Menachot 91a — the Talmud in English

Since it is written

“from the animal, from the cattle”

“and from the flock”

and it did not say “from the flock,” as it said “from the cattle,”

it is considered as though it were written

“from the cattle and from the flock

together”

it is considered.

And

we challenge

Rabbi Yashya, who says

concerning cursing his father and mother:

even though it is not written

“together,”

it is considered as though it were written

“together,”

it is considered;

and if so, without “or” I would not know that he need not bring cattle and flock together, and this is difficult:

Let the verse be required [

it must require the verse ], that is, behold, the entire verse is needed in order to distinguish that he is not liable for cattle and flock together, and you can no longer expound from this verse to exclude a bird burnt-offering!?

And we answer:

The verse writes

there, in the portion of Leviticus:

“If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle,”

and it writes further there

“and if his offering is from the flock”...,

thus we have learned that he brings an offering either from the cattle or from the flock, and he need not bring both of them.

And the Gemara explains:

But the other one,

that is, Rabbi Yonatan, who requires the verse in the portion of libations to teach that he does not bring both together, and the verses in the portion of Leviticus do not suffice for him to teach this, this is because he holds:

Nevertheless,

it was necessary

to have another verse in the portion of libations to separate them, because from the verses in the portion of Leviticus alone, it would still

have entered your mind:

This applies—

that he brings either from the flock or from the cattle—

when he specifies

with his mouth at the time of his vow what he will bring,

but when he leaves it unspecified,

when he says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering,” then

let him bring from both of them [

he is liable to bring both of them ]—

it teaches us

the verse in the portion of libations that even when he leaves it unspecified, he brings either flock or cattle.

The master said

in the beraita:

From where

do we know that a thanksgiving-offering requires libations?

The verse says

“or”

“sacrifice”:

And we challenge it:

Is it so that a thanksgiving-offering is not

a “sacrifice”

?

And why is it necessary to include it from “or”!?

And we answer:

It was necessary for “or”

to include the thanksgiving-offering, because:

it would have entered your mind: since it has bread with it,

since with a thanksgiving-offering he brings four types of bread, if so

it should not require libations,

as the bread comes in their place—

Therefore “or” is needed to include the thanksgiving-offering for libations.

And we challenge it: how would I say that the bread comes in place of the libations,

and what is different from the ram [

of the peace-offering of ]

a nazirite [

which he brings when his nazirite term is completed ],

which has bread with it and requires libations [

[for he brings bread with it, but nevertheless also requires accompanying offerings], as the verse says [Numbers 6:17]: “And he shall make the ram a peace-offering to the Lord, together with the basket of unleavened bread; and the priest shall make its meal-offering and its libation”!?

And we answer: nevertheless,

it would have entered your mind

that a thanksgiving-offering does not require libations and is not comparable to a nazirite’s ram, because

there—

concerning the nazirite’s ram—

two types

of bread alone does he bring [unleavened cakes and wafers], whereas

here—

concerning a thanksgiving-offering—

four types

does he bring [unleavened cakes, wafers, and scalded cakes, and he also brings leavened cakes], and therefore I would say that they come in place of the libations—

It teaches us

“or” that even a thanksgiving-offering requires libations.

We further challenge the beraita in which we learned: Perhaps everything that is burned on the fire shall require libations, even a meal-offering; the verse says “burnt-offering.” Perhaps I should include also the firstborn, tithe, Passover-offering, sin-offering, and guilt-offering; the verse says “for a special vow or as a freewill-offering”: what comes as a vow or freewill-offering requires libations; what does not come as a vow or freewill-offering does not require libations:

And let the Merciful One write

“for a special vow or as a freewill-offering,”

and not require

“burnt-offering,”

since it too is included within vow or freewill-offering!?

And we answer:

If the Merciful One had not written

“burnt-offering,”

I would not know to learn from “for a special vow or as a freewill-offering” to exclude the firstborn, tithe, and Passover-offering, which do not come as a vow or freewill-offering, as explained in the beraita; because:

I would have said:

Since it is written “And you shall make a fire-offering to the Lord [a burnt-offering or a sacrifice], for a special vow or as a freewill-offering [or on your appointed times], to make a pleasing fragrance to the Lord from the cattle or from the flock,” therefore:

“And you shall make a fire-offering to the Lord”

is

a generalization—

“for a special vow or as a freewill-offering”

is

a specification—

“to make

a pleasing fragrance”

is

a repeated generalization.

A generalization, specification, and generalization—you judge only what resembles the specification,

and this means that the verse comes to include even that which does not come as a vow or freewill-offering, and I would not exclude from “for a special vow or as a freewill-offering” the firstborn, tithe, and Passover-offering; rather, I would say:

Just as the specification explicitly refers to something that does not come on account of a sin, so too everything that does not come on account of a sin—

and

I would exclude

only

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which come on account of a sin,

but

I would include—

through the generalization—

the firstborn, tithe, and Passover-offering, which do not come on account of a sin—

Therefore

the verse says:

“burnt-offering,”

which is superfluous, in order to teach that the rule of “generalization, specification, and generalization” is expounded: what comes as a vow or freewill-offering requires libations; what does not come as a vow or freewill-offering does not require libations; and to teach that the firstborn, tithe, and Passover-offering are exempt from bringing libations.

And we challenge:

Now that it is written

“burnt-offering,”

and even the firstborn, Passover-offering, and tithe have been excluded from bringing libations, if so,

“generalization and specification

and generalization,”

what does it include,

what “resembling the specification” is included through this rule to obligate it in libations, which was not written explicitly or derived through another exposition!?

And we answer: the rule comes to say:

Just as the specification explicitly refers to something that is not obligated

in it

and stands so, so too everything that is not obligated

in it

and stands so, to include:

offspring of sacred animals

of peace-offerings that come from a female.

And their substitutes

of peace-offerings.

And a burnt-offering that comes from a substitute,

that is, a substitute for a burnt-offering.

And

a burnt-offering that comes from

a guilt-offering released for grazing [

such as a guilt-offering whose owner achieved atonement through another one, whose law is: it grazes until it becomes blemished, and its value falls for a freewill-offering for the summer maintenance of the altar ], and likewise when it has already been handed over to a shepherd and they slaughtered it without specification, in which case it is valid as a burnt-offering, as above, 4a.

And all the offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake,

which require libations.

We further explain the beraita:

And now that you have said

“or [

sacrifice ]”

is for an exposition

[in order to include the thanksgiving-offering]—

“for a special vow or as a freewill-offering,”

why do I need it,

what will you expound from this “or”?

And we answer: “or” comes

to separate them,

the vow and the freewill-offering—

and

it was necessary

to separate them, because

it would have entered your mind: until he brings a vow and a freewill-offering, he should not bring libations,

until he brings both a vow and a freewill-offering, he does not require libations—

it teaches us “or”:

That if he brought a vow alone, he should require libations, and if he brought a freewill-offering alone, he should bring libations.

If he brings only a vow, he must bring accompanying offerings; and if he brings only a voluntary offering, he must bring accompanying offerings.

And we challenge:

This is satisfactory for Rabbi Yashya—

who was brought above, 90b, concerning one who curses his father and mother—who holds: without “or,” I would not know to separate them—

but for Rabbi Yonatan,

who holds: before Scripture specifies “together,” it is automatically understood that it means separation—

why do I need “or”!?

“or”?

And we answer: nevertheless,

it would have entered your mind:

Indeed, if

he brought a vow alone, he should require libations,

and if

he brought a freewill-offering alone, he should require libations,

but nevertheless:

If

he brought a vow and a freewill-offering,

that is, two offerings,

the libations of one should suffice [

it is sufficient to bring libations for this one or that one, and two sets of libations are not required ]—

it teaches us “or” to separate two sets of libations for two offerings.

“or” to separate the two sets of accompanying offerings for the two offerings.

We further explain:

“Or on your appointed times”

why do I need

“or”?

And we answer: had Scripture not said “or,”

it would have entered your mind: this applies

only that two offerings obligate two sets of libations

where he brings a burnt-offering as a vow and a peace-offering as a freewill-offering, or conversely,

that is, specifically when they differ both in the type of offerings and in their obligation, this one being a vow and that one a freewill-offering—

But where he brings a burnt-offering and a peace-offering as a vow

which differ only in the type of offerings and not in the type of obligation,

or alternatively, a burnt-offering and a peace-offering as a freewill-offering,

for then I would say:

There

“vow”

is one, and there

“freewill-offering”

is one, and the libations of one should suffice for it,

that he should bring libations only for the burnt-offering or for the peace-offering, and be exempt for both—

it teaches us “or,” stated concerning “on your appointed times,” to separate them.

We further explain:

“And when you make a cattle offering, a burnt-offering or

a sacrifice,”

why do I need

“or”?

And we answer:

It was necessary for “or,” because

“or,”

it would have entered your mind:

This applies where he brings a burnt-offering and a peace-offering as a vow, or alternatively, a burnt-offering and a peace-offering as a freewill-offering,

that is, he is liable for two sets of libations only when the offerings differ in their names, this one being a burnt-offering and that one a peace-offering—

but where he brings two burnt-offerings: one as a vow and one as a freewill-offering, or two peace-offerings, one as a vow and one as a freewill-offering,

that is, the offerings do not differ in their names, but this one is a vow and that one is a freewill-offering,

I would say:

There

“peace-offerings”

is one, there

“burnt-offering”

is one, and the libations of one should suffice for it—

it teaches us “or”

to separate them.

Then we interpret it: "

for a vow-offering or peace-offering"

why do I need

"or"?

And we answer: If Scripture had not said "or,"

it might enter your mind:

This applies

when he brings two libations:

When he brings two burnt-offerings, one as a vow-offering and one as a freewill-offering; alternatively, two peace-offerings, one as a vow-offering and one as a freewill-offering,

since they differ in the type of their obligation; and likewise we know that a difference in the types of sacrifices is a reason to distinguish

But when he brings two burnt-offerings as vow-offerings, and two burnt-offerings as freewill-offerings; alternatively, two peace-offerings as vow-offerings, and two peace-offerings as freewill-offerings,

so that there is no distinction between them either in the type of the sacrifice or in the type of the obligation, then he does not bring two libations, because:

The designation “burnt-offering”

or “peace-offering”

is one, and the designation “vow-offering”

or “freewill-offering”

is one.

That is to say, they are equal both in the type of sacrifice and in the category of their obligation,

and

if so,

one set of libations suffices for him—

it teaches us “or,” to distinguish.

Earlier, on page 90b, it was explained that Rabbi Yoshiya expounded “from the cattle or from the flock” to exclude the bird burnt-offering, while Rabbi Yonatan expounded the entire verse in order to learn from the “or” to distinguish; whereas Rabbi Yoshiya does not need Rabbi Yonatan’s distinction from the “or.”

The Gemara adds to explain what another “or” comes to teach:

And Rabbi Yoshiya,

who expounds the verse “from the cattle and from the flock” to exclude the bird burnt-offering, and does not need the “or” as Rabbi Yonatan does,

this “

from the cattle or from the flock,”

why do I need it—

what did Scripture add “or” for?

And we explain: This “or,” too, comes to divide the libations for two sacrifices, because

it might enter your mind:

This applies

when he brings two libations for two sacrifices,

with two species [

two species of animal, one being flock and the other cattle]

But with one species,

when he brings two sacrifices of one species, both from the flock or both from the cattle, I would say:

one set of libations suffices for him—

it teaches us “or,” to distinguish.

it teaches us that the word "or" serves to divide them.

The Gemara adds to explain the continuation of the verses: “

So shall you do for one, according to their number” why do I need it?

And we explain that this verse, too, comes to obligate two libations for two sacrifices, because

it might enter your mind:

This applies

when he brings two libations for two sacrifices only in a case where he consecrated the two sacrifices

one after the other,

even though he brought them together—

but

if he consecrated them

at one time

and brought them at one time,

one set of libations suffices for him—

it teaches us “So shall you do for one”—which implies for each one—“according to their number.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Except that the leper’s sin-offering and his guilt-offering require libations:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters,

that the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper differ from other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings in requiring libations?

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning the leper [Leviticus 14:10]: “And on the eighth day he shall take two unblemished male lambs [for a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering] and one unblemished female lamb in its first year [for a sin-offering],”

and three tenths of an ephah of fine flour as a meal-offering,

speaking of the meal-offering that comes with the sacrifice

the verse is speaking,

that is, the verse is speaking of the libation meal-offering, a tenth for each lamb; thus we have learned that even the leper’s sin-offering and his guilt-offering require libations.

You say: “The meal-offering that comes with the sacrifice” the verse is speaking, or perhaps it is only the meal-offering that comes by itself

the verse is speaking of the grain offering that accompanies the sacrifice

that is, it is speaking of the libation offering, a tenth of an ephah for each lamb. Thus we learn that the sin offering and guilt offering of a leper also require libations.

the verse is speaking,

and this is not a libation meal-offering?

When it says there [verse 20]: “

And the koen shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering

on the altar,” which implies a meal-offering that comes because of the burnt-offering,

you must say: The verse is speaking of the meal-offering that comes with the sacrifice.

And still I do not know: whether it requires also wine for libations, or not—

on the altar," which indicates a grain offering that comes because of the burnt offering,

you must say: the verse is speaking of the grain offering that accompanies the sacrifice.

And I still do not know: whether it requires

also wine for the

The verse states in the section of libations:

“ And wine for pouring, a quarter of a hin, you shall make upon the burnt-offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb,” and it comes for an exposition, since all these had already been mentioned at the beginning of the section: “

Burnt-offering”:

This is the leper’s burnt-offering,

to include it for wine libations. “

Sacrifice”: This is the leper’s sin-offering, to make it require wine for libations. “ Or”

Burnt offering":

this is the burnt offering of a leper,

to include it as requiring wine libations. "

“for the sacrifice”: this is the leper’s guilt-offering,

to make it require wine for libations.

And we object: Why do I need “or” to include the leper’s guilt-offering,

and let both of them emerge [

the two of them, his sin-offering as well as his guilt-offering]

from “

sacrifice”!?

should they not both emerge

both of them—the sin offering and the guilt offering of a leper—

from "

sacrifice"!?