—

even though its meal-offering

its meal-offering of libations

is doubled,

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

its libations were not

doubled

relative to the other libations of a lamb, which consist of 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 was initially assumed that our Mishna is discussing 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”,

whereas it should have said, “And he shall burn.” Rather, the verse comes to teach:

One may not mix the fats

of this offering

with the fats

of another offering. If so, the same law should apply: One may not mix the meal-offerings of the libations during the burning on the altar!?

Rabbi Yohanan

explained:

Rabbi Yohanan:

What we learned in our Mishna, “one may mix,” does not refer to doing so initially. Rather,

it says that if they became mixed,

they are fit, because “and they shall burn” applies only to the initial ideal procedure.

If so

since the first clause, which discusses the meal-offerings of bulls and rams, refers only to a case after the fact, it is necessary to explain what we learned in the latter clause:

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

after the fact,

also not

fit. This is difficult:

But since the latter clause states

“If one mixed these separately and those separately, and they became mixed, they are fit,”

by inference, the first clause

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

is referring to doing so initially, and consequently it is necessarily the case that what we learned at the beginning of the Mishna, “one may mix,” also refers to doing so initially!?

Rather,

Abaye said:

It is always prohibited initially to mix the 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 initially.] Moreover, even the wine, which is not subject to “and they shall burn,” since it is not burned on the altar, may not be mixed initially whenever the meal-offering has not become mixed, as a safeguard lest one come to mix the flour and oil as well and violate “and they shall burn.”

However, what we learned, “one may mix the libations of bulls with the libations of rams,” refers to doing so initially, as we proved; and we are not discussing the meal-offerings of the libations, but the wine of the libations. And this is what it means:

One may mix their wine,

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

if their flour and oil have become mixed,

since there is no longer reason for a safeguard lest one mix them and violate “and they shall burn.” And we raise a difficulty against this:

And

does that mean that

their wine may not initially be mixed

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

But it was taught

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 said? Concerning flour and oil,

but one may mix the wine.”

Rather, Abaye said:

What we learned, “one may mix those of bulls with those of rams,” referring to the wine of the bulls and rams, permits mixing in two cases: a.

Where

they have already

burned their flour and oil

of the meal-offerings,

one may initially mix the wine.

And the beraita in which we learned, “but one may mix the wine,” is also discussing this case.

b.

Where the flour and oil have not been burned

:

If their flour and oil have become mixed—

their wine may also be mixed,

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

And if not

that is, if the flour and oil have not become mixed—

one may not mix

the wine,

lest one come to mix

the flour and oil initially,

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

We learned in the Mishna:

The lamb that comes with the Omer,

even though its meal-offering is doubled, its libations are not doubled:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the lamb that comes with the Omer:

“And its meal-offering shall be two-tenths,”

which teaches concerning the lamb that comes with the Omer that its meal-offering is doubled

relative to the other meal-offerings of a lamb’s libations, which consist of only one-tenth.

It is possible to say: Just as its meal-offering is doubled

from the meal-offering of a lamb,

so too is its wine doubled

from the wine libation of a lamb, and he should bring half a hin of wine for the libations, double the libation of a lamb, which is a quarter of a hin—

The verse states

with regard to the lamb brought with the Omer: “

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

It is possible

that one might say: Indeed,

its wine should not be doubled, since

after all,

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 should be doubled—

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

since

after all,

it is mixed with its meal-offering,

and logically, as it is stated: The verse did not alter the consistency of the mixture; therefore, he should bring half a hin of oil, so that its mixture will be as soft as that of the other meal-offerings accompanying the libations of a lamb—

The verse states “

and its libation

of a quarter of a hin of wine,” teaching with regard to

all its libations—

including the oil libations—

that they shall be only a quarter.

of a hin.

The Gemara asks:

What is the meaning of the verse stating

how can this expression, which concerns wine libations, be used to derive the law of the oil libations?

Rabbi Elazar

explained:

He said:

It is written “

and its libation”

its libation, that of the meal-offering;] this implies, according to the written form, that the verse is speaking of the libations of the meal-offering, namely, the oil mixed with it,

but we read it “

and his libation”

the libation of the lamb;] this implies that the verse is speaking of the libations of the lamb, namely, the wine, which is connected only with the lamb and not with the meal-offering—

How is this so?

The libation of the meal-offering is like the libation 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 a lamb generally, and not half a hin.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A. An asham that one slaughtered not for its own sake is valid, but it does not count for the owner as fulfilling his obligation, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages in the Mishna at the beginning of Zevaḥim.

B. An asham, wherever it is mentioned, does not require libations at all, except for the asham of a leper, which does require libations, as explained in the Mishna below, on page 90b.

C. It is a positive mitzva that a fire burn continually on the altar, as it is stated: “A continual fire shall burn upon the altar” … In the morning, they arrange wood and make a great arrangement of fire on top of the altar … It is likewise a mitzva to place two logs of wood on the arrangement together with the morning tamid, in addition to the wood of the arrangement, as it is stated: “And the priest shall burn wood upon it.” They likewise add two logs together with the afternoon tamid, as it is stated: “And they shall arrange wood upon the fire.” By oral tradition they learned that the latter verse is speaking of the afternoon tamid. The two logs of the afternoon are brought up by two priests, each one holding a single log in his hand, as it is stated: “And they shall arrange”—here there are two; but those of the morning are brought by one priest.

An asham of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake,

which is valid, but does not count for the owner as fulfilling his obligation,

requires libations

according to the law of an asham of a leper, and not like other asham offerings, which do not require libations; that is, its original status continues to require libations.

Because

if you do not say so—

that it must be given libations according to its original status—then

you have disqualified it.

Rav Menashya bar Gadda raised an objection:

If that is so, in the case of the lamb brought with the Omer that one slaughtered not for its own sake,

which does not count as fulfilling the obligation and has the status of an ordinary olah,

should its meal-offering be doubled

from the meal-offering of other lambs offered as olot, as is the law with the lamb brought with the Omer, whose meal-offering is doubled—

And because

if you do not say so—

that its original law must be applied to it—then

you have disqualified it!?

And

so too the

morning tamid olah that one slaughtered not for its own sake,

which does not count as fulfilling the obligation,

should require

the arranging of

two logs

of wood on the arrangement

by one priest,

as is the law with the morning tamid, and not like other olot, which do not require the addition of logs—

And because

if you do not say so—

that its original law must be applied to it—then

you have disqualified it!?

And

so too,

the afternoon tamid that one slaughtered not for its own sake,

and it does not count as fulfilling the obligation,

should require

the arranging of

two logs by two priests—

And because

if you do not say so,

then

you have disqualified it!?

And if you would say: Indeed, that is so,

it is impossible to say this—

for

he did not count them

Rabbi Yoḥanan [he did not mention all of these cases], except for the asham of a leper, which requires libations for this reason.

He said

in reply,

Abaye:

Indeed, the status of all these offerings changes from that of other offerings, so that their original laws must be applied to them. And the reason Rabbi Yoḥanan did not count them is that

he mentioned one of them [Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned one of the cases].

Rava said

rather, it is not so; in truth, the original laws of all three of these cases do not continue to apply to them,

because:

Granted, these—

the lamb brought with the Omer, and the morning and afternoon tamid offerings—are such, for

they are olot,