Menachot 180

משלש ועמדו מארבע מספק מארבע שיד הקדש על העליונה

if [he had undertaken to supply it] at three and the price subsequently stood at four, he must supply it at four,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'.');">¹</span> for the Temple has always the upper hand.

תניא כוותיה דרבי חייא בר יוסף תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן

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?

תניא כוותיה דרבי חייא בר יוסף בירוצי מידות הללו מה היו עושין בהן אם יש זבח אחר יקריבו עמו ואם לנו יפסלו בלינה ואם לאו מקיצין בהן את המזבח וקיץ זה מהו עולות הבשר לשם ועורות לכהנים

If there was another animal-offering, it may be offered with it; and if it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the overflow of the measures.');">²</span> had been kept overnight, it is thereby<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'by being kept overnight'.');">³</span>

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן המקבל עליו לספק סלתות מארבע ועמדו משלש מספק מארבע משלש ועמדו מארבע מספק מארבע שיד הקדש על העליונה וזהו ששנינו מותר נסכים לקיץ המזבח:

rendered invalid. Otherwise<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If there is no other animal-offering available.');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל קרבנות הציבור והיחיד טעונין נסכים חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר והפסח והחטאת והאשם אלא שחטאתו של מצורע ואשמו טעונין נסכים:

it is offered as 'dessert' for the altar. What is this 'dessert'?

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן

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.

(במדבר טו, ג) ועשיתם אשה לה' יכול כל העולה לאישים יהא טעון נסכים אפילו מנחה תלמוד לומר (במדבר טו, ג) עולה שלמים מנין תלמוד לומר זבח תודה מנין תלמוד לאמר או זבח

This [illustrates] what we have learnt: The surplus of the drink-offerings was used for the altar's 'dessert'. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL THE OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION AND OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUIRE DRINK-OFFERINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are the meal-offering of flour and oil and the wine-offering that accompanied the animal-offering.');">⁵</span>

יכול שאני מרבה אף בכור ומעשר ופסח וחטאת ואשם תלמוד לומר (במדבר טו, ג) לפלא נדר או בנדבה בא בנדר ונדבה טעון נסכים שאינו בא בנדר ונדבה אין טעון נסכים

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. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: [Since it is written,] And ye will make an offering by fire unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3, with reference to the drink-offerings.');">⁶</span>

משמע להוציא את אלו אוציא את חובות הבאות מחמת הרגל ברגל ומאי נינהו עולות ראייה ושלמי חגיגה תלמוד לאמר (במדבר טו, ג) או במועדיכם כל הבא במועדיכם טעון נסכים

I might think that every offering that is offered upon the fire [of the altar] requires drink. offerings, hence ev the meal-offering requires the drink-offerings; the text therefore added, A burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3. Only an animal-offering requires drink-offerings.');">⁷</span>

משמע להביא את אלו אביא שעירי חטאת הואיל ובאין חובה ברגל תלמוד לומר (במדבר טו, ח) וכי תעשה בן בקר

Whence do I know that peace-offerings [require drink-offerings]? Because the text added, A sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., with reference to the drink-offerings.');">⁸</span>

בן בקר בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה בן בקר מיוחד בא בנדר ונדבה אף כל בא בנדר ונדבה

And whence the thank-offering? Because the text added, Or a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The expression 'or' extends the scope of the law.');">⁹</span>

(במדבר טו, ג) לעשות ריח ניחוח לה' מן הבקר או מן הצאן מה תלמוד לאמר לפי שנאמר עולה שומע אני אפילו עולת העוף במשמע תלמוד לאמר מן הבקר או מן הצאן דברי ר' יאשיה

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 clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering:'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., with reference to the drink-offerings.');">⁸</span> that which is offered in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offerin requires drink-offerings, but that which is not offered in fulfilment of a vow or as a freewill-offering does no require drink-offerings; the implication being to exclude the above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the firstling and the tithe of cattle etc. are obligatory offerings.');">¹⁰</span>

רבי יונתן אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר זבח ועוף אינו זבח אם כן מה תלמוד לאמר מן הבקר או מן הצאן לפי שנאמר (ויקרא א, ב) אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן יכול האומר הרי עלי עולה יביא משניהם תלמוד לאמר מן הבקר או מן הצאן רצה אחד מביא רצה שנים מביא

I would then exclude also the obligatory offerings that are offered on account of the festival on the festival, namely the 'appearance burnt-offerings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offerings to be offered by every Israelite on appearing at the Temple on the three great festivals. Cf. Deut. XVI, 16.');">¹¹</span> and the festival peace-offerings; but the text stated, Or in your appointed seasons:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., with reference to the drink-offerings.');">⁸</span>

ורבי יונתן למה לי קרא האמר עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב יחדו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,that the musaf or additional sacrifices of the festivals should require drink-offerings.');">¹²</span>

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