Menachot 90b — the Talmud in English

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

at three

se'ah per sela, and the fine flour became cheaper

and stood at four

se'ah per sela, this one too shall supply

at four

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].

The hand of the Temple

is always

on the upper side—

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 Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef, and it was also taught

also

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan:

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef: These projections of measures

of the libations—

what would they do with them? If there is another offering

to be sacrificed on that same day,

they are sacrificed with it; but if they remained overnight, they become disqualified through overnight lodging—

And if not, they make the Altar’s Summer with them.

And what is this Summer?

Burnt-offerings: the flesh for the sake of the Name, and the hides for the priests.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: One who undertakes to supply fine flour at four

and it

stood at three; this one supplies at four. At three, and it stood at four

this one too

supplies at four, for the hand of the Temple is on the upper side—

And this is what we learned: “

The remainder of the libations

for the Summer of the Altar.”

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with the obligation of libations for the various offerings:

All public and individual offerings require

the bringing of

libations

with them, that is, a meal-offering of libations mixed with oil, which ascends entirely upon the Altar, and also wine libations, to be poured into the bowls that are upon the Altar.

Except for the firstborn and the tithe

animal

and the Passover-offering, and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering,

which do not require libations.

Except that the leper’s sin-offering

who became pure

and his guilt-offering

which he brings with it are different from other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings and

require libations,

and their measure is like that of the other libations.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of 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 express a vow or as a freewill-offering, or at your appointed times, to make a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, from the cattle or from the flock. And the one who brings his offering shall bring to the Lord a meal-offering”:

If Scripture had said only

“

And you perform a fire-offering to the Lord

and the one who brings shall bring his offering…”

I might have said:

Everything that ascends upon the fires shall require libations,

and even a meal-offering shall bring with it another meal-offering of libations entirely for the Lord, and wine for libations—

the verse states: “

burnt-offering.”

And once Scripture specified a burnt-offering,

from where

do we know that peace-offerings too require libations?

The verse states: “burnt-offering or

offering

offering.”

From where

do we know that a thanksgiving-offering too requires libations?

The verse states: “

or an offering,”

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

I might include even

the

firstborn and the tithe and the Passover-offering and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering,

so that they should require libations—

the verse states: “

to express a vow or as a freewill-offering,”

to teach: an

offering that comes through a vow or a freewill-offering

—such as a burnt-offering, peace-offering, and thanksgiving-offering—it alone

requires libations,

but an offering

that does not come through a vow or a freewill-offering does not require libations.

This implies excluding these,

that is, I might say: just as I exclude these, so too

I will exclude

also

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

The appearance-offerings and the festival peace-offerings,

for it is said: Scripture obligated libations only when he brings a vow or a freewill-offering, but obligatory offerings do not require libations—

The verse states: “

or at your appointed times,”

to teach: not only do the additional burnt-offerings require libations, but

everything that comes at your appointed times—

including the appearance-offerings and the festival peace-offerings—

requires libations.

This implies including these,

that is, 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,

although they do not come through a vow or a freewill-offering—

the verse states

later in the passage: “

And when you make a bull, a burnt-offering or an offering,

to express a vow or peace-offerings to the Lord, and he shall bring a meal-offering over the bull”—

But

a bull

was included,

that is, it was already stated at the beginning of the passage: “to make a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, from the cattle or from the flock,”

and

if so,

why did it go out,

that is, why is it written, “And when you make a bull”? Let Scripture say: “And he shall bring a meal-offering over the bull.”

To juxtapose it to this and say to you: Just as the bull is distinctive in coming through a vow and a freewill-offering, so too everything that comes through a vow and a freewill-offering

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

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

To make a pleasing fragrance to the Lord

from the cattle or from the flock”—

what does the verse teach?

That is, why did Scripture mention “from the cattle or from the flock”? Since, in the details in which the Torah specified in that passage the laws of the libations for the bull, the ram, and the lamb, we have already learned that the obligation applies to cattle and flock, why did it mention at the beginning, “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 might understand even the bird burnt-offering as included,

so that one would be obligated to bring libations with it, for it comes through a vow or a freewill-offering; therefore

the verse states: “

from the cattle or from the flock,”

to exclude the bird burnt-offering.

The words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: It is not necessary

to use “from the cattle or from the flock” to exclude the bird burnt-offering, for

it says: “burnt-offering or

offering,”

offering,

and

if

a bird is not an offering,

for it is not performed by slaughtering but by pinching, and the bird burnt-offering is excluded—

and

if so, what does the verse teach: “

from the cattle or from the flock”?

Since it is stated

at the beginning of the Book of Leviticus: “

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

from the animal, from the cattle and from the flock

you shall bring your offering.”

I might say:

I might say:

One who says: “

Behold, upon me is a burnt-offering,”

this one

shall bring

two offerings

from both of them,

both from cattle and from flock—

therefore

the verse states

in the passage of libations: “

from the cattle or from the flock,”

and it did not say “from the cattle and from the flock,” in order 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; his father and his mother he cursed, his blood is upon him”:

I have only [that one is liable when he curses] his father and his mother [both of them]. If he cursed his father but not his mother, or his mother but not his father, from where? The verse states: “His father and his mother he cursed, his blood is upon him”: he cursed his father, he cursed his mother—the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan says: [It is not necessary, for “his father and his mother”] implies both together, and implies one individually, until Scripture specifies for you “together” [as it specified concerning diverse kinds: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together”].

And

we ask concerning

Rabbi Yonatan:

Why do I need a verse

to separate cattle from flock? Since, when Scripture said “from the cattle and from the flock,” we already knew that the intention is 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,

until Scripture specifies for you “

together,”

and if so, “from the cattle and from the flock” likewise implies each one individually, since Scripture did not specify, “from the cattle and from the flock together you shall bring your offering”; why then do we need the extra “or” in the passage of libations!?

And we answer:

It was necessary

for Scripture in the passage of libations to separate them, because

it might enter your mind to say: