Menachot

OR THOSE OF [AN OFFERING OFFERED] TO-DAY WITH THOSE OF [AN OFFERING OFFERED] YESTERDAY;1 BUT ONE MAY NOT MIX THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF LAMBS WITH THE DRINK-OFFERINGS OF BULLOCKS OR OF RAMS.2 IF AFTER EACH WAS MINGLED3 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,4 ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS WERE NOT DOUBLED.5 GEMARA. [ONE MAY MIX etc.]. I can point out a contradiction to this, [for it has been taught]: And he shall burn it:6 [this intimates] that he shall not mix the fat portions [of one sacrifice] with the fat portions [of another]!7 -R. Johanan answered, [The Mishnah only] speaks of the case where they had been mixed.8 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].9 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-offerings10 together if the flour and oil10 had already been mixed together.11 But may not one mix the wine-offerings in the first instance?12 But it has been taught: This rule13 applies only to the flour and oil, but one may mix the wine-offerings!14 — Rather, said Abaye, If the flour and oil [of the two offerings] have already been burnt [upon the altar],15 one may then mix the wine-offerings in the first instance.16 If they have not yet been burnt, but they17 have been mixed together, one may mix the wine-offerings;18 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.19 [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:20 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.20 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-niskah21 and we read it we-nisko.22 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.23 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.24 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;25 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;25 for should you not say so, you would render it invalid! — It is indeed so,26 for27 Abaye has said, He28 stated but one of several cases. Raba29 said, [It is not so.] for in the latter cases the offerings are burnt-offerings, of the bullock or of the ram) should not absorb some of the thinner mixture (sc. the meal-offering of the lamb), accordingly both meal-offerings would be invalid, the former because it is too much and the latter because it is too little. which accompanies another sacrifice, even though the same kind of animal was offered in each case. Johanan's argument). So Sh. Mek. and also in the text quoted by Kesef Mishneh on Maim. Yad, Temidin u-Musafin X, 14. oil of two dissimilar meal-offerings had been mixed together (e.g., the meal-offering of a bullock with that of a lamb), one may not mix the wine-offerings. together or not. Baraitha. of R. Samuel Strashoun a.l., and Com. ‘Olath Shelomoh. namely the oil. apart as a guilt-offering, and to regard it as a freewill-offering is out of the question for a guilt-offering is only brought as an obligation; accordingly it can only be offered as the guilt-offering of a leper, and as such it requires drink-offerings (v. infra 90b). all the prescribed rites, as though it had been slaughtered under its own name.