Menachot 91b — the Talmud in English

And as we find elsewhere,

for the Master said:

A nazirite who became impure within the days of his naziriteship—behold, he shaves and brings a guilt-offering, apart from the bird sin-offering and burnt-offering; and a pure nazirite whose days of naziriteship were completed—behold, he shaves and brings three animal offerings: a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering.

It is written in the section of the nazirite, on the day his days of naziriteship are completed [Numbers 6:18]: “And the nazirite shall shave at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting the head of his naziriteship, and he shall take the hair of the head of his naziriteship, and place it upon the fire that is beneath the sacrifice of the peace-offerings”; and I have only [learned] that a pure nazirite places his hair beneath the pot in which he cooks the peace-offerings—

beneath the

sin-offering

that he brings on the day his days of naziriteship are completed,

and

beneath the

guilt-offering

that an impure nazirite brings—

from where?

That is, from where [do we know] that if a pure nazirite sent the hair of his naziriteship beneath the sin-offering, he has fulfilled [his obligation]; and from where [do we know] that an impure nazirite sends the hair of his shaving beneath the guilt-offering that he brings? -

The Torah states “‘

which is beneath the

sacrifice

of the peace-offerings,’ and the word ‘sacrifice’ comes to include his sin-offering and his guilt-offering”—

We have therefore learned that from “sacrifice” we include both a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, so why do I need two inclusions for the libations of the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a leper!?

And we answer:

This applies

when it is possible to include from the word “sacrifice” both the sin-offering and the guilt-offering,

where both are alike [

when both come for one purpose], for the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite comes to render him fit to count a period of pure naziriteship, and the sin-offering of a pure nazirite comes to render him fit and permit him to drink wine and shave, which the nazirite is forbidden [to do]—

But where the guilt-offering renders fit and the sin-offering atones,

that is, but the sin-offering of a leper and his guilt-offering, where the guilt-offering comes to render him fit to enter the camp, into which he was forbidden to enter while he was a leper, and the sin-offering comes to atone for the transgressions on account of which the afflictions come,

we require two verses

for the sin-offering separately and for the guilt-offering separately; and therefore we do not include both of them from “sacrifice.”

We further challenge what we learned in the beraita: “

Sacrifice”—

this is the sin-offering of a leper,

to include it for the libations:

And say: This is the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a nazirite [

the sin-offering of a pure nazirite and the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite], to teach that they require wine for the libations?

And we answer:

It cannot enter your mind

that the verse included libations for the sin-offering and guilt-offering of a nazirite, because

it was taught:

It is written concerning a nazirite, on the day his days of naziriteship are completed: “And he shall bring his offering to the Lord, one unblemished yearling lamb as a burnt-offering, one unblemished yearling ewe as a sin-offering, and one unblemished ram as peace-offerings. And a basket of unleavened bread,

and their meal-offering and their libations,”

with regard to his burnt-offering and his peace-offerings

of the pure nazirite

the verse speaks,

that he shall bring with them a meal-offering and libations, but not with the sin-offering of a pure nazirite, nor with the guilt-offering of an impure nazirite.

You say [that it speaks] of his burnt-offering and his peace-offerings; or perhaps it is even the sin-offering

of a pure nazirite that requires libations?

The Torah states

in the section of the nazirite: “

And the ram he shall make as a sacrifice of peace-offerings

with its meal-offering and its libation,” and behold,

a ram in general

all peace-offerings

was

to be made to require libations,

and why did it go out

the peace-offering ram of a nazirite to specify in it “with its meal-offering and its libation”?

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

that it

comes through a vow or a voluntary offering—

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

also everything that comes through a vow or a voluntary offering

in the case of a nazirite requires libations; the sin-offering and guilt-offering are excluded, for they do not come through a vow or a voluntary offering and do not require libations.

We further explain what we learned in the beraita: “

Burnt-offering”—

this is the burnt-offering of a leper:

And say: This is the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth,

to require libations for it.

Said

he answered,

Abaye:

You cannot include the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth from this verse, because

the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth proceeds from the end of the verse, as it was taught: Rabbi Natan says: “

For the lamb” [“

you shall make with the burnt-offering, or with the sacrifice, for the one lamb”]:

this is the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth. “

For the lamb”

“the one”

this is the eleven of the tithe

when he passed his animals beneath the staff for the animal tithe, and called the tenth “ninth,” the ninth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth”—all three are sanctified, and the eleventh is brought as a peace-offering; and the verse teaches us that it requires libations.

For we have not found anywhere in the entire Torah

anything like this,

that the subordinate should be more stringent than the principal,

for the principal does not require libations, as explained above, that the animal tithe does not require libations, whereas this one, which he called “tenth,” requires libations.

Rava said

to resolve the challenge: “And say: this is the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth”:

What is the matter that requires three inclusions—“burnt-offering,” “or,” “for the sacrifice”?

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

You must say: This is [the offering of] a leper,

who has three offerings: a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a guilt-offering; therefore we expound all the inclusions with regard to a leper.

The Gemara adds to explain the verses in the section of libations: “

Or

for a ram

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

why do I need this,

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

Said

he explained,

Rav Sheshet:

The verse came

to include

libations for

the ram of Aaron,

who enters the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, as the verse says [Leviticus 16]: “With this shall Aaron enter the Sanctuary: with a young bull as a sin-offering and a ram as a burnt-offering.”

And we challenge: But

the ram of Aaron proceeds from “

at your appointed times”

[as derived],

and as we include from it in the beraita above, page 90b, all obligations that come on account of the festival!?

And we answer: If not for this verse,

it might enter your mind: This applies

not to the offerings of the festivals—the Torah did not include them, although one is obligated and standing with regard to them and they were excluded from bringing libations, as explained above, 91a, a matter concerning which one is obligated and standing—but only offerings

of the community—

But

offerings

of an individual—

such as the ram of Aaron—

not; and it teaches us “or for a ram,” to include the ram of Aaron.

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

And we challenge: In any event, why do I need a verse for the ram of Aaron:

and what is different about

the ram of Aaron

from the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth,

which is an individual offering and she is obligated and standing with regard to it, and it was included for libations above from “for the lamb”!?

And we answer: In any event, the verse needed to include the ram of Aaron, because

it might enter your mind:

This applies to a matter for which no fixed time is established

such as the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth,

but a matter for which a fixed time is established,

and one is obligated and standing with regard to it,

say: no,

he should not bring libations—

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 adds to explain

“or for a ram”,

that is, the word “or”—

why do I need it?

And we explain:

to include the palges [

it is a lamb in its thirteenth month, which ceased to be a lamb at the end of its year but did not enter the category of a ram until thirteen months and one day, when it had already entered a month of its second year], to require it to have the libations of a ram.

And we challenge:

This works according to Rabbi Yohanan, who says:

A palges is

a creature

in itself

it is [

not a lamb and not a ram], so the verse properly needed to teach its law with regard to libations,

as we learned

in Tractate Parah 1:3:

If he offered it [

the palges], whether one who became obligated to bring a lamb or one who became obligated to bring a ram: behold, 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:

Behold, he brings only the libations of a ram, and he need not stipulate, because it is written in the section of libations, “

or for a ram,”

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

“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 Beit Padda, who says

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

He brings and stipulates [

he brings the larger quantity of libations of a ram, and stipulates: If it is a ram, these are its libations, and if it is a lamb, the libations in the measure of a lamb shall be its libations, and the remainder shall be for a voluntary offering], and because

it is a matter of doubt

whether it is a ram or a lamb—

And if so, raise a difficulty: and is it the case that

the verse was needed—

“or”—

to include an uncertainty, to include the palges that he should bring

from uncertainty, the libations of a ram

!?

And the Gemara concludes:

Certainly

that

for bar Padda it is difficult:

Why do I need “or”?

The Gemara adds to explain the verses in the passage of libations: “

This shall be done for the one ox, or for the one ram, or for a sheep among the sheep, or among the goats,”

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

For the one ox”—

what does it teach?

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

which is a sheep in its second year

and the libations of a sheep, one might have thought

that likewise

it differentiates between the libations of a bull

which is a calf in its third year

and the libations of a calf—

the verse teaches “

for the one ox,”

to teach that there is no differentiation regarding the libations of an ox, and he brings only one set of libations,

both when it is a calf and when it is a bull. “

Or for the one ram”—

what does it teach?

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

sheep

and the libations of a two-year-old

ram,

one might have thought that it is differentiated

also

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

three-year-old; the verse teaches “

or for the one ram,”

to teach that there is no differentiation in the ram according to its years. “

Or for a sheep among the sheep”—

what does it teach?

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

that is, it differentiated among male sheep according to their years,

one might have thought

that

there is differentiation

also

between the libations of a ewe lamb

one year old

and the libations of a mature ewe

two years old—

the verse teaches “

or for a sheep among the sheep.” “

Or among the goats”—

what does it teach?

Since we find that Scripture differentiated

among sheep

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

one might have thought that it differentiates

also among goats

between the libations of a kid

a young goat

and the libations of a he-goat—

the verse teaches “

or among the goats.”

Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us

he was trying us: