Menachot

since it is written there, And of the flock, it is as though the expression ‘together’ had been used.1 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]!2 — There is written, If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd,3 and there is also written, And if his offering be of the flock.4 And the other?5 — I might have thought that that was so only when a man expressly said so,6 but when he did not say so expressly7 [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?8 — I might have thought that since it is accompanied by a bread-offering it does not require the drink-offerings.9 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 kinds10 [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!11 — 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’12 was a general proposition, ‘in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering’13 a specification, and ‘to make a sweet savour’13 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;14 the text therefore stated, A burnt-offering.15 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,16 so every offering which one is under no obligation to offer [requires drink-offerings]; this includes [for drink-offerings] the young of consecrated animals17 and their substitutes, the burnt-offering brought out of the surplus,18 the guilt-offering condemned to pasture,19 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,20 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.21 but what need was there for that term according to R. Jonathan?22 — 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 that23 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?24 — It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that23 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’?25 — It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that26 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’?27 — It was necessary. for [without it] I might have thought that that26 was so only [where the two animals were] of two kinds,28 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?29 — [Without it] I might have thought that that26 was so only [where the two animals were consecrated] one after the other, but where they were [consecrated] simultaneously30 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:31 this verse refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering.32 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,33 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 it34 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.35 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 be taken in addition to ‘cattle’, thus indicating that two animals must be brought for the offering, and that the intervening expression ‘of the herd’ is merely in apposition to ‘cattle’. According to Tosaf. the suggestion that the expressions in this verse must be taken conjunctively is made by reason of the repetition of the particle in ‘of’, in the verse. namely to exclude bird-offerings. separate passages? animal. superfluous. unleavened wafers (cf. Num. VI, 15), whereas the thank-offering had two additional kinds of cakes, viz., soaked cakes and leavened cakes. freewill-offering. Moreover it was not necessary to state the burnt-offering in order to exclude the meal-offering for that is excluded by the expression ‘sacrifice’. have to include those offerings which were not quite similar to the specification, and therefore even what is not offered in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering (e.g. the firstling) would still require drink-offerings provided it was like the specification in this one respect, viz., that it was not offered in atonement for any sin. and it serves to exclude the firstling and the tithe. in R. Gershom: ‘the substitute of the burnt-offering’ (reading ,urun,v, for ,ur,unv). was condemned to pasture until it became blemished when it was redeemed and the proceeds used for burnt-offerings. V. supra 4a. drink-offerings. accordingly the term ‘or’ is essential here. disjunctive term ‘or’? These animal-offerings consisted of three lambs, one for a burnt-offering, the other for a sin-offering, and the third for a guilt-offering. flour as a drink-offering.