Menachot 91a (צא.) — 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"

[that is what the verse] means.

Rashi explained from a manuscript: Since the verse changed its wording, writing “from the cattle and from the flock,” it is certainly precise. For with regard to cattle it says “from,” whereas with regard to the flock it says “and from.” This indicates that “from” was specifically stated with regard to cattle, because it comes to explain “from the animal,” while “and from” was stated with regard to the flock in order to add it. And this is what the verse is saying: He shall bring one from this category and one from that category; and it is considered as though “together” were written. And the wording of Tosafot [according to the version of Tzon Kodashim] is as follows: Since it is written “from the animal,” and afterward “from the cattle and from the flock,” rather than “from the cattle and the flock,” this indicates both of them, and both expressions serve to explain “animal”: the verse comes to explain from which animal he shall offer—from the cattle and from the flock, one from this category and one from that category.

And

we challenge this

according to Rabbi Yoshiya, who said

with regard to cursing one’s father and mother:

Even though it is not written "

together,"

it is considered as though "

together"

were written.

If so, without the word “or,” I would not know that he need not bring cattle and sheep together, and the following difficulty arises:

The verse would be required

[it would require the entire verse], meaning: The entire verse is needed in order to establish that he is not liable for cattle and sheep together, and therefore you can no longer derive from this verse the exclusion of a bird burnt offering!?

And we answer:

The verse writes

there, in the passage of Leviticus:

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

and it further writes there:

“And if his offering is from the flock…”

We have therefore learned that he brings an offering either from the cattle or from the flock, but he need not bring both.

And the Gemara explains:

But the other one—that is, Rabbi Yonatan, who requires the verse in the passage concerning libations to teach that he does not bring both together, and does not find the verses in the passage of Leviticus sufficient to teach this—does so because he maintains:

namely, Rabbi Yonatan, who requires the verse in the portion concerning meal-offerings accompanying sacrifices to teach that he does not bring both together and is not satisfied with the verses in Leviticus to teach this, does so because he holds:

In any event,

it was necessary

to have another verse in the passage concerning libations to separate them, because from the verses in Leviticus alone it might still

have entered your mind:

This applies—

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

when he specifies

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

but when he states it without specification

and says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering,” then

let him bring from both

[he would be obligated to bring both].

The verse therefore teaches us

in the passage concerning libations that even when he makes the statement without specification, he brings either a sheep or cattle.

The Master said

in the beraita:

From where

do we know that a thanksgiving offering requires libations?

The verse says "

or

an offering."

And we challenge this:

Is it so that a thanksgiving offering is not

an offering

itself?

Why is it necessary to include it through the word “or”?

And we answer:

It was necessary to use “or” to include a thanksgiving offering, because

“or” to include the thanksgiving-offering, because

it might have entered your mind: Since it has bread with it,

since with a thanksgiving offering one brings four types of bread, therefore

it should not require libations,

as the bread comes in their place—

Therefore, “or” is necessary to include a thanksgiving offering as requiring libations.

And we challenge this: How would I have said that the bread comes in place of the libations?

And how is it different from the ram

[the peace offering of]

a nazirite

[which he brings when the days of his naziriteship are completed],

which has bread with it and nevertheless requires libations

[he brings bread with it, but nevertheless also requires libations], as the verse states [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 offer its meal offering and its libation”!?

And we answer: Nevertheless,

it might have entered your mind that a thanksgiving offering does not require libations and is not comparable to the ram of a nazirite, because

with regard to a thanksgiving offering

there—

with regard to the ram of a nazirite—

he brings two types

of bread only [unleavened loaves and wafers], whereas

here—

with regard to a thanksgiving offering—

he brings four types

of bread [unleavened loaves, wafers, and boiled loaves, and he also brings leavened loaves]. Therefore, I would say that they come in place of the libations—

The verse therefore teaches us through “or” that even a thanksgiving offering requires libations.

“or”: Even a thanksgiving-offering requires accompanying offerings.

We further challenge the beraita that we learned: One might have thought that anything wholly offered upon the altar should require libations, even a meal offering. The verse therefore says “burnt offering.” One might have thought that I should also include a firstborn offering, a tithe offering, the Paschal offering, a sin offering, and a guilt offering. The verse therefore says “for a special vow or as a voluntary offering”: That which comes as a vow or a voluntary offering requires libations; that which does not come as a vow or a voluntary offering does not require libations:

Let the Merciful One write "

for a special vow or as a voluntary offering,"

and need not write "

burnt offering,"

since a burnt offering is also included among vows or voluntary offerings!?

And we answer:

Had the Merciful One not written "

burnt offering,"

I would not know to derive from “for a special vow or as a voluntary offering” the exclusion of a firstborn offering, a tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, which do not come as vows or voluntary offerings, as explained in the beraita. For:

I would have said:

Since it is written, “And you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord [a burnt offering or an offering] for a special vow or as a voluntary offering [or on your festivals], to make a pleasing fragrance to the Lord, from the cattle or from the flock,” then

“And you shall offer an offering made by fire to the Lord”

is a

general statement;

“For a special vow or as a voluntary offering”

is a

particular statement;

“To make

a pleasing fragrance”

is

a return to a general statement.

A general statement, a particular statement, and a general statement—you may derive only what is similar to the particular statement.

That is, the verse comes to include even that which does not come as a vow or voluntary offering, and I would not exclude a firstborn offering, a tithe offering, and the Paschal offering from “for a special vow or as a voluntary offering.” Rather, I would say:

Just as the particular statement 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 general statement—

a firstborn offering, a tithe offering, and the Paschal 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 hermeneutical principle of “general statement, particular statement, and general statement” is applied: That which comes as a vow or voluntary offering requires libations; that which does not come as a vow or voluntary offering does not require libations. It also teaches that a firstborn offering, a tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are exempt from bringing libations.

And we challenge this:

Now that it is written "

burnt offering,"

and even a firstborn offering, the Paschal offering, and a tithe offering have been excluded from bringing libations, then

“general statement and particular statement

and general statement”—

what does it include?

What “similar to the particular statement” is included by this hermeneutical principle as requiring libations, which was not stated explicitly or derived through another exposition!?

And we answer: The hermeneutical principle comes to say:

Just as the particular statement explicitly refers to something that is not

intrinsically obligated

in it, so too everything that is not

intrinsically obligated

in it, including:

the offspring of sacrificial animals

of peace offerings that come from a female animal;

and their substitutes

of peace offerings;

and a burnt offering that comes from a substitute,

that is, the substitute of a burnt offering.

And

a burnt offering that comes from

a guilt offering that was released for grazing

[for example, a guilt offering whose owner achieved atonement through another offering, whose law is that it grazes until it develops a disqualifying defect, after which its value goes to a voluntary offering for the maintenance of the altar; and likewise, when it had already been handed over to a shepherd and was slaughtered without specification, in which case it is valid as a burnt offering, as stated above, 4a].

And all sacrifices that were slaughtered not for their sake

require libations.

We further explain the beraita:

And now that you have said that

“or

[an offering]”

comes for a derivation

[to include a thanksgiving offering]—

“For a special vow or as a voluntary offering,”

why do I need it?

What will you derive from this “or”?

And we answer: “Or” comes

to separate them

—the vow and the voluntary offering—

and

it was necessary

to separate them, because

it might have entered your mind: Until he brings both a vow and a voluntary offering, he should not bring libations

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

the verse therefore teaches us through “or”:

“or”:

If he brings only a vow, he requires libations, and if he brings only a voluntary offering, he must bring libations.

And we challenge this:

This works according to Rabbi Yoshiya

—as cited above, 90b, with regard to one who curses his father and mother—who maintains that without “or” I would not know to separate them—

but according to Rabbi Yonatan,

who maintains that before the verse explicitly says “together,” it is inherently understood that they are separate—

why do I need “or”?

And we answer: Nevertheless,

it might have entered your mind:

Indeed, if

he brings only

a vow, he requires libations, and if

he brings only

a voluntary offering, he requires libations, but nevertheless:

nevertheless:

If

he brings a vow and a voluntary offering,

that is, two offerings,

one set of libations would suffice

[it would be sufficient to bring libations for one or the other, and he would not require a second set of libations]—

the verse therefore teaches us through “or” to separate two sets of libations for two offerings.

We further explain:

"or on your festivals"

“Or on your festivals,”

why do I need "

or"?

And we answer: Had the verse not said “or,”

it might have entered your mind: This applies

only when two offerings require two sets of libations,

when he brings a burnt offering as a vow and peace offerings as a voluntary offering, or conversely—that is, specifically when they differ both in the type of offering and in the nature of their obligation, one being a vow and the other a voluntary offering—

that is, specifically when they differ both in the type of offering and in the type of obligation: one being a vow and the other a voluntary offering—

But when he brings a burnt offering and peace offerings as a vow,

where they differ only in the type of offering and not in the type of obligation,

or a burnt offering and peace offerings as a voluntary offering,

then I would say:

There is one

vow, and

there is

one voluntary offering, and

one set of libations would suffice for it—he would bring libations only for the burnt offering or the peace offerings and thereby fulfill his obligation for both—

the verse therefore teaches us through the “or” stated with regard to “on your festivals” that they are to be separated.

the verse teaches us that the word “or” stated regarding “on your festivals” comes to separate them.

This passage continues the explanation.

We further explain:

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

an offering,”

why do I need “or”?

And we answer:

It was necessary to write “or,” because

It was necessary to write “or,” because

“or”

it might have entered your mind:

This applies when he brings a burnt offering and peace offerings as a vow, or a burnt offering and peace offerings as a voluntary offering, meaning that he is obligated to bring two sets of libations only when the offerings differ in their names, one being a burnt offering and the other peace offerings—

that is, he is obligated to bring two sets of accompanying offerings only when the offerings differ in their names, one being a burnt-offering and the other a peace-offering—

But when he brings two burnt offerings, one as a vow and one as a voluntary offering, or two peace offerings, one as a vow and one as a voluntary offering,

meaning that the offerings do not differ in their names, but only in that one is a vow and the other a voluntary offering,

say:

There is one

peace offering, and

there is one

burnt offering,

and one set of libations would suffice for it—

the verse therefore teaches us through “or” to establish a distinction.

“or” to separate them.

We therefore interpret it:

“For a vow-offering or peace-offerings”

Why do I need

“or”?

And we answer: Had the verse not stated “or,”

it might have entered your mind:

This applies

when he brings two libations:

In a case where he brings two burnt-offerings, one as a vow-offering and one as a freewill-offering; or, alternatively, two peace-offerings, one as a vow-offering and one as a freewill-offering, since they differ with regard to the category of their obligation; and we likewise know that differences between categories of sacrifices are a reason to distinguish between them—

since they differ in the type of obligation involved; and we likewise know that differences in the types of sacrifices are a reason to treat them separately—

But in a case where he brings two burnt-offerings as vow-offerings, and two burnt-offerings as freewill-offerings; or, alternatively, two peace-offerings as vow-offerings, and two peace-offerings as freewill-offerings, where there is no difference between them either in the category of the sacrifice or in the category of the obligation, then he would not bring two libations, because:

since there is no difference between them either in the type of sacrifice or in the type of obligation, he would not bring two sets of libations, because:

The designation “burnt-offering”

or “peace-offering”

is one, and the designation “vow-offering”

or “freewill-offering”

is one.

That is, they are identical both in the category of the sacrifice and in the nature of their obligation;

and

therefore

one set of libations should suffice for him—

it teaches us that “or” serves to distinguish between them.

"Or" serves to divide them.

It was explained above, on 90b, that Rabbi Yoshiya expounded “from the cattle or from the flock” to exclude the burnt-offering of a bird, while Rabbi Yonatan expounded the entire verse in order to derive from the word “or” that the libations must be distinguished. Rabbi Yoshiya, however, does not require Rabbi Yonatan’s derivation from “or.”

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

And as for Rabbi Yoshiya, who expounds the verse “from the cattle and from the flock” to exclude the burnt-offering of a bird, and does not require “or” as Rabbi Yonatan does,

who expounds the verse "from cattle and from the flock" to exclude a bird burnt offering and therefore does not need the word "or" as Rabbi Yonatan does,

this

“from the cattle or from the flock,”

why do I need it,

as the verse added the word “or”?

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

it might have entered your mind:

This applies

when he brings two sets of libations for two sacrifices,

of two species

[two species of animals, one from the flock and the other from cattle]

But when they are of one species,

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

one set of libations should suffice for him—

it teaches us that “or” serves to distinguish between them.

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

The Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the verses:

“So you shall do for each one, according to their number”

Why do I need this?

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

it might have entered your mind:

This applies

when he brings two sets of libations for two sacrifices only when he consecrated the two sacrifices

one after the other,

even though he brought them at the same time—

But

if he consecrated them

simultaneously

and brought them simultaneously,

one set of libations should suffice for him—

it teaches us “so you shall do for each one”—which indicates that each one receives libations—“according to their number.”

"So shall you do for each one, according to their number."

We learned in the Mishna:

Except that the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper require libations:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived,

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

As the Sages taught:

It is written concerning a 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 grain offering,”

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 grain offering that accompanies the sacrifice

is what the verse is speaking of, that is, it is speaking of the grain offering accompanying the libations, one tenth of an ephah for each lamb. We have therefore learned that the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper also require libations.

You say: “The grain offering that accompanies the sacrifice”

is what the verse is speaking of,

or perhaps it is only speaking of a grain offering that is brought independently,

and this is not the grain offering accompanying the libations?

When it says

there [verse 20]: “

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

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 libations, or not—

“ 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: “

The verse states

in the passage concerning libations:

“And for a libation of wine, a quarter of a hin you shall make with the burnt-offering or with the sacrifice, for each lamb,”

and it comes as a homiletic teaching, since all these cases were already mentioned at the beginning of the passage:

“

Burnt-offering”: This is the burnt-offering of a leper,

to include it in the requirement of wine libations.

“

Sacrifice”: This is the sin-offering of a leper,

to require it to have wine libations.

“

or with the sacrifice: This is the guilt-offering of a leper,

to require it to have wine libations.

And we challenge this: Why do I need “or” to include the guilt-offering of a leper,

when both of them could be derived

[both of them—the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of a leper]

from

“sacrifice”!?