Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 8, 2018 | 诇壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 90

More issues regarding the utensils that were used to measuring. Which types of sacrifices needed to be brought with libations?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 拽专讘讬 诇注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬转 诇讬讛 讘诪讬诇转讬讛 讗砖诐 谞讚讘讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

therefore, even if they are no longer fit to be sacrificed as obligatory burnt offerings, for which they were originally consecrated, having now been slaughtered not for their own sake they can still be sacrificed as voluntary burnt offerings, without the need to fulfill the additional conditions that originally applied to them. But here, with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, if you do not maintain it in accordance with its original status and require it to be brought together with its libations, it can no longer be considered a guilt offering at all, as is there a voluntary guilt offering?

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讗讜 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诪讚诪讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛讜谞讜转 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜爪专讬讱 讗砖诐 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, or in a case where one did not place some of its blood upon the leper鈥檚 right thumb and big toe, this guilt offering is still brought up upon the altar and requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and wine-libation; but since it was sacrificed incorrectly, the leper needs to bring another guilt offering to permit him to partake of offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪讚讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讜 谞讙讚砖讜转 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讬讛 讙讜讚砖讛 诇转讜讻讛

MISHNA: All measuring vessels that were in the Temple were such that they held the volume that they measured when their contents were heaped above the rim, except for the measuring vessel used to measure the flour for the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, as its heaped measure, i.e., the quantity of flour held by a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel when heaped, was contained within its walls when the flour was leveled with the rim. This was due to the fact that the measuring vessel for the griddle-cake offering was slightly larger than the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel.

诪讚转 讛诇讞 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 讜诪讚转 讛讬讘砖 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 讞讜诇

With regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows, i.e., that which flows onto the outside of vessel鈥檚 walls, are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 拽讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛讬讘砖 讞讜诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 讞讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖讛诇讞 谞注拽专 讜讛讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注拽专

Rabbi Akiva says that the reason for this difference is that since the measuring vessels for liquids are themselves sacred, therefore their overflows are sacred, and since the measuring vessels for dry substances are non-sacred, therefore their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Yosei says: The difference is not due to that factor. Rather, it is because the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel, where it became consecrated, and was then displaced, whereas the overflow of a dry substance was not displaced from inside the vessel, so it had not become consecrated.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 讙讚讜砖 讛讜讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讞讚讗 讜诪讞讜拽 讛讜讛

GEMARA: The mishna and Gemara on 87a cite a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerning the number and nature of the measuring vessels used for dry substances. In light of that dispute, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna here? If you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: He holds that there were two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah, but only one of them was such that it held its measure when heaped; the other one held its measure when leveled. And if you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: They hold there was only one measuring vessel that held a tenth of an ephah, and it held its measure when leveled. How can the mishna state that all measuring vessels in the Temple were heaped?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讗讬 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讻诇 诪讚讬讚讜转

Rav 岣sda said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only one of two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah was such that it held its measure when heaped. And what does the mishna means when it states: All measuring vessels [kol middot] in the Temple were heaped? It means that that all measurements [kol medidot] performed with that measuring vessel were done when its contents were heaped above its rim.

诪讚转 讛诇讞 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna discusses the status of overflows: The first tanna states simply that with regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Akiva explains that this distinction is a function of whether the measuring vessel is itself sacred. Rabbi Yosei explains it is function of whether the overflow had initially been inside the vessel. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do these three tanna鈥檌m disagree?

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 谞诪砖讞讛 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讚转 讬讘砖 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘讞讜抓

The Gemara explains: The first tanna holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items, e.g., wine for libations and oil, were anointed and thereby consecrated both on the inside and on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is consecrated as it comes in contact with the outside of the vessel鈥檚 walls. The measuring vessels for dry items, such as the flour for meal offerings, were anointed and consecrated only on the inside, but were not anointed on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is not consecrated when it comes into contact with the outside of the vessel鈥檚 walls.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 谞诪砖讞讛 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

And Rabbi Akiva, who states the difference is due to whether the vessel is sacred or non-sacred, holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items were anointed on the inside and were not anointed on the outside, whereas the measuring vessels for dry items were not anointed at all, and they remained non-sacred and so could not consecrate the overflow.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讞 谞注拽专 讜诪讙讜讜讛 讚诪谞讗 拽讗 讗转讬 讜讛讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注拽专

And Rabbi Yosei holds that this and that, i.e., both types of measuring vessels, were anointed only on the inside but were not anointed on the outside, and so here, this is the reason behind whether the overflow was sacred: As the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel and was then displaced, and it comes from the inside of the vessel, it is therefore consecrated. But the overflow of a dry substance was not originally inside the vessel and then displaced, and so it is never consecrated.

讜讻讬 谞注拽专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讙讘专讗 诇诪讗讬 讚爪专讬讱 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

The Gemara questions this explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: But even if the overflow was previously inside the vessel and then displaced, what of it? A person intends to consecrate only that which he requires, and so even if the overflow had been inside the vessel it would not have been consecrated.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 砖讬砖谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讞讜诇

Rav Dimi bar Shishna said in the name of Rav: That is to say that service vessels consecrate their contents even without the intent of the person using them. Ravina said: Actually, I will say to you that service vessels consecrate their contents only with the intent of the person using them, and by Torah law the overflows are not sacred. But the Sages issued a decree to regard them as sacred, lest people say that one may transfer a substance that has been consecrated in a service vessel to non-sacred status.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讜 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to this explanation from a mishna (100a): Each Shabbat, new shewbread and bowls of frankincense were arranged on the Table in the Sanctuary. They remained there until the following Shabbat, at which point the frankincense was burned, thereby permitting the shewbread to be eaten. If the priest arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on the Table after Shabbat, during the week, and then he burned the frankincense in the bowls on the Shabbat at the end of that week, the bread is disqualified, as it had not been on the Table for a full seven days from one Shabbat to the next. How then should one proceed to prevent the disqualification? He should leave the bread on the Table until the following Shabbat, as even if it remained on the Table for many days, there is nothing wrong with that, provided that it is there for at least seven days. The frankincense may then be burned and it will permit the bread to be eaten.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转

Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: But why is it permitted to leave the bread on the Table for more than seven days? There too, let us say that the Sages issued a decree disqualifying the bread lest people say that one can store sacred items in a service vessel overnight and that will prevent them becoming disqualified. Evidently, the Sages did not issue such decrees, and it follows that also with regard to using the measuring vessels they did not issue a decree.

驻谞讬诐 讗讞讜抓 拽讗 专诪讬转 驻谞讬诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬

The Gemara rejects this claim: Are you raising a contradiction between a rite performed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the arrangement of the shewbread, and a rite performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., using the measuring vessels? Since in the case of a rite performed inside the Sanctuary not everyone is aware of what is happening, there is no concern that people will misinterpret what is going on and so there is no need to issue a decree concerning it. In the case of a rite performed outside the Sanctuary everyone is aware of what is happening, and there is a need to issue a decree to prevent people from drawing mistaken conclusions.

转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐 诇拽讬抓 讛诪讝讘讞

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the overflow of measures. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 10b): The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar [keitz hamizbe鈥檃岣].

诪讗讬 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Surplus libations?

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇住驻拽 住诇转讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜注诪讚讜 讘砖诇砖 讬住驻拽 诪讗专讘注

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: It means the overflows of measuring vessels. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Surplus libations are like that which we learned in another mishna (Shekalim 13a): In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price stood at three se鈥檃 for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela.

诪砖诇砖 讜注诪讚讜 诪讗专讘注 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 砖讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

If one committed to supply fine flour at three se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se鈥檃 for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. In the latter case, the merchant ends up providing the Temple with a greater quantity of flour than had initially been intended. Consequently, the Temple has more flour than it requires. The extra amount is referred to as surplus libations, and it is sold in order to purchase supplementary offerings.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讬讚讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诐 讬砖 讝讘讞 讗讞专 讬拽专讬讘讜 注诪讜 讜讗诐 诇谞讜 讬驻住诇讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讜拽讬抓 讝讛 诪讛讜 注讜诇讜转 讛讘砖专 诇砖诐 讜注讜专讜转 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef: These overflows of measuring vessels, what would be done with them? They are gathered, and if there is another offering to be sacrificed that day, the priests sacrifice this liquid with it as part of its libations. And if there is no other offering that day, and instead the overflows were left overnight without being sacrificed, they are disqualified by being left overnight. And if the overflows were not sacrificed with another offering and were not disqualified by being left overnight, they are sold, and the proceeds from their sale are used to purchase animals to supplement the offerings of the altar. And these supplementary offerings, what form do they take? They are burnt offerings; their flesh is entirely burned on the altar to God, and the hides are given to the priests.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇住驻拽 住诇转讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜注诪讚讜 诪砖诇砖 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 诪砖诇砖 讜注诪讚讜 诪讗专讘注 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 砖讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讝讛讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐 诇拽讬抓 讛诪讝讘讞

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price stood at three se鈥檃 for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se鈥檃 for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. And it is to this later case that we referred when we learned in the mishna: The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜讛诪注砖专 讜讛驻住讞 讜讛讞讟讗转 讜讛讗砖诐 讗诇讗 砖讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐

MISHNA: All offerings, whether communal or individual, require libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation, except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, with which libations are not brought. But the exception to this exception is that the sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering do require libations.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita that derives each of the rulings of the mishna from the verses that state the requirement to accompany animal offerings with the sacrifice of libations. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd 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, or on your Festivals, to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock. And he who brings his offering to the Lord shall sacrifice a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter-hin of oil; and wine for a libation, a quarter-hin, you shall make it with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb鈥 (Numbers 15:2鈥5). The Torah then proceeds to detail the quantities of flour, oil, and wine for a ram and a bull.

讜注砖讬转诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讝讘讞

The verse states: 鈥淎nd you will make a fire offering to the Lord.鈥 Accordingly, one might have thought that any offering that is raised up on the altar as a fire offering shall require that libations be brought with it, even a meal offering. The verse then states: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 which teaches that the requirement of libations applies only to animal burnt offerings, but not to meal offerings. If so, from where is it derived that a peace offering requires libations? The verse states: 鈥淎 sacrifice.鈥 From where is it derived that a thanks offering requires libations? The verse states: 鈥淥r a sacrifice.鈥 The superfluous word 鈥渙r鈥 serves to include thanks offerings.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 讘谞讚讘讛 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐

One might have thought that I should include even the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift.鈥 This teaches that an offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations, whereas each of these offerings, which do not come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering but only as obligatory offerings, do not require libations.

诪砖诪注 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讞讜讘讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪讞诪转 讛专讙诇 讘专讙诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 注讜诇讜转 专讗讬讬讛 讜砖诇诪讬 讞讙讬讙讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐

The baraita continues: It has been derived, then, that one should exclude these offerings from the requirement of libations, as they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise exclude the obligatory offerings that come on account of the pilgrimage Festival, which are sacrificed on the pilgrimage Festival, and what are these? Burnt offerings of appearance in the Temple and Festival peace offerings, both of which are brought on the three pilgrimage Festivals. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥r on your Festivals,鈥 which indicates that any offering that comes on your Festivals, even if it is obligatory, requires libations.

诪砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讘讬讗 砖注讬专讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讘专讙诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转注砖讛 讘谉 讘拽专

It has been derived, then, that one should include even these Festival offerings, despite the fact that they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise include the goat sin offerings brought as part of the additional offerings on the Festivals, since they come as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival. To counter this, the verse states in the continuation of that passage: 鈥淎nd when you make a young bull as a burnt offering鈥 (Numbers 15:8), and proceeds to state the requirement to bring libations with it.

讘谉 讘拽专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇讛拽讬砖 讗诇讬讜 诪讛 讘谉 讘拽专 诪讬讜讞讚 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛

Now, the requirement to bring libations with a young bull was already included in the general requirement to bring libations with any fire offering, as stated in the beginning of that passage; and why, then, was it singled out and mentioned explicitly? This is in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to a young bull: Just as a young bull is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations.

诇注砖讜转 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 注诇讛 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讘诪砖诪注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The baraita continues: The verses at the beginning of the passage state: 鈥淭o make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock.鈥 What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since in the previous verse it is stated: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 I would derive that all types of burnt offerings require libations, and even a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering is indicated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 which limits the requirement to offerings of animals such as sheep or cattle, but not to bird offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝讘讞 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讝讘讞 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬拽专讬讘 诪讻诐 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讻讜诇 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 诪砖谞讬讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 专爪讛 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗

Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is unnecessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎 sacrifice,鈥 and a bird offering is not referred to as a sacrifice. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock鈥? Since it is stated with regard to a burnt offering: 鈥淎 person, when he sacrifices from you an offering to the Lord, of the animals: Of the herd and of the flock, you shall sacrifice your offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), one might have thought that one who takes a vow by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal he will bring, that he must bring animals of both of these two types, i.e., from the herd and the flock. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 separating the two types with the word 鈥渙r,鈥 thereby indicating that if he wanted to bring one of them, he may bring just one, and if he wanted to bring two, he may bring two. This concludes the baraita.

讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讬讞讚讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, why do I need an independent verse to teach that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering does not have to bring both types? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yonatan himself say an exegetical principle that whenever the Torah mentions two details together with regard to a halakha, it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled even when only one of the details is realized, unless the verse specifies that both details are required by writing the word: Together, in the verse? Accordingly, when the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 the intention is that either one is sufficient, and there should be no need for an independent verse to teach this.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara answers: Despite his principle, an independent verse was necessary to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 90

讗讬 诇讗 讞讝讜 诇注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 拽专讘讬 诇注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬转 诇讬讛 讘诪讬诇转讬讛 讗砖诐 谞讚讘讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗

therefore, even if they are no longer fit to be sacrificed as obligatory burnt offerings, for which they were originally consecrated, having now been slaughtered not for their own sake they can still be sacrificed as voluntary burnt offerings, without the need to fulfill the additional conditions that originally applied to them. But here, with regard to the guilt offering of a leper, if you do not maintain it in accordance with its original status and require it to be brought together with its libations, it can no longer be considered a guilt offering at all, as is there a voluntary guilt offering?

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讗讜 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诪讚诪讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛讜谞讜转 讛专讬 讝讜 注讜诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜爪专讬讱 讗砖诐 讗讞专 诇讛转讬专讜

The Gemara notes that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: In the case of a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake, or in a case where one did not place some of its blood upon the leper鈥檚 right thumb and big toe, this guilt offering is still brought up upon the altar and requires libations, i.e., a meal offering and wine-libation; but since it was sacrificed incorrectly, the leper needs to bring another guilt offering to permit him to partake of offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 诪讚讜转 砖讘诪拽讚砖 讛讬讜 谞讙讚砖讜转 讞讜抓 诪砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛讬讛 讙讜讚砖讛 诇转讜讻讛

MISHNA: All measuring vessels that were in the Temple were such that they held the volume that they measured when their contents were heaped above the rim, except for the measuring vessel used to measure the flour for the griddle-cake offering of the High Priest, as its heaped measure, i.e., the quantity of flour held by a tenth of an ephah measuring vessel when heaped, was contained within its walls when the flour was leveled with the rim. This was due to the fact that the measuring vessel for the griddle-cake offering was slightly larger than the tenth of an ephah measuring vessel.

诪讚转 讛诇讞 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 讜诪讚转 讛讬讘砖 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 讞讜诇

With regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows, i.e., that which flows onto the outside of vessel鈥檚 walls, are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 拽讚砖 诇驻讬讻讱 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 诪讚转 讛讬讘砖 讞讜诇 诇驻讬讻讱 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 讞讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讝讛 讗诇讗 砖讛诇讞 谞注拽专 讜讛讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注拽专

Rabbi Akiva says that the reason for this difference is that since the measuring vessels for liquids are themselves sacred, therefore their overflows are sacred, and since the measuring vessels for dry substances are non-sacred, therefore their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Yosei says: The difference is not due to that factor. Rather, it is because the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel, where it became consecrated, and was then displaced, whereas the overflow of a dry substance was not displaced from inside the vessel, so it had not become consecrated.

讙诪壮 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 讙讚讜砖 讛讜讛 讗讬 专讘谞谉 讞讚讗 讜诪讞讜拽 讛讜讛

GEMARA: The mishna and Gemara on 87a cite a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Meir concerning the number and nature of the measuring vessels used for dry substances. In light of that dispute, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is the mishna here? If you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that is difficult: He holds that there were two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah, but only one of them was such that it held its measure when heaped; the other one held its measure when leveled. And if you suggest it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is difficult: They hold there was only one measuring vessel that held a tenth of an ephah, and it held its measure when leveled. How can the mishna state that all measuring vessels in the Temple were heaped?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讗讬 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讻诇 诪讚讬讚讜转

Rav 岣sda said: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that only one of two measuring vessels that held a tenth of an ephah was such that it held its measure when heaped. And what does the mishna means when it states: All measuring vessels [kol middot] in the Temple were heaped? It means that that all measurements [kol medidot] performed with that measuring vessel were done when its contents were heaped above its rim.

诪讚转 讛诇讞 讘讬专讜爪讬讛谉 拽讚砖 讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The mishna discusses the status of overflows: The first tanna states simply that with regard to measuring vessels for liquids, their overflows are sacred, but with regard to measuring vessels for dry substances, their overflows are non-sacred. Rabbi Akiva explains that this distinction is a function of whether the measuring vessel is itself sacred. Rabbi Yosei explains it is function of whether the overflow had initially been inside the vessel. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter do these three tanna鈥檌m disagree?

转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 谞诪砖讞讛 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讚转 讬讘砖 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘讞讜抓

The Gemara explains: The first tanna holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items, e.g., wine for libations and oil, were anointed and thereby consecrated both on the inside and on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is consecrated as it comes in contact with the outside of the vessel鈥檚 walls. The measuring vessels for dry items, such as the flour for meal offerings, were anointed and consecrated only on the inside, but were not anointed on the outside. Therefore, the overflow is not consecrated when it comes into contact with the outside of the vessel鈥檚 walls.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诪讚转 讛诇讞 谞诪砖讞讛 讘讬谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诪讘讞讜抓 诪讚转 讬讘砖 诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

And Rabbi Akiva, who states the difference is due to whether the vessel is sacred or non-sacred, holds that the measuring vessels for liquid items were anointed on the inside and were not anointed on the outside, whereas the measuring vessels for dry items were not anointed at all, and they remained non-sacred and so could not consecrate the overflow.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪砖讞讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讞 谞注拽专 讜诪讙讜讜讛 讚诪谞讗 拽讗 讗转讬 讜讛讬讘砖 讗讬谞讜 谞注拽专

And Rabbi Yosei holds that this and that, i.e., both types of measuring vessels, were anointed only on the inside but were not anointed on the outside, and so here, this is the reason behind whether the overflow was sacred: As the overflow of liquid was originally inside the vessel and was then displaced, and it comes from the inside of the vessel, it is therefore consecrated. But the overflow of a dry substance was not originally inside the vessel and then displaced, and so it is never consecrated.

讜讻讬 谞注拽专 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讙讘专讗 诇诪讗讬 讚爪专讬讱 拽讗 诪讻讜讬谉

The Gemara questions this explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: But even if the overflow was previously inside the vessel and then displaced, what of it? A person intends to consecrate only that which he requires, and so even if the overflow had been inside the vessel it would not have been consecrated.

讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 砖讬砖谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 诪讚注转 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 讜讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讞讜诇

Rav Dimi bar Shishna said in the name of Rav: That is to say that service vessels consecrate their contents even without the intent of the person using them. Ravina said: Actually, I will say to you that service vessels consecrate their contents only with the intent of the person using them, and by Torah law the overflows are not sacred. But the Sages issued a decree to regard them as sacred, lest people say that one may transfer a substance that has been consecrated in a service vessel to non-sacred status.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讜 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讜讗 注诇 砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection to this explanation from a mishna (100a): Each Shabbat, new shewbread and bowls of frankincense were arranged on the Table in the Sanctuary. They remained there until the following Shabbat, at which point the frankincense was burned, thereby permitting the shewbread to be eaten. If the priest arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on the Table after Shabbat, during the week, and then he burned the frankincense in the bowls on the Shabbat at the end of that week, the bread is disqualified, as it had not been on the Table for a full seven days from one Shabbat to the next. How then should one proceed to prevent the disqualification? He should leave the bread on the Table until the following Shabbat, as even if it remained on the Table for many days, there is nothing wrong with that, provided that it is there for at least seven days. The frankincense may then be burned and it will permit the bread to be eaten.

讜讗诪讗讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪驻拽讬讚讬谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转

Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: But why is it permitted to leave the bread on the Table for more than seven days? There too, let us say that the Sages issued a decree disqualifying the bread lest people say that one can store sacred items in a service vessel overnight and that will prevent them becoming disqualified. Evidently, the Sages did not issue such decrees, and it follows that also with regard to using the measuring vessels they did not issue a decree.

驻谞讬诐 讗讞讜抓 拽讗 专诪讬转 驻谞讬诐 诇讗讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讚注讬

The Gemara rejects this claim: Are you raising a contradiction between a rite performed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the arrangement of the shewbread, and a rite performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., using the measuring vessels? Since in the case of a rite performed inside the Sanctuary not everyone is aware of what is happening, there is no concern that people will misinterpret what is going on and so there is no need to issue a decree concerning it. In the case of a rite performed outside the Sanctuary everyone is aware of what is happening, and there is a need to issue a decree to prevent people from drawing mistaken conclusions.

转谞谉 讛转诐 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐 诇拽讬抓 讛诪讝讘讞

搂 The Gemara continues to discuss the overflow of measures. We learned in a mishna there (Shekalim 10b): The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar [keitz hamizbe鈥檃岣].

诪讗讬 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Surplus libations?

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讚讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇住驻拽 住诇转讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜注诪讚讜 讘砖诇砖 讬住驻拽 诪讗专讘注

Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef says: It means the overflows of measuring vessels. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Surplus libations are like that which we learned in another mishna (Shekalim 13a): In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price stood at three se鈥檃 for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela.

诪砖诇砖 讜注诪讚讜 诪讗专讘注 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 砖讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛

If one committed to supply fine flour at three se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se鈥檃 for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. In the latter case, the merchant ends up providing the Temple with a greater quantity of flour than had initially been intended. Consequently, the Temple has more flour than it requires. The extra amount is referred to as surplus libations, and it is sold in order to purchase supplementary offerings.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讬讚讜转 讛诇诇讜 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘讛谉 讗诐 讬砖 讝讘讞 讗讞专 讬拽专讬讘讜 注诪讜 讜讗诐 诇谞讜 讬驻住诇讜 讘诇讬谞讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讜拽讬抓 讝讛 诪讛讜 注讜诇讜转 讛讘砖专 诇砖诐 讜注讜专讜转 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef: These overflows of measuring vessels, what would be done with them? They are gathered, and if there is another offering to be sacrificed that day, the priests sacrifice this liquid with it as part of its libations. And if there is no other offering that day, and instead the overflows were left overnight without being sacrificed, they are disqualified by being left overnight. And if the overflows were not sacrificed with another offering and were not disqualified by being left overnight, they are sold, and the proceeds from their sale are used to purchase animals to supplement the offerings of the altar. And these supplementary offerings, what form do they take? They are burnt offerings; their flesh is entirely burned on the altar to God, and the hides are given to the priests.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讜 诇住驻拽 住诇转讜转 诪讗专讘注 讜注诪讚讜 诪砖诇砖 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 诪砖诇砖 讜注诪讚讜 诪讗专讘注 诪住驻拽 诪讗专讘注 砖讬讚 讛拽讚砖 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讝讛讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪讜转专 谞住讻讬诐 诇拽讬抓 讛诪讝讘讞

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: In the case of one who accepts upon himself to supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price stood at three se鈥檃 for a sela, he is required to fulfill his commitment and supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. If one committed to supply fine flour at three se鈥檃 for a sela, and its market price decreased until it stood at four se鈥檃 for a sela, he must supply fine flour at four se鈥檃 for a sela. The reason for this halakha is that the Temple treasury is at an advantage. And it is to this later case that we referred when we learned in the mishna: The surplus libations were sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings of the altar.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讘讻讜专 讜讛诪注砖专 讜讛驻住讞 讜讛讞讟讗转 讜讛讗砖诐 讗诇讗 砖讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谞讬谉 谞住讻讬诐

MISHNA: All offerings, whether communal or individual, require libations, i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation, except for the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, with which libations are not brought. But the exception to this exception is that the sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering do require libations.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita that derives each of the rulings of the mishna from the verses that state the requirement to accompany animal offerings with the sacrifice of libations. The Torah states: 鈥淎nd 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, or on your Festivals, to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock. And he who brings his offering to the Lord shall sacrifice a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with a quarter-hin of oil; and wine for a libation, a quarter-hin, you shall make it with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb鈥 (Numbers 15:2鈥5). The Torah then proceeds to detail the quantities of flour, oil, and wine for a ram and a bull.

讜注砖讬转诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讻诇 讛注讜诇讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讝讘讞

The verse states: 鈥淎nd you will make a fire offering to the Lord.鈥 Accordingly, one might have thought that any offering that is raised up on the altar as a fire offering shall require that libations be brought with it, even a meal offering. The verse then states: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 which teaches that the requirement of libations applies only to animal burnt offerings, but not to meal offerings. If so, from where is it derived that a peace offering requires libations? The verse states: 鈥淎 sacrifice.鈥 From where is it derived that a thanks offering requires libations? The verse states: 鈥淥r a sacrifice.鈥 The superfluous word 鈥渙r鈥 serves to include thanks offerings.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 讘谞讚讘讛 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐

One might have thought that I should include even the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, the Paschal offering, the sin offering, and the guilt offering. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift.鈥 This teaches that an offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations, whereas each of these offerings, which do not come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering but only as obligatory offerings, do not require libations.

诪砖诪注 诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讞讜讘讜转 讛讘讗讜转 诪讞诪转 讛专讙诇 讘专讙诇 讜诪讗讬 谞讬谞讛讜 注讜诇讜转 专讗讬讬讛 讜砖诇诪讬 讞讙讬讙讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讻诇 讛讘讗 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐

The baraita continues: It has been derived, then, that one should exclude these offerings from the requirement of libations, as they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise exclude the obligatory offerings that come on account of the pilgrimage Festival, which are sacrificed on the pilgrimage Festival, and what are these? Burnt offerings of appearance in the Temple and Festival peace offerings, both of which are brought on the three pilgrimage Festivals. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥r on your Festivals,鈥 which indicates that any offering that comes on your Festivals, even if it is obligatory, requires libations.

诪砖诪注 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讘讬讗 砖注讬专讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讘专讙诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转注砖讛 讘谉 讘拽专

It has been derived, then, that one should include even these Festival offerings, despite the fact that they are obligatory. Perhaps then I will likewise include the goat sin offerings brought as part of the additional offerings on the Festivals, since they come as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival. To counter this, the verse states in the continuation of that passage: 鈥淎nd when you make a young bull as a burnt offering鈥 (Numbers 15:8), and proceeds to state the requirement to bring libations with it.

讘谉 讘拽专 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇讛拽讬砖 讗诇讬讜 诪讛 讘谉 讘拽专 诪讬讜讞讚 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讗祝 讻诇 讘讗 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛

Now, the requirement to bring libations with a young bull was already included in the general requirement to bring libations with any fire offering, as stated in the beginning of that passage; and why, then, was it singled out and mentioned explicitly? This is in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to a young bull: Just as a young bull is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations.

诇注砖讜转 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 注诇讛 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讘诪砖诪注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The baraita continues: The verses at the beginning of the passage state: 鈥淭o make a pleasing aroma to the Lord, of the herd or of the flock.鈥 What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since in the previous verse it is stated: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 I would derive that all types of burnt offerings require libations, and even a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering is indicated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 which limits the requirement to offerings of animals such as sheep or cattle, but not to bird offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讝讘讞 讜注讜祝 讗讬谞讜 讝讘讞 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讗讚诐 讻讬 讬拽专讬讘 诪讻诐 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪谉 讛讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讻讜诇 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 诪砖谞讬讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 专爪讛 讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 专爪讛 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗

Rabbi Yonatan says: This verse is unnecessary, as the verse states: 鈥淎 sacrifice,鈥 and a bird offering is not referred to as a sacrifice. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock鈥? Since it is stated with regard to a burnt offering: 鈥淎 person, when he sacrifices from you an offering to the Lord, of the animals: Of the herd and of the flock, you shall sacrifice your offering鈥 (Leviticus 1:2), one might have thought that one who takes a vow by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal he will bring, that he must bring animals of both of these two types, i.e., from the herd and the flock. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 separating the two types with the word 鈥渙r,鈥 thereby indicating that if he wanted to bring one of them, he may bring just one, and if he wanted to bring two, he may bring two. This concludes the baraita.

讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 讛讗诪专 注讚 砖讬驻专讜讟 诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 讬讞讚讜

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, why do I need an independent verse to teach that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering does not have to bring both types? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yonatan himself say an exegetical principle that whenever the Torah mentions two details together with regard to a halakha, it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled even when only one of the details is realized, unless the verse specifies that both details are required by writing the word: Together, in the verse? Accordingly, when the verse states: 鈥淥f the herd or of the flock,鈥 the intention is that either one is sufficient, and there should be no need for an independent verse to teach this.

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara answers: Despite his principle, an independent verse was necessary to teach this, as it might enter your mind to say:

Scroll To Top