Menachot 91b (צא:) — the Talmud in English

And as we find elsewhere,

as the Master said:

A nazirite who became impure during his days of naziriteship shaves and brings an asham, in addition to a bird chatat and a bird olah; and a pure nazirite whose days of naziriteship have been completed shaves and brings three animal offerings: an olah, a chatat, and a peace offering.

It is written in the passage concerning a nazirite, on the day his period of naziriteship is completed [Numbers 6:18]: “And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting the hair of his consecrated head, and he shall take the hair of his consecrated head and place it on the fire that is beneath the peace offering.” I have derived only that a pure nazirite places his hair beneath the pot in which he cooks the peace offering—

beneath the

chatat

that he brings on the day his period of naziriteship is completed,

and

beneath the

asham

that a nazirite who became impure brings—

from where?

That is, from where do we know that if a pure nazirite placed the hair of his consecrated head beneath the chatat, he has fulfilled his obligation; and from where do we know that an impure nazirite places the hair shaved from his head beneath the asham that he brings?

The verse states: “

that is beneath the

offering

of the peace offerings.” The word “offering” comes to include his chatat and his asham.

We have therefore learned that from the word “offering” we include both a chatat and an asham. Why, then, do we need two inclusions for the libations of the chatat and asham of a metzora?

And we answer:

This applies

when it is possible to include both the chatat and the asham through the word “offering,”

where the two are equivalent to one another

—when both come for the same purpose. For the asham of an impure nazirite comes to render him fit to begin counting a period of pure naziriteship, while the chatat of a pure nazirite comes to render him fit and permit him to drink wine and shave, from which the nazirite had been prohibited.

But where the asham renders one fit and the chatat atones,

that is, in the case of the chatat and asham of a metzora: the asham comes to render him fit to enter the camp, into which he had been forbidden to enter while he was a metzora, whereas the chatat comes to atone for the sins on account of which afflictions come—

we require two verses

one for the chatat by itself and one for the asham by itself. Therefore, we do not include both of them through the word “offering.”

The Gemara further challenges what we learned in the beraita:

“Offering”

this is the chatat of a metzora,

to include it among those requiring libations:

But say: This is the chatat and asham of a nazirite

—the chatat of a pure nazirite and the asham of an impure nazirite—to teach that they require wine for their libations?

And we answer:

It should not enter your mind

that the verse included libations for the chatat and asham of a nazirite, because

it was taught:

It is written concerning a nazirite, on the day his period of naziriteship is completed: “And he shall present his offering to the Lord: one unblemished yearling male lamb as an olah, one unblemished yearling ewe as a chatat, and one unblemished ram as peace offerings; and a basket of matza—

and their meal offerings and their libations”—

with regard to his olah and his peace offerings

of the pure nazirite,

the verse speaks: he brings a meal offering and libations with them, but not with the chatat of a pure nazirite or with the asham of an impure nazirite.

of bringing a meal-offering and libations with them, but not with the sin-offering of a pure nazirite and not with the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite.

You say that it speaks of his olah and peace offerings; or perhaps it refers even to the chatat

of a pure nazirite, which requires libations?

The verse states

in the passage concerning a nazirite: “

And he shall make the ram a peace-offering sacrifice

with its meal offering and its libation.” Now,

the ram was included

among all peace offerings

and was

already subject to the requirement of libations.

Why, then, did it emerge

that the nazirite’s ram peace offering is specified with the words “with its meal offering and its libation”?

To compare it to the ram and tell you: Just as the ram is distinctive

in that it

comes as a vow or voluntary offering—

since it is a peace offering—and the verse required libations for it,

so too, everything that comes as a vow or voluntary offering

in the case of a nazirite requires libations. This excludes his chatat and asham, which do not come as vows or voluntary offerings and do not require libations.

The Gemara further interprets what we learned in the beraita:

“Olah”

this is the olah of a metzora:

But say: This is the olah of a woman after childbirth,

to require libations.

Said

he explained,

Abaye:

You cannot include the olah of a woman after childbirth from this verse, because

the olah of a woman after childbirth is derived from the latter part of the verse, as it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: “

For the lamb

[‘You shall do as a meal offering for the olah or for the sacrifice, for each lamb’]:

this is the olah of a woman after childbirth.” “

For the lamb

one”

this is the eleventh animal of the tithe

—when a person passes his animals beneath the rod for the animal tithe, and calls the tenth “ninth,” the ninth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth,” all three become consecrated; the eleventh is sacrificed as a peace offering, and the verse teaches us that it requires libations.

For we have not found anywhere in the Torah

anything similar to this,

that what is secondary should be more stringent than what is primary: the primary animal does not require libations, as explained above, since an animal tithe does not require libations, whereas this animal, which he called “tenth,” does require libations.

since the primary item does not require libations, as explained above, that an animal tithe does not require libations, whereas this animal, which he called “tenth,” does require libations.

Rava said

to resolve the challenge: “But say: This is the olah of a woman after childbirth”:

What is the matter that requires three inclusions—“olah,” “or,” and “for the sacrifice”?

“burnt-offering,” “or,” and “for an offering”?

You must say that this is a metzora,

who has three offerings: a chatat, an olah, and an asham. Therefore, we expound all the inclusions with regard to a metzora.

The Gemara continues to interpret the verses in the passage concerning libations: “

Or

for a ram

you shall make a meal offering of fine flour, two-tenths mixed with a third of a hin of oil; and wine for libation, a third of a hin, you shall offer [Numbers 15:9–10].”

Why do I need this,

when it was already stated in the passage concerning the additional offerings [Numbers 28], with regard to the additional offerings, that one brings two-tenths of fine flour for libations with a ram?

Said

he explained,

Rav Sheshet:

The verse comes

to include

libations for

Aaron’s ram,

which enters the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, as the verse states [Leviticus 16]: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary: with a bull of the herd as a chatat and a ram as an olah.”

And we challenge this: But

Aaron’s ram is derived from

“on your appointed occasions”

as an inclusion, as we include from that phrase above, on 90b, all obligations that come on account of a Festival!?

as we include from that phrase in the beraita above, on page 90b, all obligatory offerings that come because of a Festival!?

And we answer: If not for this verse,

it might enter your mind: This applies

that the Torah did not include the offerings of the Festivals—and although one is already obligated to bring them and they are excluded from the requirement to bring libations, as explained above on 91a, that something for which one is already obligated—only to offerings

of the community—

but

offerings

of an individual

such as Aaron’s ram,

not; therefore, the verse teaches us “or for a ram,” to include Aaron’s ram.

and the verse teaches us, through “or for a ram,” to include Aaron’s ram.

And we challenge this: In any event, why do I need a verse for Aaron’s ram?

And what difference is there

between Aaron’s ram

and the olah of a woman after childbirth,

which is an individual’s offering and one is already obligated to bring it, yet it was included among those requiring libations above through “for the lamb”?

And we answer: Nevertheless, the verse had to include Aaron’s ram, because

it might enter your mind:

This applies to something whose time is not fixed,

such as the olah of a woman after childbirth;

but something whose time is fixed,

and for which one is already obligated at that time,

perhaps it does not

bring libations.

Therefore it teaches us: “Or for a ram you shall make a meal offering,” to include it.

through “or for a ram you shall prepare a meal-offering,” to include it.

The Gemara continues to interpret

“or for a ram”,

that is, why do I need the word “or”?

Why do I need it?

And we explain:

To include the palges

[a sheep in its thirteenth month, which ceased to be a lamb at the end of its first year but had not yet entered the category of a ram until it reached thirteen months and one day, when it had already entered the second month of its second year], obligating it in the libations of a ram.

And we challenge this:

This works according to Rabbi Yohanan, who said:

A palges

is a creature

in its own right

and

[it is neither a lamb nor a ram], so it is appropriate that the verse had to teach its law with regard to libations, that it is treated like a ram.

As we learned

in tractate Para 1:3:

If one sacrificed it

[the palges], whether he was obligated to bring a lamb or obligated to bring a ram: he

brings the libations of a ram for it, but it does not count for him as his offering,

that is, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain:

He brings only the libations of a ram, and he need not stipulate, because it is written in the passage concerning libations,

“or for a ram,”

to include the palges; “and it does not count for him as his offering,” since he was obligated to bring a lamb or a ram, but not a palges, which is a creature in its own right.

“But it does not count for him as his offering,” because he was obligated to bring a lamb or a ram, not a palges, which is a creature in its own right.

But according to Bar Padda, who said

that this which we learned—“he brings the libations of a ram for it”—means:

He brings them and stipulates

[he brings the larger quantity of libations for a ram, and stipulates: If it is a ram, these are its libations; and if it is a lamb, the amount corresponding to the libations of a lamb is its libations, while the remainder is for a voluntary offering], and because

it is a case of uncertainty

whether it is a ram or a lamb—

And if so, raise the following objection: Is

the verse needed—

“or”—

to include a case of uncertainty,

to include the palges, which must bring

the libations of a ram because of the uncertainty?

The Gemara concludes:

Certainly

that

for Bar Padda it is difficult:

Why do I need “or”?

The Gemara proceeds to explain the verses in the passage concerning libations: “

So shall it be done for one bull or for one ram or for a sheep among the sheep or among the goats,”

all of which is superfluous, since their laws have already been explained in the body of the passage: “

For one bull”—

what does this teach?

Since we find that Scripture distinguished between the libations of a ram

(which is a sheep in its second year)

and the libations of a sheep, it might have been thought

that likewise

there is a distinction between the libations of a bull

(which is a calf in its third year)

and the libations of a calf—

The verse therefore states, “

For one bull,”

teaching that there is no distinction with regard to the libations of a bull, and he brings only one set of libations,

whether it is a calf or whether it is a bull. “

Or for one ram”—

what does this teach?

Since we find that Scripture distinguished between the libations of a one-year-old

(a sheep)

and the libations of a two-year-old

(a ram),

it might have been thought that a distinction is made

also

between the libations of a two-year-old and the libations of a three-year-old;

the verse therefore states, “

Or for one ram,”

teaching that there is no distinction in the libations of a ram based on its age. “

Or for a sheep among the sheep”—

what does this teach?

Since we find that Scripture distinguished between the libations of a sheep and the libations of a ram,

meaning that it distinguished among male sheep according to their ages,

it might have been thought

that

a distinction is also made

between

the libations of a year-old ewe

(one year old)

and the libations of a two-year-old ewe

(two years old)—

The verse therefore states, “

Or for a sheep among the sheep.” “

Or among the goats”—

what does this teach?

Since we find that Scripture distinguished

among sheep

between the libations of a sheep and the libations of a ram—

it might have been thought that a distinction is made

also among goats

between the libations of a kid

(a young goat)

and the libations of a he-goat—

the verse therefore states, “

Or among the goats.”

Rav Pappa said: Rava would test us

(Rava used to test us):