מנחות 90 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and if they are not admissible as the original obligatory burnt-offerings, they are nevertheless admissible as freewill burnt-offerings; but here [in the case of the guilt-offering of a leper] if you do not regard it as the originally named [offering, it cannot be offered at all, for] there is no such thing as a freewill guilt-offering. There has been taught [a Baraitha] that is in accord with R. Johanan: If the guilt-offering of a leper was slaughtered under any name other than its own, or if [the priest] did not apply some of the blood upon the thumb and great toe [of the leper], it is nevertheless offered upon the altar and it requires drink-offerings; but [the leper] must bring another guilt-offering to render him permitted. MISHNAH. ALL THE MEASURES IN THE TEMPLE WERE HEAPED EXCEPTING [THAT USED FOR] THE HIGH PRIEST'S [MEAL-OFFERING] WHICH INCLUDED IN ITSELF THE HEAPED MEASURE. THE OVERFLOW OF THE LIQUID-MEASURES WAS HOLY, BUT THE OVERFLOW OF THE DRY-MEASURES WAS NOT HOLY. R. AKIBA SAID, THE LIQUID-MEASURES WERE HOLY, THEREFORE THEIR OVERFLOW WAS HOLY TOO; THE DRY-MEASURES WERE NOT HOLY, THEREFORE THEIR OVERFLOW WAS NOT HOLY. R. JOSE SAID. IT IS NOT ON THAT ACCOUNT BUT BECAUSE LIQUIDS ARE STIRRED UP AND DRY-STUFFS ARE NOT. GEMARA. Who is [the author of our Mishnah]? Should you say R. Meir, but according to him only one measure was heaped up. And should you say the Rabbis, but according to them there was only one [tenth-measure] and that was levelled! — R. Hisda answered, Indeed it is R. Meir, but the expression ALL THE MEASURES’ means all the measurings. THE OVERFLOW OF THE LIQUID-MEASURES WAS HOLY. What is the point at issue between them? — The first Tanna is of the opinion that the liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside, but the dry-measures were anointed inside only but not outside. R. Akiba is of the opinion that the liquid-measures were anointed both inside and outside but the dry-measures were not anointed at all. R. Jose is of the opinion that both [the liquid-measures and the dry-measures] were anointed inside only and not outside, but this is the reason [for the ruling of our Mishnah]: liquids are stirred up, and therefore the overflow comes from the inside of the vessel’, but dry-stuffs are not stirred up at all. But even if [liquids are] stirred up, what does it matter? The man surely intends to hallow only that which he requires? — Said R. Dimi b. Shishna in the name of Rab, This proves that vessels of ministry can hallow even without the [owner's] intention. Rabina, however, said, I can still hold that vessels of ministry hallow only with the [owner's] intention, [nevertheless the overflow is deemed to be holy, for otherwise] it is to be feared that people will say that one may take out what has already been in a vessel of ministry for secular use. R. Zera raised the following objection: [We have learnt:] If he set the Shewbread and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after the Sabbath and burnt the dishes of frankincense on the next Sabbath, it is not valid. What should he do? He should leave it until the following Sabbath, for even if it remains many days on the table there is no harm. But why [is it allowed to be left for a longer period]? Might not people say, that one may allow holy things to remain in a vessel of ministry? — You surely cannot point out a contradiction between [what is performed] inside and [what is performed] outside; [what is performed] inside not everybody is aware of, but [what is performed] outside everybody is aware of. We have learnt elsewhere: The surplus of the drink-offerings was used for the altar's ‘dessert’. What is meant by ‘the surplus of the drink-offerings’? — R. Hiyya b. Joseph said, It is the overflow of the measures. R. Johanan said, It is as we have learnt: If a man had undertaken to supply fine flour at four [se'ahs a sela’] and the price subsequently stood at three [se'ahs a sela’], he must still supply it at four;24^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Accordingly in the circumstances stated, neither the lamb of the ‘Omer would require a double meal-offering, nor the daily offerings the special offering of wood, since they could be offered as freewill burnt-offerings.
^ᵇnote:To enter the camp of Israel, for he has not fulfilled his obligation with the first guilt-offering.
^ᶜnote:This measure when filled level held as much as the others when heaped.
^ᵈnote:When a liquid is being poured into a vessel what comes into the vessel last does not merely lie on the surface of what was poured in before it, but the entire liquid in the vessel is stirred up. Accordingly when the vessel is filled to overflowing, the overflow is not only of that liquid which was poured on the vessel after the vessel had been filled, but is also of the liquid displaced from the inside of the vessel; and as the latter has been hallowed in the vessel the overflow must of necessity be holy.
^ᵉnote:V. supra 87a.
^ᶠnote:I.e., whenever this one measure was used it was filled to a heap.
^ᵍnote:Sc. the outer rim of the vessel. Hence the overflow as it passes over this rim becomes hallowed.
^ʰnote:But what was placed in them was hallowed by word of mouth. Accordingly only what was required for the man's purpose was thus hallowed, but not the overflow.
^ⁱnote:And not the overflow. This question lies against all three Tannaim. V. Mishneh le-melek on Maim. Yad, Ma'ase Hakorb., II, 9.
^ʲnote:The overflow is automatically hallowed by the vessel even though the owner does not desire it.
^ᵏnote:Because of this apprehension it was decreed that the overflow of liquids which comes from the inside of the vessel is holy.
^ˡnote:V. infra 100a; Yoma 29b.
^ᵐnote:As is normally required.
^ⁿnote:For the Shewbread must remain on the table for seven days, whereas here it remained there only for six days.
^ᵒnote:I.e., for thirteen days.
^ᵖnote:And so long as it is in a vessel of ministry it does not become invalid by being kept overnight or for any longer period.
^ᵠnote:Sc. the arrangement of the Shewbread, which is performed inside the Temple where only priests entered.
^ʳnote:Sc. the measuring of the meal-offering, which is performed outside the Temple in the Temple court where all Israelites were permitted to enter.
^ˢnote:And there is ground for the apprehension.
^ᵗnote:Shek. IV, 4; Keth. 106b.
^ᵘnote:.he ‘summer fruit’; cf. II. Sam. XVI, 1, 2. These were the burnt-offerings offered after all the public and private offerings of that day had been offered so that the altar should not remain idle. V. Shebu., Sonc. ed., p. 50 n. 3.
^ᵛnote:Shek. IV, 9; B.M. 57b.
^ʷnote:And he was paid by the Temple-treasurer a certain sum of money.
^ˣnote:For in regard to Temple matters the payment of money binds the contract even though the goods have not yet passed either actually or symbolically into the possession of the Temple.

²if [he had undertaken to supply it] at three and the price subsequently stood at four, he must supply it at four, for the Temple has always the upper hand. There has been taught [a Baraitha] which agrees with R. Hiyya b. Joseph and there has also been taught [a Baraitha] which agrees with R. Johanan. There has been taught [a Baraitha] which agrees with R. Hiyya b. Joseph, vis., What did they do with the overflow of the measures? If there was another animal-offering, it may be offered with it; and if it had been kept overnight, it is thereby rendered invalid. Otherwise it is offered as ‘dessert’ for the altar. What is this ‘dessert’? Burnt-offerings; the flesh [is burnt] unto God, and the skins fall to the priests. There has also been taught [a Baraitha] which agrees with R. Johanan, viz., If a man had undertaken to supply fine flour at four [se'ahs a sela’] and the price subsequently stood at three [se'ahs a sela’], he must still supply it at four; if [he had undertaken to supply it] at three and the price subsequently stood at four, he must supply it at four, for the Temple has the upper hand. This [illustrates] what we have learnt: The surplus of the drink-offerings was used for the altar's ‘dessert’. MISHNAH. ALL THE OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION AND OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRE DRINK-OFFERINGS EXCEPT THE FIRSTLING, THE TITHE OF CATTLE, THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, THE SIN-OFFERING AND THE GUILT-OFFERING; BUT THE SIN-OFFERING AND GUILT-OFFERING OF THE LEPER REQUIRE DRINK-OFFERINGS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Since it is written,] And ye will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, I might think that every offering that is offered upon the fire [of the altar] requires drink. offerings, hence even the meal-offering requires the drink-offerings; the text therefore added, A burnt-offering. Whence do I know that peace-offerings [require drink-offerings]? Because the text added, A sacrifice. And whence the thank-offering? Because the text added, Or a sacrifice. I would then include also the firstling, the tithe of cattle, the Passover-offering, the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering; but the text stated, In fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering:’ that which is offered in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering requires drink-offerings, but that which is not offered in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering does not require drink-offerings; the implication being to exclude the above. I would then exclude also the obligatory offerings that are offered on account of the festival on the festival, namely the ‘appearance burnt-offerings and the festival peace-offerings; but the text stated, Or in your appointed seasons: whatever is offered on your appointed seasons requires drink-offerings; the implication being to include the above. I would then include the he-goats for sin-offerings. since they are offered as an obligation on the festival; but the text stated, And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt-offering. Now the bullock was included in the general law, why then was it singled out? To teach you that everything be compared with it: as the bullock 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]. Wherefore did the text state, To make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock? It is because it says ‘A burnt-offering’, and that, I would have said, included the burnt-offering of a bird; the text therefore stated, ‘Of the herd or of the flock’, [thereby excluding the burnt-offering of a bird]. So R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says, This is quite unnecessary, for the text stated, ‘A sacrifice’, and a bird-offering is no sacrifice. Wherefore then did the text state, ‘Of the herd or of the flock’? It is because it is said previously, When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd and of the flock. Now I might have thought that if a man said, ‘I take upon myself [to offer] a burnt-offering’, he must bring [one animal] from each of the two kinds; the text therefore stated here, ‘Of the herd or of the flock’: if he so desires he brings one [animal] or if he so desires two. But why, according to R. Jonathan, is any verse necessary to teach this? Has he not said, ‘Unless the verse expressly states "together"’? — It is necessary, for I might have said that^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ʸnote:For in this case Temple matters are on a par with ordinary lay transactions, and therefore so long as the goods have not yet passed into the hands of the purchaser the contract is not binding. Now the extra se'ah of flour that is supplied to the Temple is deemed to be ‘the surplus of the drink-offerings’, for the flour was intended to be used for the drink-offerings, and is used for the altar's ‘dessert’.
^ᶻnote:Sc. the overflow of the measures.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lit., ‘by being kept overnight’.
^ᵃᵇnote:If there is no other animal-offering available.
^ᵃᶜnote:These are the meal-offering of flour and oil and the wine-offering that accompanied the animal-offering.
^ᵃᵈnote:Num. XV, 3, with reference to the drink-offerings.
^ᵃᵉnote:Num. XV, 3. Only an animal-offering requires drink-offerings.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid., with reference to the drink-offerings.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid. The expression ‘or’ extends the scope of the law.
^ᵃʰnote:For the firstling and the tithe of cattle etc. are obligatory offerings.
^ᵃⁱnote:The offerings to be offered by every Israelite on appearing at the Temple on the three great festivals. Cf. Deut. XVI, 16.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e.,that the musaf or additional sacrifices of the festivals should require drink-offerings.
^ᵃᵏnote:Num. XV, 8.
^ᵃˡnote:Laid down in v. 3: And ye will make an offering by fire, which includes everything that is offered by fire (Rashi MS.). Or expressly stated in the end of that verse: Of the herd or of the flock (R. Gershom, Tosaf.).
^ᵃᵐnote:This excludes the he-goats for the sin-offerings, since the sin-offering is an obligatory offering.
^ᵃⁿnote:Num. XV, 3.
^ᵃᵒnote:For the Heb. jcz is strictly an animal-offering to which the law of slaughtering vjhcz applies; it therefore excludes a bird-offering which does not require slaughtering but nipping off the head.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. I, 2.
^ᵃᵠnote:Wherever in any law Scripture states two items, the two may be taken either together or separately, according to the other rules governing that law, unless Scripture expressly states ‘together’, as, e.g., in Deut. XXII, 10. The dispute between R. Josiah and R. Jonathan is stated primarily regarding the cursing of parents in Lev. XX, 9. V. Sanh. 85b and Hul. 78b. As the expression ‘together’ is not found in Lev. I, 2, one would have assumed at the outset that an offering of one kind alone was permissible.