Menachot 90b (צ:) — the Talmud in English

B. One who undertakes to supply fine flour to the Temple

at the rate of three

seahs per sela, and the price of the fine flour decreased

and reached four

seahs per sela, must also supply this amount

at the rate of four [seahs per sela, according to the price of four seahs per sela], meaning that he must add to the seahs that he undertook to supply until they correspond to the money that he received.

according to the price of four se'ah per sela], and this means that he shall add to the se'ah that he undertook until corresponding to the money that he received].

For the hand of the Temple

is always

uppermost — those additional seahs that he supplies beyond what he undertook to provide when the price was high, and which are not needed for the communal libations, are precisely the “surplus of libations” that are used for the purchase of offerings for the altar’s upkeep.

and those additional se'ah that he supplies beyond what he undertook at the time of the rise in price, and which are not needed for the public libations, are themselves “the remainder of the libations” that go for the Summer of the Altar.

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef, and it was also taught

as well

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan:

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef: What would they do with these excesses of measures

of the libations

if there was another offering

to be sacrificed on that same day

They would sacrifice them with it; but if they remained overnight, they become disqualified through remaining overnight —

And if not, offerings for the altar’s upkeep are purchased with them.

And what is this “purchase for the altar’s upkeep”?

Burnt-offerings; the flesh belongs to God and the hides to the priests.

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan: One who undertakes to supply fine flour at the rate of four seahs, and the price reached three

seahs per sela, he

must supply four; if he undertook to supply three and the price reached four,

this one too

must supply four, for the hand of the Temple is uppermost —

And this is what we learned: “

The surplus of libations

is used for the purchase of offerings for the altar’s upkeep.”

Mishna:

Our Mishna concerns the obligation of libations accompanying the various offerings:

All communal and individual offerings require

the bringing of

libations

with them. This means the meal-offering of libations mixed with oil, which is entirely burned on the altar, as well as wine libations, which are poured into the basins on the altar.

Except for the firstborn, the animal tithe

of livestock,

the Paschal offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering,

which do not require libations.

Except that the sin-offering of a leper

who became pure

and his guilt-offering,

which he brings with it, differ from other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings and

require libations,

and their measure is like that of the other libations.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning libations [Numbers 15]: “When you enter the land of your dwelling places that I give you, and you perform a fire-offering to the Lord, a burnt-offering or an offering, to fulfill a vow or as a freewill-offering, or on your appointed times, to produce a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, from the cattle or from the flock. And the one who brings his offering to the Lord shall bring a meal-offering”:

If the verse had stated only: “And you shall perform a fire-offering to

the Lord

and the one who brings his offering” …

I might have thought

that

everything that is burned on the fire

and

even a meal-offering

would require bringing with it another meal-offering of libations, entirely for the Lord, and wine for libations

the verse states: “

A burnt-offering.”

Since the verse specified a burnt-offering,

from where

do we know that peace-offerings also require libations?

The verse states: “A burnt-offering or an

“a burnt offering or

offering.”

From where

do we know that a thanks-offering also requires libations?

The verse states: “

Or an offering,”

and the word “or” comes to include a thanks-offering.

I might also include

the

firstborn, the animal tithe, the Paschal offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering,

so that they would require libations —

The verse states: “

To fulfill a vow or as a freewill-offering,”

teaching that a

sacrifice that is brought as a vow or as a freewill-offering

—like a burnt-offering, peace-offering, or thanks-offering—is the one that

requires libations,

but a sacrifice

that is not brought as a vow or as a freewill-offering does not require libations.

This implies that these are to be excluded,

meaning, I might say: Just as I exclude these, so too

I will exclude

also

the obligatory offerings that come because of a pilgrimage festival; and what are they?

The burnt-offerings of appearance and the peace-offerings of the festival,

because it might be understood from the verse that the Torah obligates libations only when one brings a vow or a freewill-offering, but obligatory offerings do not require libations —

The verse states: “

Or on your appointed times,”

teaching that not only do the additional burnt-offerings require libations, but

everything that comes on your appointed times

—including the burnt-offering of appearance and the peace-offerings of the festival —

requires libations.

This implies that these are to be included,

meaning, I might say: Just as I include these, so too

I will include

also

the sin-offering goats

of the additional offerings of the festival,

since they come as an obligation on the festival,

even though they are not brought as vows or freewill-offerings —

The verse states

in the continuation of the passage: “

And when you make a young bull as a burnt-offering or an offering

to fulfill a vow or as peace-offerings to the Lord, and he shall bring a meal-offering with the young bull” —

And

a young bull

was already included,

meaning, it was already stated at the beginning of the passage: “To produce a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, from the cattle or from the flock,”

and

therefore

why was it singled out

—that is, why is it written: “And when you make a young bull as a burnt-offering”? The verse could have said: “And he shall bring a meal-offering with the young bull.”

To juxtapose it with the young bull and tell you: Just as the young bull, which is specifically brought as a vow or a freewill-offering, so too everything brought as a vow or a freewill-offering

alone is obligated in libations, but not a sin-offering, even when it comes because of a pilgrimage festival.

Here the baraita returns to explain the beginning of the passage: “

To produce a pleasing fragrance to the Lord

from the cattle or from the flock”

what does the verse come to teach?

That is, why did the verse mention “from the cattle or from the flock”? Since the Torah specified in that passage the laws of the libations for a young bull, a ram, and a lamb, we already learn that the obligation applies to cattle and flock. Why, then, did it initially mention “from the cattle or from the flock”?

Since it is stated

at the beginning of the passage: “And you shall perform a fire-offering to the

Lord, a burnt-offering,”

I would understand even the burnt-offering of a bird to be included,

so that one would be obligated to bring libations with it, since it is brought as a vow or a freewill-offering. Therefore,

the verse states: “

From the cattle or from the flock,”

to exclude the burnt-offering of a bird. These are

the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not necessary to use “from the cattle or from the flock” to exclude the burnt-offering of a bird, for

to use “from the cattle or from the flock” to exclude a bird burnt offering, since

it says: “A burnt-offering or an

“a burnt offering or

offering,”

and

if

a bird is not an offering

because it is not performed through slaughter but through melika, the burnt-offering of a bird is thereby excluded —

And

if so, what does the verse come to teach by saying “

from the cattle or from the flock”?

Since it is stated

at the beginning of Leviticus: “

When a person brings an offering from among you to the Lord,

from the animals, from the cattle or from the flock

you shall bring your offering.”

I might have thought

that

one who says: “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering,”

would

bring

two offerings

from both of them,

from the cattle and from the flock alike —

Therefore,

the verse states

in the passage concerning libations: “

From the cattle or from the flock,”

and it did not say “from the cattle and from the flock,” to teach:

If he wishes, he brings one; if he wishes, he brings two.

It was taught in Sanhedrin 66a concerning the verse [Leviticus 20:9]: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother, his blood is upon him”:

I know only that one who curses his father and mother [both of them is liable]. If he cursed his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, from where do we know that he is liable? The verse states: “He has cursed his father and his mother, his blood is upon him”: he cursed his father, he cursed his mother. These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: [This is not necessary, because “his father and his mother”] implies both together and also each one individually, unless the verse explicitly states “together” [as it does concerning diverse kinds: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together”].

And

the Gemara asks of

Rabbi Yonatan:

Why do I need a verse

to distinguish between cattle and flock? Once the verse says “from the cattle and from the flock,” we already know that it means either this or that, for

Rabbi Yonatan himself said: “From his father and his mother” implies each one individually,

“His father and his mother” implies each one separately,

unless the verse explicitly states “

together.”

If so, “from the cattle and from the flock” likewise implies each one individually, since the verse did not specify: “From the cattle and from the flock together shall you bring your offering.” Why, then, is the additional word “or” needed in the passage concerning libations?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary

for the verse in the passage concerning libations to distinguish between them, because

it might enter your mind to say: