מנחות 91 — parallel

91:1

since it is written there, And of the flock, it is as though the expression ‘together’ had been used. Then according to R. Josiah who says that even though the expression ‘together’ is not expressly used it is interpreted as though ‘together’ had been used, a verse is surely necessary [to teach that both need not be brought]! — There is written, If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, and there is also written, And if his offering be of the flock. And the other? — I might have thought that that was so only when a man expressly said so, but when he did not say so expressly [I would say that] he must bring from [each of] the two kinds; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. The Master stated: ‘And whence the thank-offering? Because the text added. Or a sacrifice’. But is not the thank-offering also a sacrifice? — I might have thought that since it is accompanied by a bread-offering it does not require the drink-offerings. But wherein does it differ from the Nazirite ram, which is accompanied by a bread-offering and yet requires the drink-offerings? — I might have thought that only there [where the bread-offering consists only] of two kinds [are drink-offerings required] but [not] here [where] it consists of four kinds; we are therefore taught otherwise. But the Divine Law should only have stated, In fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering, and it need not have stated, A burnt-offering! — Had not the Divine Law stated, ‘A burnt-offering’. I should have said that the expression ‘and ye will make an offering by fire unto the Lord’ was a general proposition, ‘in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering’ a specification, and ‘to make a sweet savour’ another general proposition; we would thus have two general propositions separated by a specification, in which case everything that is similar to the matter specified would be included; and as the matter specified is distinguished in that it is an offering not brought [in atonement] for any sin, so every offering that is not brought [in atonement] for any sin [would require drink-offerings]. I would thus exclude [from drink-offerings] the sin-offering and the guilt-offering as they are brought [in atonement] for a sin, but I would include the firstling, the tithe of cattle, and the Passover-offering, as they are not brought [in atonement] for any sin; the text therefore stated, A burnt-offering. But now that [Scripture] has stated, A burnt-offering, what then is [there left] to be included by the general propositions and the specification? — [The inference from the specification is made thus:] As the matter specified is an offering which one is under no obligation to offer, so every offering which one is under no obligation to offer [requires drink-offerings]; this includes [for drink-offerings] the young of consecrated animals and their substitutes, the burnt-offering brought out of the surplus, the guilt-offering condemned to pasture, and all offerings that were slaughtered under any name other than their own. Now that you have established that the term ‘or’ was inserted for an exposition, was there any need for [the term ‘or’ in the expression] ‘in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a free will-offering’ to indicate disjunction? — It was necessary, for [without ‘or’] I might have thought that unless one brought an offering in fulfilment of a vow and also a freewill-offering one would not have to bring drink-offerings; we are therefore taught that if one brings an offering in fulfilment of a vow alone one must bring drink-offerings, and so, too, if one brings a freewill-offering alone one must bring drink-offerings. This is quite in order according to R. Josiah. but what need was there for that term according to R. Jonathan? — It was necessary, for [without ‘or’] I might have thought that if one brought an offering in fulfilment of a vow alone one must bring drink-offerings, and if one brought a freewill-offering alone one must bring drink-offerings, but if one brought an offering in fulfilment of a vow and also a freewill-offering it is sufficient if the drink-offerings are brought for one only; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. And what need was there for the term ‘or’ in the expression or in your appointed seasons’? — It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that was so only where one brought a burnt-offering in fulfilment of a vow and a freewill peace-offering or vice versa, but where one brought a burnt-offering and a peace-offering both in fulfilment of a vow or both as freewill-offerings, since there is only one class of offering here, viz., in fulfilment of a vow or freewill-offerings, it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for one only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. And what need was there for [the ‘or’ in] the verse, And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt-offering or for a sacrifice? — It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that was so only where one brought a burnt-offering and a peace-offering both in fulfilment of a vow or both as freewill-offerings, but where one brought two burnt-offerings one in fulfilment of a vow and one as a freewill-offering, or two peace-offerings one in fulfilment of a vow and one as a freewill-offering, since there is only one type of offering here, viz., the peace-offering or the burnt-offering, it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for one only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. And what need was there for [the ‘or’ in] the expression ‘in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace-offerings’? — It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that was so only where one brought two burnt-offerings one in fulfilment of a vow and one as a freewill-offering, or two peace-offerings one in fulfilment of a vow and one as a freewill-offering, but where one brought two burnt-offerings each in fulfilment of a vow, or each as a freewill-offering, or two peace-offerings each in fulfilment of a vow or each as a freewill-offering, since there is only one type of offering here, viz., the burnt-offering or the peace-offering, it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for one only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. And according to R. Josiah what need was there for [the ‘or’ in] the expression ‘of the herd or of the flock’? — It was necessary. for [without it] I might have thought that that was so only [where the two animals were] of two kinds, but where they were both of one kind it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for one only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. And what need was there for the verse, So shall ye do for every one according to their number? — [Without it] I might have thought that that was so only [where the two animals were consecrated] one after the other, but where they were [consecrated] simultaneously it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for one only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise]. BUT THE SIN-OFFERING AND THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER REQUIRE DRINK-OFFERINGS. How do we know this? — Our Rabbis taught: And three tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering: this verse refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering. You say it refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering, but perhaps it is not so but rather it refers to the meal-offering that is offered by itself! Since it says, And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, you may be sure that the other verse [also] refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering. But I still do not know whether it requires a drink-offering [of wine] or not; the text therefore states, And wine for the drink-offering, the fourth part of a hin, shalt thou prepare with the burnt-offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb. The expression ‘the burnt-offering’ refers to the burnt-offering of the leper, ‘the sacrifice’ to the sin-offering of the leper, and ‘or for the sacrifice’ to the guilt-offering of the leper. But surely both [the sin-offering and the guilt-offering of the leper] can be derived from ‘the sacrifice’!36

—

91:2

For a Master has said, Whence do I know it of the sin-offering and of the guilt-offering? Because the text states, The sacrifice. — That is so only where both offerings serve the same purpose. but where the guilt-offering serves to qualify [the person] and the sin-offering to make atonement [for him] we require two separate expressions [to include both]. ‘"The sacrifice" refers to the sin-offering of the leper’. Perhaps it refers to the sin-offering and guilt-offering of the Nazirite! — You cannot think of it, for it has been taught: It is written, And their meal-offering and their drink-offerings: this verse refers to his burnt-offering and his peace-offerings. You say it refers to his burnt-offering and his peace-offerings, but perhaps it is not so but rather it refers to his sin-offering; the text therefore states, And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. Now the ram was included in the general statement of the law, why then was it singled out here? That everything be compared with it: as the ram is distinguished in that it may be offered either in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering, so everything that is offered either in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering [requires drink-offerings]. ‘The expression "the burnt-offering" refers to the burnt-offering of the leper’. Perhaps it refers to the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth! — Abaye answered, The burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth is derived from the latter part of the verse. For it was taught: R. Nathan says. ‘Lamb’ refers to the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth, and ‘each’ to the eleventh of the cattle tithe. And this, that the accessory should be more weighty than the principal, we do not find elsewhere in the whole of the Torah. Raba said, What case is there that requires three separate terms to include [its offerings]? You must say it is the case of the leper. What need was there for the expression ‘for a ram’? — R. Shesheth said, It includes Aaron's ram. But is not Aaron's ram derived from the expression ‘in your appointed seasons’? — [No, for] I might have thought that that applied only to the offerings of the community but not to the offering of an individual. But wherein does it differ from the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth? — I might have thought that only [an individual offering] which has no fixed time was included but not that which has a fixed time; the verse is therefore stated [to include Aaron's ram]. What need is there for the expression ‘or for a ram’? — It includes the pallax. This is quite in order according to R. Johanan who holds that it is a distinct species. For we have learnt: If a man [under an obligation to bring a lamb or a ram for his sacrifice] offered it [a pallax], he must bring for it the drink-offerings as for a ram, but he does not thereby discharge the obligation of his sacrifice. And R. Johanan said that the expression ‘or for in ram’ included the pallax. But according to Bar Padda who holds that he must bring [for it the drink-offerings as for a ram] and account for the possibilities, for it is only a case of doubt, it will be asked, is a verse ever stated in order to include what is in a condition of doubt? — This is obviously a difficulty according to Bar Padda. Thus shall it be done for each bullock, or for each ram, or far each of the lambs or of the kids. Wherefore did the text state, ‘For each bullock’? — It is because we find that Holy Writ distinguished between the drink-offerings of a ram and the drink-offerings of a lamb; and I might have thought that there should also be a distinction between the drink-offerings of a bullock and the drink-offerings of a calf; the text therefore stated, For each bullock. Wherefore did the text state, ‘Or for each ram’? — It is because we find that Holy Writ distinguished between the drink-offerings of a sheep in its first year and those of one in its second year; and I might have thought that there should likewise be a distinction between the drink-offerings of a sheep in its second year and those of one in its third year; Scripture therefore stated, ‘Or for each ram’. Wherefore did the text state, ‘Or for each of the lambs’? — It is because we find that Holy Writ distinguished between the drink-offerings of a lamb and the drink-offerings of a ram; and I might have thought that there should likewise be a distinction between the drink-offerings of a ewe in its first year and those of a ewe in its second year; the text therefore stated, ‘Or for each of the lambs’. Wherefore did the text state, ‘Or of the kids’? — It is because we find that Holy Writ distinguished between the drink-offerings of a lamb and the drink-offerings of a ram; and I might have thought that there should likewise be a distinction between the drink-offerings of a kid and those of an older goat; the text therefore stated, ‘Or of the kids’. R. Papa said, Raba once tested us [with the following question]:

—