1 and therefore it may be made of any kind of gold; the verse therefore teaches us [that it, too, must be of pure gold]. A HALF-LOG OF OIL FOR THE THANK-OFFERING. It was taught: R. Akiba says, Why is the expression ‘with oil’ stated twice? Had the verse stated ‘with oil’ once only, I should have said that it was like all other meal-offerings in respect of the log of oil; but now that ‘with oil’ is stated twice, there is here an amplification following an amplification, and whenever an amplification follows an amplification it implies limitation. Thus the verse has [impliedly] reduced [the quantity of oil] to a half-log. But is there here an amplification following another amplification? There is only one amplification here! — Rather the argument is this: Had not the verse stated ‘with oil’ at all, I should have said that it was like all other meal-offerings in respect of the log of oil; but now that ‘with oil’ is stated twice, there is here an amplification following an amplification. and whenever an amplification follows another amplification it implies limitation. Thus the verse has reduced [the quantity of oil] to a half-log. I might think that this half-log of oil was to be divided equally among the three kinds of cakes, namely the cakes, the wafers, and the soaked cakes; but since the verse stated ‘with oil’ with the soaked cakes, which was quite unnecessary, it thereby increased the quantity of oil for the soaked cakes. How then [was it divided]? A half-log of oil was to be brought and divided into halves, one half to be used for the cakes and wafers and the other half for the soaked cakes. Thereupon R. Eleazar b. Azariah rejoined. Akiba, even though you repeat the word ‘with oil’ the whole day long I shall not listen to you; but [the fact is that] the half-log of oil of the thank-offering, the quarter-log of oil of the Nazirite, and the eleven days between two periods of menstruation, are laws delivered to Moses on Sinai. WITH THE LOG ONE MEASURED [THE OIL FOR ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS]. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And one tenth [part of an ephah of fine flour] mingled [with oil for a meal-offering,] and a log [of oil]. This teaches that every tenth requires a log of oil. So the Sages. But R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer [b. Jacob] say, Even a meal-offering of sixty tenths requires but one log, for it is said, For a meal-offering and a log of oil. For what exposition do R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob require the words ‘And one tenth . . . mingled . . . and a log of oil’? — They require them for their own purpose; the Divine Law ordaining thereby that he must bring one tenth [for a meal-offering]. And the others? — They say that for that purpose no verse is required. for since the Divine Law ordained in the case of a leper of affluent means that he must bring three animal-offerings and three tenths [of flour for a meal-offering], here [in the case of a leper of poor means], since he brings but one animal-offering, only one tenth [is required for a meal-offering]. And the others? — The verse is indeed necessary; for otherwise I might have said that, since the All Merciful has spared him expense by allowing him to bring a poor [man's] sacrifice, no meal-offering at all is to be brought! And the others? — We do not find [they say] that he should be [exempt] entirely [from the offering]. And for what exposition do the Rabbis require the words ‘For a meal-offering and a log of oil’? — They need them to teach that whosoever makes a freewill-offering of a meal-offering shall bring nothing less than the quantity for which one log of oil is prescribed, and that is, one tenth. And the others? — Both teachings [they say] can be derived [from these words]. SIX [LOGS] WERE REQUIRED FOR A BULLOCK, FOUR FOR A RAM, AND THREE FOR A LAMB. How do we know this?Because it is written, And their drink-offerings shall be half a hin of wine for a bullock. And a hin has twelve logs, for it is written, And of olive oil a hin; and it is also written, This [zeh] shall be a holy anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations. the numerical value of zeh being twelve. THREE LOGS AND A HALF FOR THE CANDLESTICK, A HALF-LOG FOR EACH LAMP. Whence is this derived? — Our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] To burn from evening to morning: provide it with its requisite measure so that it may burn from evening to morning. Another interpretation: ‘From evening to morning’: you have no other service that is valid from evening to morning save this alone. And the Sages have calculated that a half-log of oil [will burn] from evening to morning. Some say that they calculated it by reducing [the original quantity of oil]; while others say that they calculated it by increasing it. Those who say that they calculated it by increasing [the quantity of oil adopt the principle that] the Torah has consideration for the money of Israel; and those who say that they calculated it by reducing it [adopt the principle that] there is no poverty in the place of wealth. MISHNAH. ONE MAY MIX THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF BULLOCKS WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF RAMS, OR THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF LAMBS WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF OTHER LAMBS, OR THOSE OF AN INDIVIDUAL OFFERING WITH THOSE OF A COMMUNAL OFFERING,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ
2 OR THOSE OF [AN OFFERING OFFERED] TO-DAY WITH THOSE OF [AN OFFERING OFFERED] YESTERDAY; BUT ONE MAY NOT MIX THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF LAMBS WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF BULLOCKS OR OF RAMS. IF AFTER EACH WAS MINGLED BY ITSELF THEY WERE MIXED TOGETHER, THEY ARE VALID; BUT IF BEFORE EACH WAS MINGLED BY ITSELF [THEY WERE MIXED TOGETHER], THEY ARE INVALID. ALTHOUGH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE LAMB THAT WAS OFFERED WITH THE ‘OMER WAS DOUBLED, ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS WERE NOT DOUBLED. GEMARA. [ONE MAY MIX etc.]. I can point out a contradiction to this, [for it has been taught]: And he shall burn it: [this intimates] that he shall not mix the fat portions [of one sacrifice] with the fat portions [of another]! -R. Johanan answered, [The Mishnah only] speaks of the case where they had been mixed. BUT ONE MAY NOT MIX THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF LAMBS WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF BULLOCKS OR OF RAMS; that is, even though they had been mixed they are not [valid]. But surely since it states in the next clause, IF AFTER EACH WAS MINGLED BY ITSELF THEY WERE MIXED TOGETHER, THEY ARE VALID, it follows that the first clause teaches [that they may be mixed together] in the first instance! — Abaye therefore answered, [The Mishnah] means to say this: One may mix the wine-offerings together if the flour and oil had already been mixed together. But may not one mix the wine-offerings in the first instance? But it has been taught: This rule applies only to the flour and oil, but one may mix the wine-offerings! — Rather, said Abaye, If the flour and oil [of the two offerings] have already been burnt [upon the altar], one may then mix the wine-offerings in the first instance. If they have not yet been burnt, but they have been mixed together, one may mix the wine-offerings; but if they have not [been mixed together], one may not mix [the wine-offerings], for this might lead to the mixing of the flour and oil in the first instance. [ALTHOUGH THE MEAL-OFFERING OF] THE LAMB THAT WAS OFFERED WITH THE ‘OMER etc. Our Rabbis taught: And the meal-offering thereof shall be two tenth parts: this teaches us that the meal-offering of the lamb that was offered with the ‘Omer was doubled. I might then think that as its meal-offering was doubled so its wine was also doubled; the text therefore stated, And the drink-offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin. I might further think that its wine was not doubled since it was not mingled with the meal-offering, but its oil [I say] was doubled, seeing that it was mingled with the meal-offering; the text therefore stated, ‘And the drink-offering thereof’, thus intimating that all the drink-offerings thereof shall be the fourth part of a hin. How is this intimated in the verse? — R. Eleazar said, Because it is written we-niskah and we read it we-nisko. Now what is the explanation thereof? — The drink-offering of the meal-offering, [namely the oil,] shall be equal to the drink-offering of [the lamb, namely] the wine, and as of wine there was the fourth part of a hin so of oil there was the fourth part of a hin. R. Johanan said, If the guilt-offering of a leper was slaughtered. under any name other than its own, it still requires the drink-offerings; for should you not say so, you would render it invalid. R. Menashia b. Gadda demurred, In that case, if the lamb that is offered with the ‘Omer was slaughtered under any name other than its own, its meal-offering should nevertheless be doubled; for should you not say so, you would render it invalid. Furthermore, if the daily morning-offering was slaughtered under any name other than its own, it should nevertheless require the offering of two logs of wood by a priest; for should you not say so, you would render it invalid. And furthermore, if the daily evening-offering was slaughtered under any name other than its own, it should nevertheless require the offering of two logs of wood by two priests; for should you not say so, you would render it invalid! — It is indeed so, for Abaye has said, He stated but one of several cases. Raba said, [It is not so.] for in the latter cases the offerings are burnt-offerings,ᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜ