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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 9, 2018 | 讗壮 讘讻住诇讜 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 91

The gemara continues its discussion regarding which sacrifices come with libations and which don’t and how many for each and where from the verses these laws are derived.


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

讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讚诪讬

Since in Leviticus 1:2 it is written: 鈥淎nd of the flock,鈥 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: 鈥淥r of the flock,鈥 is necessary to teach that this is not the case.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讚诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 拽专讗

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 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 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?

讛讻转讬讘 讗诐 注诇讛 拽专讘谞讜 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讜讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 拽专讘谞讜

The Gemara explains: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚f his offering is a burnt offering of the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), and then in a separate verse it states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 teaches us that even in that case, it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal.

讗诪专 诪专 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讝讘讞 讗讟讜 转讜讚讛 诇讗讜 讝讘讞 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐

搂 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: 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 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 鈥渙r鈥? 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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讞诐 讜讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara raises a question concerning this explanation: But in what way is a thanks offering different from a nazirite鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 6:13鈥15).

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讛讻讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that one should differentiate between the thanks offering and a nazirite鈥檚 ram as there, together with the nazirite鈥檚 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.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 注诇讛

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.鈥 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: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,鈥 and it would be unnecessary to write: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 as a burnt offering is a type of offering that can be brought as a vow or gift offering.

讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜注砖讬转诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讻诇诇 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 驻专讟 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara explains: Had the Merciful One not written 鈥渁 burnt offering,鈥 I would say that the verse should be expounded as follows: 鈥淎nd you will make a fire offering to the Lord鈥 is a generalization, indicating that all offerings require libations. But then it states: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,鈥 which is a detail, indicating that the requirement applies only to offerings brought in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift. But with 鈥渢o make a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 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.

讗讜爪讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讘讬讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讛

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: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 as an additional detail, which serves to further exclude offerings that are brought only in fulfillment of an obligation.

讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 诪讛 诪专讘讬转 讘讬讛 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讜注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讜注讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: Now that it is written: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 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.

诇讛讘讬讗 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讜转诪讜专转谉 讜注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转

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.

讜讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞讝讘讞讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讜 诇讚专砖讗 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞诇拽诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚讘讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讬转讬 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And now that you have said that the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r a sacrifice鈥 is necessary for the derivation that teaches that the thanks offering requires libations, I can similarly ask why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渋n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or as a gift,鈥 to separate between them? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to write 鈥渙r鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚讘讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 转讬住讙讬 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥? 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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that libations are required for each offering.

讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讘谞讚专 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r on your Festivals鈥? 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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 砖诐 谞讚专 讗讞讚 讜砖诐 谞讚讘讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐

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 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r on your Festivals鈥 teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the type of offering, libations are required for each offering.

讜讻讬 转注砖讛 讘谉 讘拽专 注诇讛 讗讜 讝讘讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛

The Gemara continues its analysis: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd when you prepare a young bull for a burnt offering or for a sacrifice鈥 (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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讘谞讚专 讜讗讞讚 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬诪讗 砖诐 砖诇诪讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the nature of the commitment to bring them, libations are required for each offering.

诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛

The Gemara continues: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the verse: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace offerings鈥 (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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讘谞讚专 讜砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讜砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 砖诐 注讜诇讛 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诐 谞讚专 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if the offerings are not distinct from each other at all, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

讜专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yonatan, the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 in this phrase 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥? 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 鈥渙r.鈥

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 [讘转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 诪讬谞讗 转住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: The word 鈥渙r鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if the offerings are of the same kind of animal, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

讻讻讛 转注砖讜 诇讗讞讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬] 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Later in the passage concerning libations it states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Numbers 15:11鈥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.

讗诇讗 砖讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诇砖讛 注砖专讜谞讬诐 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛注诇讛 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛注诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sacrifice the burnt offering and the meal offering鈥 (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.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讬谉 诇谞住讱 专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 转注砖讛 注诇 讛注诇讛 讗讜 诇讝讘讞 诇讻讘砖 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 讝讜 注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 讝讘讞 讝讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜专注 讗讜 诇讝讘讞 讝讜 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

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

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna derive both the sin offering and the guilt offering from the word 鈥渟acrifice鈥 alone, without relating to the word 鈥渙r.鈥

讚讗诪专 诪专 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

This would be just as the Master said in a baraita concerning a nazirite: A nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship is required to shave his hair and bring various offerings. With regard to the shaved hair, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take the hair of his nazirite head, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 6:18). The baraita asks: From where is it derived that if, instead of putting his hair on the fire under the peace offering, he puts it on the fire under his sin offering or under his guilt offering, he still fulfills the obligation? The verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice,鈥 which serves to include these two offerings. Evidently, the term 鈥渟acrifice鈥 refers both to a sin offering and to a guilt offering. Why does the baraita concerning a leper derive a guilt offering only from the word 鈥渙r鈥?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗砖诐 诇讛讻砖讬专 讜讞讟讗转 诇讻驻专 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬

The Gemara explains: This matter, that both a sin offering and a guilt offering can be derived from the same term, applies only where they are both brought together, for the same purpose, as in the case of a nazirite. Both offerings serve to render him fit, in the case of a pure nazirite to partake of wine and cut his hair, and in the case of an impure nazirite to begin counting his term of naziriteship again. But in the case of a leper, where his guilt offering serves to render him fit to return to the camp and his sin offering serves to atone for the sin that was the cause of his leprosy, since they come for different purposes, we need two verses, i.e., sources, to teach about the two of them.

讝讘讞 讝讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚谞讝讬专

The Gemara once again questions the derivations in the baraita: 鈥淭he sacrifice鈥; this is referring to the sin offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite. The sin offering is brought by a nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering is brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure. Accordingly, only those offerings of a nazirite would require libations, but not the burnt offering of a leper.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讜诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘注讜诇转讜 讜讘砖诇诪讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara rejects this possibility. This should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: In describing the offerings a nazirite brings upon the completion of his term of naziriteship, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord, one unblemished male lamb in its year as a burnt offering, and one unblemished female lamb in its year as a sin offering, and one unblemished ram as peace offerings鈥and their meal offering, and their libations鈥 (Numbers 6:14鈥15). The baraita explains that it is with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering, mentioned earlier in that passage, that the verse speaks, and so it is only those nazirite offerings that require libations.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜诇转讜 讜讘砖诇诪讬讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 讜诪谞讞转讜 讜谞住讻讜

Do you say that the verse speaks with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering? Or perhaps the verse speaks even with regard to the sin offering that a nazirite brings if he becomes ritually impure? To preclude the possibility of explaining the verse in that way, the verse states in the subsequent verses: 鈥淎nd he shall make the ram a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; and the priest shall offer its meal offering and its libations鈥 (Numbers 6:16鈥17).

讗讬诇 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 讗讬诇 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, this ram offering was already included with all other peace offerings, which all require libations. Why, then, was it singled out in this verse with an independent statement teaching that it requires libations? It was in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to it. Just as a ram is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations. This excludes the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite, as they cannot be brought as vow offerings or gift offerings.

注诇讛 讝讜 注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讜 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara questions another of the derivations in the baraita: 鈥淭he burnt offering鈥; this is referring to the burnt offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth (see Leviticus 12:6), and if so, there would be no source to require libations for the burnt offering of a leper.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said: The requirement to bring libations with the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth is derived from the end of that verse, so the term 鈥渢he burnt offering,鈥 mentioned just before it, remains available to include the burnt offering of a leper in the requirement for libations.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讻讘砖 讝讜 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讛讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 诪注砖专 [砖拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐]

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd wine for pouring libations, a quarter-hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb鈥 (Numbers 15:5). Rabbi Natan says: 鈥淔or the one lamb鈥; this is referring to the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and includes that offering in the requirement for libations. 鈥淭he one鈥; this is referring to the eleventh animal of the animal tithe, which is sacrificed as a peace offering. In order to tithe his animals, the owner counts them one by one, and every tenth animal is consecrated as an animal tithe offering. If, when counting, he accidently counts the tenth animal as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth, both are consecrated, the former as the animal tithe and the latter as a peace offering.

砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 砖讬讛讗 讟驻诇 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛注讬拽专

The baraita comments: It is necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that the eleventh animal requires libations, because we do not find another halakha like this in the entire Torah, in which the ancillary case is more stringent than the principal case. In this case, the animal tithe offering itself does not require libations.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 专讘讜讬讬谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara presents another answer. Rava says: The verse is expounded to be referring to three different offerings and includes them in the requirement to bring libations. It is reasonable that these three offerings all share an association with each other. What is the only matter in which three offerings are brought that would necessitate three inclusions to teach that each of them require libations? You must say that this is the offerings of a leper, who brings three different offerings.

诇讗讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉

搂 It is further stated in the passage concerning libations: 鈥淥r for a ram, you shall prepare a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with one-third of a hin of oil鈥 (Numbers 15:6鈥7). The details of the meal offering brought with a ram are also mentioned elsewhere: 鈥淎nd two-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram鈥 (Numbers 28:12); therefore, the Gemara asks: Why do I need the verse here to state this? Rav Sheshet says: This verse serves to include in the requirement for libations the ram of Aaron, i.e., the ram of the High Priest that he sacrifices as a burnt offering on Yom Kippur.

讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 诪讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 谞驻拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讚讬讞讬讚 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But the requirement to bring libations with the ram of Aaron should be derived from the term: 鈥淥n your Festivals鈥 (Numbers 15:3), as the baraita derived from that term that all obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations. The Gemara resolves this challenge: It is necessary to have an independent derivation for the ram of Aaron, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations, applies only to communal offerings, but not to offerings of an individual, such as the ram of Aaron.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara questions this: But why would one think that because the ram of Aaron is an offering of an individual it would not require libations? In what way is it different from the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, which is also brought by an individual and yet it requires libations?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this matter, i.e., the conclusion drawn from the halakha of the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth that even offerings of an individual require libations, applies only to an offering that does not have a fixed time when it must be sacrificed; but with regard to an offering that has a fixed time when it must be sacrificed, I might say that it does not require libations. Accordingly, it is necessary to have an independent derivation that teaches us that the ram of Aaron requires libations.

讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住

The Gemara continues to expound the verse cited: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r for a ram鈥? The Gemara explains: It serves to include the sacrifice of a palges in the requirement to bring libations. When referring to sheep, the Torah speaks only of lambs and rams. A sheep during its first twelve months is called a lamb, and one older than thirteen months is called a ram. A palges is a sheep in its thirteenth month and is never explicitly mentioned by the Torah. It is therefore necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that if one is sacrificed, libations must be brought with it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讘讞讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a palges is considered an independent entity, i.e., it is not regarded as a lamb or a ram, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): One who is obligated to sacrifice a lamb or a ram and sacrificed a palges should bring with it the libations that are required when bringing a ram, but nevertheless its sacrifice is not considered a fulfillment of his obligation to bring an offering of a ram or a lamb. And, commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the requirement to bring libations in this case is derived from the phrase 鈥渙r for a ram,鈥 which serves to include the sacrifice of a palges.

讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬 讚住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗

But the need for an independent derivation is difficult according to the opinion of bar Padda; as he said that in the mishna鈥檚 case, the individual brings the libations of a ram but stipulates concerning them that if a palges is a ram, then all of the libations should be regarded as its libations, and if a palges is a lamb, then the quantity of those libations required for a lamb should be regarded as its libations and the rest should be regarded as a gift offering, because he holds that a palges is either a lamb or a ram but that it is uncertain to us which it is. According to bar Padda, one can ask: Is it necessary to have a verse to include an uncertain case? Although it is not known how to categorize a palges, it is included either in the category of a sheep or a ram, and its libations are therefore detailed in the verse.

讜讚讗讬 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara concludes: Certainly, according to the opinion of bar Padda, this matter is difficult.

讻讻讛 讬注砖讛 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 讛讗讞讚 讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐 讗讜 讘注讝讬诐 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 诇谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 驻专 诇谞住讻讬 注讙诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara discusses another verse in the passage about libations: 鈥淪o it shall be done for the one bull, or for the one ram, or for the kid of the lambs or of the goats鈥 (Numbers 15:11). Ostensibly, this verse states nothing beyond that which has already been explained in the beginning of that passage, which delineates the requirement of libations for each type of animal offering. The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the one bull鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates between the libations of a ram and the libations of a lamb, even though they are both sheep, one might have thought that we should likewise differentiate between the libations of a bull, which is in its second year, and the libations of a calf, which is still in its first year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the one bull,鈥 teaching that there is one halakha for all bulls, including calves, i.e., the same requirement applies to them.

讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 诇谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖转讬诐 诇谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖诇砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 讛讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the one ram鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a lamb in its first year and the libations of a ram in its second year, one might have thought that we should further differentiate with regard to rams themselves between the libations of a ram in its second year and the libations of a ram in its third year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the one ram,鈥 teaching that there is one halakha for all rams.

讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 诇谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖讛 诇谞住讻讬 专讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the kid of the lambs鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to male sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a female lamb and the libations of a ewe. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the kid of the lambs.鈥

讗讜 讘注讝讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 诇谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讙讚讬 诇谞住讻讬 砖注讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘注讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淥r of the goats鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a kid and the libations of an older goat. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥r of the goats.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗

搂 Having mentioned the libations of a ewe, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us by asking the following question:

  • 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 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 91

讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讚诪讬

Since in Leviticus 1:2 it is written: 鈥淎nd of the flock,鈥 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: 鈥淥r of the flock,鈥 is necessary to teach that this is not the case.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讚讜 讚诪讬 诇讬讘注讬 拽专讗

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 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 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?

讛讻转讬讘 讗诐 注诇讛 拽专讘谞讜 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讜讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 拽专讘谞讜

The Gemara explains: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淚f his offering is a burnt offering of the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), and then in a separate verse it states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 teaches us that even in that case, it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal.

讗诪专 诪专 转讜讚讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讝讘讞 讗讟讜 转讜讚讛 诇讗讜 讝讘讞 讛讜讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬讻讗 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐

搂 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: 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 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 鈥渙r鈥? 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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讞诐 讜讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara raises a question concerning this explanation: But in what way is a thanks offering different from a nazirite鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Numbers 6:13鈥15).

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讛讻讗 讗专讘注转 诪讬谞讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that one should differentiate between the thanks offering and a nazirite鈥檚 ram as there, together with the nazirite鈥檚 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.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诇讗 讘注讬 注诇讛

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.鈥 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: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,鈥 and it would be unnecessary to write: 鈥淎 burnt offering,鈥 as a burnt offering is a type of offering that can be brought as a vow or gift offering.

讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讜注砖讬转诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讻诇诇 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 驻专讟 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara explains: Had the Merciful One not written 鈥渁 burnt offering,鈥 I would say that the verse should be expounded as follows: 鈥淎nd you will make a fire offering to the Lord鈥 is a generalization, indicating that all offerings require libations. But then it states: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,鈥 which is a detail, indicating that the requirement applies only to offerings brought in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift. But with 鈥渢o make a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 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.

讗讜爪讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讘讬讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注诇讛

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: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 as an additional detail, which serves to further exclude offerings that are brought only in fulfillment of an obligation.

讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 诪讛 诪专讘讬转 讘讬讛 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讜注讜诪讚 讗祝 讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讜讬讬讘 讜注讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: Now that it is written: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 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.

诇讛讘讬讗 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讜转诪讜专转谉 讜注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转

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.

讜讗砖诐 砖谞讬转拽 诇专注讬讛 讜讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞讝讘讞讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讗讜 诇讚专砖讗 诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 诇谞讚讘讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞诇拽诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 注讚 讚诪讬讬转讬 谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚讘讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讬转讬 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara asks: And now that you have said that the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r a sacrifice鈥 is necessary for the derivation that teaches that the thanks offering requires libations, I can similarly ask why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渋n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or as a gift,鈥 to separate between them? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to write 鈥渙r鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚讘讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讬讘注讬 谞住讻讬诐 讗讬讬转讬 谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 转讬住讙讬 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥? 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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that libations are required for each offering.

讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讘谞讚专 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r on your Festivals鈥? 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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 砖诐 谞讚专 讗讞讚 讜砖诐 谞讚讘讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讜 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐

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 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r on your Festivals鈥 teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the type of offering, libations are required for each offering.

讜讻讬 转注砖讛 讘谉 讘拽专 注诇讛 讗讜 讝讘讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讗讬 谞诪讬 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛

The Gemara continues its analysis: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the verse: 鈥淎nd when you prepare a young bull for a burnt offering or for a sacrifice鈥 (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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讘谞讚专 讜讗讞讚 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬诪讗 砖诐 砖诇诪讬诐 讗讞转 讛讬讗 砖诐 注讜诇讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the nature of the commitment to bring them, libations are required for each offering.

诇驻诇讗 谞讚专 讗讜 砖诇诪讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讞讚讗 讘谞讚专 讜讞讚讗 讘谞讚讘讛

The Gemara continues: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the verse: 鈥淚n fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace offerings鈥 (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.

讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讘谞讚专 讜砖转讬 注讜诇讜转 讘谞讚讘讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚专 讜砖谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讘谞讚讘讛 砖诐 注讜诇讛 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜砖诐 谞讚专 讗讞讚 讛讜讗 讜转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if the offerings are not distinct from each other at all, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

讜专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 诪谉 讛讘拽专 讗讜 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬

The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yonatan, the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 in this phrase 鈥渙f the herd or of the flock鈥? 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 鈥渙r.鈥

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 [讘转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗讘诇 讘讞讚 诪讬谞讗 转住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: The word 鈥渙r鈥 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 鈥渙r鈥 teaches us that even if the offerings are of the same kind of animal, libations are nevertheless required for each one.

讻讻讛 转注砖讜 诇讗讞讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬] 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 转讬住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘谞住讻讬诐 讚讞讚 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Later in the passage concerning libations it states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Numbers 15:11鈥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.

讗诇讗 砖讞讟讗转讜 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜讗砖诪讜 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖诇砖讛 注砖专讜谞讬诐 住诇转 诪谞讞讛 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

搂 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛注诇讛 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛注诇讛 讜讗转 讛诪谞讞讛 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sacrifice the burnt offering and the meal offering鈥 (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.

讜注讚讬讬谉 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讬谉 诇谞住讱 专讘讬注讬转 讛讛讬谉 转注砖讛 注诇 讛注诇讛 讗讜 诇讝讘讞 诇讻讘砖 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 讝讜 注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 讝讘讞 讝讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜专注 讗讜 诇讝讘讞 讝讜 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

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

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讝讘讞

The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna derive both the sin offering and the guilt offering from the word 鈥渟acrifice鈥 alone, without relating to the word 鈥渙r.鈥

讚讗诪专 诪专 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

This would be just as the Master said in a baraita concerning a nazirite: A nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship is required to shave his hair and bring various offerings. With regard to the shaved hair, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall take the hair of his nazirite head, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (Numbers 6:18). The baraita asks: From where is it derived that if, instead of putting his hair on the fire under the peace offering, he puts it on the fire under his sin offering or under his guilt offering, he still fulfills the obligation? The verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice,鈥 which serves to include these two offerings. Evidently, the term 鈥渟acrifice鈥 refers both to a sin offering and to a guilt offering. Why does the baraita concerning a leper derive a guilt offering only from the word 鈥渙r鈥?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗砖诐 诇讛讻砖讬专 讜讞讟讗转 诇讻驻专 讘注讬谞谉 转专讬 拽专讗讬

The Gemara explains: This matter, that both a sin offering and a guilt offering can be derived from the same term, applies only where they are both brought together, for the same purpose, as in the case of a nazirite. Both offerings serve to render him fit, in the case of a pure nazirite to partake of wine and cut his hair, and in the case of an impure nazirite to begin counting his term of naziriteship again. But in the case of a leper, where his guilt offering serves to render him fit to return to the camp and his sin offering serves to atone for the sin that was the cause of his leprosy, since they come for different purposes, we need two verses, i.e., sources, to teach about the two of them.

讝讘讞 讝讜 讞讟讗转 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚谞讝讬专

The Gemara once again questions the derivations in the baraita: 鈥淭he sacrifice鈥; this is referring to the sin offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite. The sin offering is brought by a nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering is brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure. Accordingly, only those offerings of a nazirite would require libations, but not the burnt offering of a leper.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讜诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘注讜诇转讜 讜讘砖诇诪讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

The Gemara rejects this possibility. This should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: In describing the offerings a nazirite brings upon the completion of his term of naziriteship, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord, one unblemished male lamb in its year as a burnt offering, and one unblemished female lamb in its year as a sin offering, and one unblemished ram as peace offerings鈥and their meal offering, and their libations鈥 (Numbers 6:14鈥15). The baraita explains that it is with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering, mentioned earlier in that passage, that the verse speaks, and so it is only those nazirite offerings that require libations.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜诇转讜 讜讘砖诇诪讬讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 讜诪谞讞转讜 讜谞住讻讜

Do you say that the verse speaks with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering? Or perhaps the verse speaks even with regard to the sin offering that a nazirite brings if he becomes ritually impure? To preclude the possibility of explaining the verse in that way, the verse states in the subsequent verses: 鈥淎nd he shall make the ram a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; and the priest shall offer its meal offering and its libations鈥 (Numbers 6:16鈥17).

讗讬诇 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 讗讬诇 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, this ram offering was already included with all other peace offerings, which all require libations. Why, then, was it singled out in this verse with an independent statement teaching that it requires libations? It was in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to it. Just as a ram is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations. This excludes the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite, as they cannot be brought as vow offerings or gift offerings.

注诇讛 讝讜 注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬诪讗 讝讜 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara questions another of the derivations in the baraita: 鈥淭he burnt offering鈥; this is referring to the burnt offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth (see Leviticus 12:6), and if so, there would be no source to require libations for the burnt offering of a leper.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 诪住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 谞驻拽讗

Abaye said: The requirement to bring libations with the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth is derived from the end of that verse, so the term 鈥渢he burnt offering,鈥 mentioned just before it, remains available to include the burnt offering of a leper in the requirement for libations.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讻讘砖 讝讜 注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讛讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讞讚 注砖专 砖诇 诪注砖专 [砖拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐]

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd wine for pouring libations, a quarter-hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb鈥 (Numbers 15:5). Rabbi Natan says: 鈥淔or the one lamb鈥; this is referring to the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and includes that offering in the requirement for libations. 鈥淭he one鈥; this is referring to the eleventh animal of the animal tithe, which is sacrificed as a peace offering. In order to tithe his animals, the owner counts them one by one, and every tenth animal is consecrated as an animal tithe offering. If, when counting, he accidently counts the tenth animal as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth, both are consecrated, the former as the animal tithe and the latter as a peace offering.

砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 诇讛 讘讻诇 讛转讜专讛 砖讬讛讗 讟驻诇 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛注讬拽专

The baraita comments: It is necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that the eleventh animal requires libations, because we do not find another halakha like this in the entire Torah, in which the ancillary case is more stringent than the principal case. In this case, the animal tithe offering itself does not require libations.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖讛 专讘讜讬讬谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara presents another answer. Rava says: The verse is expounded to be referring to three different offerings and includes them in the requirement to bring libations. It is reasonable that these three offerings all share an association with each other. What is the only matter in which three offerings are brought that would necessitate three inclusions to teach that each of them require libations? You must say that this is the offerings of a leper, who brings three different offerings.

诇讗讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉

搂 It is further stated in the passage concerning libations: 鈥淥r for a ram, you shall prepare a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with one-third of a hin of oil鈥 (Numbers 15:6鈥7). The details of the meal offering brought with a ram are also mentioned elsewhere: 鈥淎nd two-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram鈥 (Numbers 28:12); therefore, the Gemara asks: Why do I need the verse here to state this? Rav Sheshet says: This verse serves to include in the requirement for libations the ram of Aaron, i.e., the ram of the High Priest that he sacrifices as a burnt offering on Yom Kippur.

讗讬诇讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 诪讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 谞驻拽讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚爪讘讜专 讗讘诇 讚讬讞讬讚 诇讗

The Gemara challenges: But the requirement to bring libations with the ram of Aaron should be derived from the term: 鈥淥n your Festivals鈥 (Numbers 15:3), as the baraita derived from that term that all obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations. The Gemara resolves this challenge: It is necessary to have an independent derivation for the ram of Aaron, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations, applies only to communal offerings, but not to offerings of an individual, such as the ram of Aaron.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转

The Gemara questions this: But why would one think that because the ram of Aaron is an offering of an individual it would not require libations? In what way is it different from the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, which is also brought by an individual and yet it requires libations?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讘诇 讚讘专 砖拽讘讜注 诇讜 讝诪谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this matter, i.e., the conclusion drawn from the halakha of the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth that even offerings of an individual require libations, applies only to an offering that does not have a fixed time when it must be sacrificed; but with regard to an offering that has a fixed time when it must be sacrificed, I might say that it does not require libations. Accordingly, it is necessary to have an independent derivation that teaches us that the ram of Aaron requires libations.

讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住

The Gemara continues to expound the verse cited: Why do I need the word 鈥渙r鈥 in the phrase 鈥渙r for a ram鈥? The Gemara explains: It serves to include the sacrifice of a palges in the requirement to bring libations. When referring to sheep, the Torah speaks only of lambs and rams. A sheep during its first twelve months is called a lamb, and one older than thirteen months is called a ram. A palges is a sheep in its thirteenth month and is never explicitly mentioned by the Torah. It is therefore necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that if one is sacrificed, libations must be brought with it.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讘讞讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that a palges is considered an independent entity, i.e., it is not regarded as a lamb or a ram, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): One who is obligated to sacrifice a lamb or a ram and sacrificed a palges should bring with it the libations that are required when bringing a ram, but nevertheless its sacrifice is not considered a fulfillment of his obligation to bring an offering of a ram or a lamb. And, commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that the requirement to bring libations in this case is derived from the phrase 鈥渙r for a ram,鈥 which serves to include the sacrifice of a palges.

讗诇讗 诇讘专 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬 讚住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 讗爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇专讘讜讬讬 住驻讬拽讗

But the need for an independent derivation is difficult according to the opinion of bar Padda; as he said that in the mishna鈥檚 case, the individual brings the libations of a ram but stipulates concerning them that if a palges is a ram, then all of the libations should be regarded as its libations, and if a palges is a lamb, then the quantity of those libations required for a lamb should be regarded as its libations and the rest should be regarded as a gift offering, because he holds that a palges is either a lamb or a ram but that it is uncertain to us which it is. According to bar Padda, one can ask: Is it necessary to have a verse to include an uncertain case? Although it is not known how to categorize a palges, it is included either in the category of a sheep or a ram, and its libations are therefore detailed in the verse.

讜讚讗讬 诇讘专 驻讚讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara concludes: Certainly, according to the opinion of bar Padda, this matter is difficult.

讻讻讛 讬注砖讛 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 讛讗讞讚 讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐 讗讜 讘注讝讬诐 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 诇谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 驻专 诇谞住讻讬 注讙诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇砖讜专 讛讗讞讚

搂 The Gemara discusses another verse in the passage about libations: 鈥淪o it shall be done for the one bull, or for the one ram, or for the kid of the lambs or of the goats鈥 (Numbers 15:11). Ostensibly, this verse states nothing beyond that which has already been explained in the beginning of that passage, which delineates the requirement of libations for each type of animal offering. The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the one bull鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates between the libations of a ram and the libations of a lamb, even though they are both sheep, one might have thought that we should likewise differentiate between the libations of a bull, which is in its second year, and the libations of a calf, which is still in its first year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the one bull,鈥 teaching that there is one halakha for all bulls, including calves, i.e., the same requirement applies to them.

讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 诇谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖转讬诐 诇谞住讻讬 讘谉 砖诇砖 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 讛讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the one ram鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a lamb in its first year and the libations of a ram in its second year, one might have thought that we should further differentiate with regard to rams themselves between the libations of a ram in its second year and the libations of a ram in its third year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the one ram,鈥 teaching that there is one halakha for all rams.

讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 诇谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖讛 诇谞住讻讬 专讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 诇砖讛 讘讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淔or the kid of the lambs鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to male sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a female lamb and the libations of a ewe. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔or the kid of the lambs.鈥

讗讜 讘注讝讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 砖讞诇拽 讛讻转讜讘 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讻讘砖 诇谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讬讻讜诇 谞讞诇拽 讘讬谉 谞住讻讬 讙讚讬 诇谞住讻讬 砖注讬专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜 讘注讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: 鈥淥r of the goats鈥? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a kid and the libations of an older goat. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥r of the goats.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讬拽 诇谉 专讘讗

搂 Having mentioned the libations of a ewe, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us by asking the following question:

Scroll To Top