Commentary for Menachot 180:15

איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא

since they are offered as an obligation on the festival; but the text stated, And when thou preparest a bullock for a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 8.');">¹³</span> Now the bullock was included in the general law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.) .');">¹⁴</span> 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 [requir drink-offerings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This excludes the he-goats for the sin-offerings, since the sin-offering is an obligatory offering.');">¹⁵</span> Wherefore did the text state, To make a sweet savour unto the Lord, of the herd or of the flock?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3. jcz vjhcz');">¹⁶</span> 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] R'Josiah. R'Jonathan says, This is quite unnecessary, for the text stated, 'A sacrifice', and a bird-offering no sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Heb. is strictly an animal-offering to which the law of slaughtering applies; it therefore excludes a bird-offering which does not require slaughtering but nipping off the head.');">¹⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2.');">¹⁸</span> 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"'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁹</span> - It is necessary, for I might have said that

Explore commentary for Menachot 180:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.