Menachot 91a

הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ דָּמֵי.

Since in Leviticus 1:2 it is written: “And of the flock,” and not merely: Of the flock, it is as though the word: Together, was written in the verse. Therefore, the verse in Numbers 15, which does state: “Or of the flock,” is necessary to teach that this is not the case.

וּלְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ דָּמֵי, לִיבְעֵי קְרָא!

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that even though it is not explicitly written in the verse: Together, it is as though it is written: Together, i.e., it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled only when both details are realized, a verse should be required. Yet, in the baraita , Rabbi Yoshiya expounds the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” to teach a different halakha . From where, then, does he derive that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering does not need to bring both types of animals?

הָכְתִיב: ״אִם עֹלָה קׇרְבָּנוֹ מִן הַבָּקָר״, ״וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן קׇרְבָּנוֹ״.

The Gemara explains: Isn’t it written: “If his offering is a burnt offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), and then in a separate verse it states: “And if his offering is of the flock” (Leviticus 1:9)? The fact that these possibilities are presented in two disjointed verses is an explicit indication that the burnt offering can be brought from even just one of these animals. Therefore, even Rabbi Yoshiya concedes that there is no reason to presume a burnt offering must be brought from both types there.

וְאִידָּךְ, אִיצְטְרִיךְ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּמְפָרֵשׁ, אֲבָל בִּסְתָמָא – לַיְיתֵי מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna , Rabbi Yonatan, why does he require a verse at all? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to have a verse to teach this, because otherwise it might enter your mind to say: These statements, i.e., the verses that indicate it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal, concern a case where one specifies in his vow that he intends to bring just one animal, and the verses indicate that it is valid to bring just one. But if one vowed without specification, one might say: Let him bring burnt offerings from both of them. Therefore the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” teaches us that even in that case, it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal.

אָמַר מָר: תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ זֶבַח״. אַטּוּ תּוֹדָה לָאו זֶבַח הוּא? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיכָּא לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – לָא תִּיבְעֵי נְסָכִים.

§ The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita . The Master said in the baraita : From where is it derived that a peace offering requires libations? The verse states: “A sacrifice.” From where is it derived that a thanks offering requires libations? The verse states: “Or a sacrifice.” The superfluous word “or” includes thanks offerings. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a thanks offering is not referred to as a sacrifice? It certainly is. Why, then, is it only included through the word “or”? The Gemara answers: An independent inclusion was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since in any event there is bread brought together with the thanks offering, it should not require libations.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵאֵיל נָזִיר, דְּאִיכָּא בַּהֲדֵיהּ לֶחֶם, וּבָעֵי נְסָכִים?

The Gemara raises a question concerning this explanation: But in what way is a thanks offering different from a nazirite’s ram, as there is bread brought together with it also, and yet it requires libations? The verse states with regard to the ram of a nazirite: “And one unblemished ram for a peace offering, and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their meal offering, and their libations” (Numbers 6:13–15).

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָתָם שְׁנֵי מִינִין, הָכָא אַרְבַּעַת מִינִין – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that one should differentiate between the thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram as there, together with the nazirite’s ram, he brings only two types of bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, whereas, here, together with the thanks offering, one brings four types of bread. Therefore, one might have concluded that since there are many types of loaves it does not require libations. For that reason it is necessary to have an independent derivation that teaches us that it does require libations.

וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״עֹלָה״?

The Gemara analyzes another one of the derivations of the baraita . The verse states: And you will make a fire offering to the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift.” This teaches that an offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations. The Gemara challenges: But if that is the halakha , then let the Merciful One write only: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,” and it would be unnecessary to write: “A burnt offering,” as a burnt offering is a type of offering that can be brought as a vow or gift offering.

אִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֹלָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳״ – כְּלָל, ״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה״ – פְּרָט, ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בָּא עַל חֵטְא.

The Gemara explains: Had the Merciful One not written “a burnt offering,” I would say that the verse should be expounded as follows: “And you will make a fire offering to the Lord” is a generalization, indicating that all offerings require libations. But then it states: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,” which is a detail, indicating that the requirement applies only to offerings brought in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift. But with “to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord” it then generalized. If so, this is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and according to the principles of exegesis you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the detail is explicit in referring to an offering that does not come to atone for a sin, but comes to fulfill a vow or as a gift, so too any offering that does not come to atone for a sin requires libations.

אוֹצִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא, אָבִיא בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹלָה״.

Accordingly, I would exclude a sin offering and a guilt offering from the requirement to have libations, as they come to atone for a sin, and I would include the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, as they do not come to atone for a sin. In order to preclude the possibility of expounding the verses in this way, the verse states: “Burnt offering,” as an additional detail, which serves to further exclude offerings that are brought only in fulfillment of an obligation.

הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״עֹלָה״, כְּלָל וּפְרָט, מָה מְרַבֵּית בֵּיהּ? מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב וְעוֹמֵד, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב וְעוֹמֵד.

The Gemara asks: Now that it is written: “Burnt offering,” what do you include through the generalization and detail and generalization in this verse? The Gemara explains: Just as the detail of a burnt offering is explicit in referring to an offering that one had not always been obligated to bring, as it is referring to a burnt offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, which one became obligated to bring only once the vow was taken, so too, any offering that one had not always been obligated to bring requires libations.

לְהָבִיא וַלְדוֹת קֳדָשִׁים, וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְעוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת.

This serves to include in the requirement for libations the offspring of consecrated animals, e.g., of a female peace offering; and substitutes of consecrated animals, i.e., a non-sacred animal with regard to which one stated that it should be a substitute for a consecrated animal, in which case the result is that both animals are consecrated and must be sacrificed; and a burnt offering that comes from the proceeds of having sold surpluses of items donated to the Temple that were not needed.

וְאָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה, וְכׇל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.

And this also serves to include a guilt offering whose owner either died or achieved atonement through sacrificing another animal and which was therefore consigned to grazing until it developed a blemish, at which point it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings for the altar. If instead, the guilt offering itself was sacrificed as a burnt offering, it is valid. In such a case, the offering requires libations. And this also serves to include all offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake. Such offerings were brought to fulfill the owner’s obligation. Since they were not sacrificed for the sake of that purpose, the owner does not fulfill his obligation, but nevertheless the offerings are valid. In such a case, these offerings also require libations.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״אוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁא, לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה, לְמָה לִי? לְחֶלְקָם. אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי נֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה לָא לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַיְיתִי נֶדֶר לְחוֹדֵיהּ לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, וְאִי אַיְיתִי נְדָבָה לְחוֹדֵיהּ לַיְיתֵי נְסָכִים.

The Gemara asks: And now that you have said that the word “or” in the phrase “or a sacrifice” is necessary for the derivation that teaches that the thanks offering requires libations, I can similarly ask why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or as a gift,” to separate between them? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to write “or” in that phrase, as it might enter your mind to say that until one brings both a vow offering and a gift offering together they do not require libations. The word “or” teaches us otherwise, that even if one brings a vow offering by itself it requires libations, and if one brings a gift offering by itself he must bring libations.

הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אַיְיתִי נֶדֶר לְחוֹדֵיהּ – לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, אַיְיתִי נְדָבָה לְחוֹדֵיהּ – לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, אַיְיתִי נֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה – תִּיסְגֵּי בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, as he holds that whenever the Torah does not explicitly separate between two details stated with regard to a halakha , it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled only when both details are realized. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who holds that in general it is presumed that either detail is sufficient, why do I need the word “or”? The Gemara explains: Were it not for this word, it might enter your mind to say that although the halakha is that if one brings a vow offering by itself it requires libations, and if one brings a gift offering by itself it requires libations, nevertheless, if one brings both a vow offering and a gift offering together, it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the word “or” teaches us that libations are required for each offering.

״אוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה בְּנֶדֶר וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא.

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “or on your Festivals”? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that even when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only when they are distinct both in the type of offering and in the nature of the obligation to bring them, such as where one brings a burnt offering in fulfillment of a vow and a peace offering as a gift offering, or vice versa.

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר, אִי נָמֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, שֵׁם נֶדֶר אֶחָד וְשֵׁם נְדָבָה אַחַת הִיא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״אוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.

But where one brings a burnt offering and a peace offering both in fulfillment of a vow, or alternatively, a burnt offering and a peace offering both as gift offerings, one might have said that since in the former case both offerings are of a single type of commitment, i.e., a vow, and in the latter case both are of a single type of commitment, i.e., a gift offering, therefore it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” in the phrase “or on your Festivals” teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the type of offering, libations are required for each offering.

״וְכִי תַעֲשֶׂה בֶן בָּקָר עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר, אִי נָמֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה.

The Gemara continues its analysis: Why do I need the word “or” in the verse: “And when you prepare a young bull for a burnt offering or for a sacrifice” (Numbers 15:9)? The Gemara explains: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only when the two offerings are distinct in the type of offering, such as where one brings a burnt offering and a peace offering both in fulfillment of a vow, or alternatively, a burnt offering and a peace offering both as a gift offering.

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים, אֶחָד בְּנֶדֶר וְאֶחָד בִּנְדָבָה, אֵימָא שֵׁם שְׁלָמִים אַחַת הִיא, שֵׁם עוֹלָה אַחַת הִיא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

But where one brings two burnt offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, I would say that since in the former case both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a peace offering, and in the latter case both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a burnt offering, therefore it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the nature of the commitment to bring them, libations are required for each offering.

״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ שְׁלָמִים״, לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה.

The Gemara continues: Why do I need the word “or” in the verse: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace offerings” (Numbers 15:8)? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where two offerings are distinct from each other either in the nature of the commitment to bring them or in the type of offering, such as where one brings two burnt offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering.

אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת בְּנֶדֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שָׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, שֵׁם עוֹלָה אֶחָד הוּא וְשֵׁם נֶדֶר אֶחָד הוּא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

But where one brings two burnt offerings, both in fulfillment of a vow, or two burnt offerings, both as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, both in fulfillment of a vow, or two peace offerings, both as a gift offering, I might have said with regard to the first of these cases that since both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a burnt offering, and of a single type of commitment, i.e., a vow, and likewise with regard to the other cases, therefore, it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” teaches us that even if the offerings are not distinct from each other at all, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

וְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, הַאי ״מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״ לְמָה לִּי?

The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yonatan, the word “or” in the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” teaches that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering fulfills his obligation even if he brings only one animal, either from the herd or from the flock. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yoshiya, why do I need the word “or” in this phrase “of the herd or of the flock”? Although the baraita explains that he expounds the phrase to teach that one does not bring libations with a bird offering, it does not explain what he derives from the word “or.”

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי [בִּתְרֵי מִינֵי, אֲבָל בְּחַד מִינָא – תִּסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara explains: The word “or” is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where one brings two kinds of animals, i.e., one from the flock and one from the herd; but where both animals are of a single kind, it would be sufficient for him to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the word “or” teaches us that even if the offerings are of the same kind of animal, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

״כָּכָה תַּעֲשׂוּ לָאֶחָד״, לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי] בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲבָל בְּבַת אַחַת – תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Later in the passage concerning libations it states: “So shall be done for each young bull, or for each ram, or for each of the lambs, or of the goats. According to the number that you may prepare, so you shall do for each one according to their number” (Numbers 15:11–12). The Gemara asks: Why do I need this verse? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where the offerings were consecrated one after the other. But if they were consecrated at the same time, it would be sufficient for him to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the verse teaches us that in all cases, one must bring separate libations for each animal.

אֶלָּא שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע וַאֲשָׁמוֹ טָעוּן נְסָכִים, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים סֹלֶת מִנְחָה״ – בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

§ The mishna teaches that in general sin offerings and guilt offerings do not require libations. But the exception is that the sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering require libations. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita concerning the following verse, which details the offerings a leper is required to bring as part of his purification process: “And on the eighth day he shall take two unblemished male lambs, and one unblemished female lamb in its year, and three-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, and one log of oil” (Leviticus 14:10). The baraita explains: It is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks, and so it is stating that each of the three offerings mentioned requires libations.

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהֶעֱלָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

The baraita continues: Do you say that it is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks? Or perhaps it is only with regard to a meal offering that comes by itself. When the verse states, in the continuation of that passage: “And the priest shall sacrifice the burnt offering and the meal offering” (Leviticus 14:20), which demonstrates that the meal offering accompanies the burnt offering, you must say that in the earlier verse as well it is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks.

וַעֲדַיִין אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים וְאִם לָאו, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְיַיִן לַנֶּסֶךְ רְבִיעִית הַהִין תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הָעֹלָה אוֹ לַזָּבַח לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״, ״עֹלָה״ – זוֹ עוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, ״זָבַח״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע, ״אוֹ לַזָּבַח״ – זוֹ אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.

But still, I do not know whether this meal offering requires wine libations or whether it does not. Therefore, the verse states: “And wine for pouring a libation, a quarter- hin , you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb” (Numbers 15:5). The verse is expounded as referring to each of the leper’s offerings: “The burnt offering”; this is referring to the burnt offering of a leper. “The sacrifice”; this is referring to the sin offering of a leper. And as for the word “or” in the phrase “or for the sacrifice,” this is referring to the guilt offering of a leper.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִ״זָּבַח״,

The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna derive both the sin offering and the guilt offering from the word “sacrifice” alone, without relating to the word “or.”