Menachot 91bמנחות צ״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 91b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
91bצ״א ב

דאמר מר חטאת ואשם מנין תלמוד לומר זבח

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: “And he shall take the hair of his nazirite head, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings” (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: “The sacrifice,” which serves to include these two offerings. Evidently, the term “sacrifice” 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 “or”?

הני מילי היכא דתרוייהו כי הדדי נינהו אבל היכא דאשם להכשיר וחטאת לכפר בעינן תרי קראי

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.

זבח זו חטאת מצורע ואימא זו חטאת ואשם דנזיר

The Gemara once again questions the derivations in the baraita: “The sacrifice”; 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.

לא סלקא דעתך דתניא (במדבר ו, טו) ומנחתם ונסכיהם בעולתו ובשלמיו הכתוב מדבר

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: “And 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…and their meal offering, and their libations” (Numbers 6:14–15). 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.

אתה אומר בעולתו ובשלמיו או אינו אלא אפילו חטאת תלמוד לאמר (במדבר ו, יז) ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים ומנחתו ונסכו

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: “And 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” (Numbers 6:16–17).

איל בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה איל מיוחד בא בנדר ונדבה אף כל בא בנדר ונדבה

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.

עולה זו עולת מצורע ואימא זו עולת יולדת

The Gemara questions another of the derivations in the baraita: “The burnt offering”; 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.

אמר אביי עולת יולדת מסיפא דקרא נפקא

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 “the burnt offering,” mentioned just before it, remains available to include the burnt offering of a leper in the requirement for libations.

דתניא רבי נתן אומר לכבש זו עולת יולדת האחד זה אחד עשר של מעשר [שקרב שלמים]

This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And wine for pouring libations, a quarter-hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb” (Numbers 15:5). Rabbi Natan says: “For the one lamb”; this is referring to the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and includes that offering in the requirement for libations. “The one”; 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.

שלא מצינו לה בכל התורה שיהא טפל חמור מן העיקר

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.

רבא אמר איזהו דבר שצריך שלשה רבויין הוי אומר זו מצורע

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.

לאיל למה לי אמר רב ששת לרבות אילו של אהרן

§ It is further stated in the passage concerning libations: “Or 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” (Numbers 15:6–7). The details of the meal offering brought with a ram are also mentioned elsewhere: “And two-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram” (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.

אילו של אהרן מבמועדיכם נפקא סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דצבור אבל דיחיד לא

The Gemara challenges: But the requirement to bring libations with the ram of Aaron should be derived from the term: “On your Festivals” (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.

ומאי שנא מעולת יולדת

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?

סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דבר שאין קבוע לו זמן אבל דבר שקבוע לו זמן אימא לא קמ"ל

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.

או לאיל למה לי לרבות את הפלגס

The Gemara continues to expound the verse cited: Why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “or for a ram”? 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.

הניחא לר' יוחנן דאמר בריה הוא דתנן הקריבו מביא עליו נסכי איל ואינו עולה לו מזבחו ואמר ר' יוחנן או לאיל לרבות את הפלגס

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, 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 Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring libations in this case is derived from the phrase “or for a ram,” which serves to include the sacrifice of a palges.

אלא לבר פדא דאמר מייתי ומתני דספיקא הוא אצטריך קרא לרבויי ספיקא

But the need for an independent derivation is difficult according to the opinion of bar Padda; as he said that in the mishna’s 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.

[ודאי] לבר פדא קשיא

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

(במדבר טו, יא) ככה יעשה לשור האחד או לאיל האחד או לשה בכבשים או בעזים לשור האחד מה תלמוד לאמר לפי שמצינו שחלק הכתוב בין נסכי איל לנסכי כבש יכול נחלק בין נסכי פר לנסכי עגל תלמוד לאמר לשור האחד

§ The Gemara discusses another verse in the passage about libations: “So it shall be done for the one bull, or for the one ram, or for the kid of the lambs or of the goats” (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: “For the one bull”? 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: “For the one bull,” teaching that there is one halakha for all bulls, including calves, i.e., the same requirement applies to them.

או לאיל מה תלמוד לאמר לפי שמצינו שחלק הכתוב בין נסכי בן שנה לנסכי בן שתים יכול נחלק בין נסכי בן שתים לנסכי בן שלש תלמוד לאמר או לאיל האחד

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “For the one ram”? 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: “For the one ram,” teaching that there is one halakha for all rams.

או לשה בכבשים מה תלמוד לאמר לפי שמצינו שחלק הכתוב בין נסכי כבש לנסכי איל יכול נחלק בין נסכי כבשה לנסכי רחלה תלמוד לאמר או לשה בכבשים

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “For the kid of the lambs”? 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: “For the kid of the lambs.”

או בעזים מה תלמוד לאמר לפי שמצינו שחלק הכתוב בין נסכי כבש לנסכי איל יכול נחלק בין נסכי גדי לנסכי שעיר תלמוד לומר או בעזים

The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “Or of the goats”? 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: “Or of the goats.”

אמר רב פפא בדיק לן רבא

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