Menachot

if [he had undertaken to supply it] at three and the price subsequently stood at four, he must supply it at four,1 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 it2 had been kept overnight, it is thereby3 rendered invalid. Otherwise4 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-OFFERINGS5 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,6 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.7 Whence do I know that peace-offerings [require drink-offerings]? Because the text added, A sacrifice.8 And whence the thank-offering? Because the text added, Or a sacrifice.9 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:’8 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.10 I would then exclude also the obligatory offerings that are offered on account of the festival on the festival, namely the ‘appearance burnt-offerings11 and the festival peace-offerings; but the text stated, Or in your appointed seasons: 8 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.12 since they are offered as an obligation on the festival; but the text stated, And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt-offering.13 Now the bullock was included in the general law,14 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].15 Wherefore did the text state, To make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock?16 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.17 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.18 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"’? 19 — It is necessary, for I might have said that 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’. 16. MS.). Or expressly stated in the end of that verse: Of the herd or of the flock (R. Gershom, Tosaf.). excludes a bird-offering which does not require slaughtering but nipping off the head. 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.