Menachot 181

הואיל וכתיב ומן הצאן כמאן דכתיב יחדו דמי

since it is written there, And of the flock, it is as though the expression 'together' had been used.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to the construction of that verse the interpretation might well be that the words 'and of the flock' must 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 in repetition of the particle 'of', in the verse.');">¹</span> 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]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But R. Josiah actually utilizes the verse, which according to R. Jonathan signifies disjunction, for another purpose, namely to exclude bird-offerings.');">²</span>

ולרבי יאשיה דאמר אף על גב דלא כתיב יחדו כמאן דכתיב יחדו דמי ליבעי קרא

- There is written, If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3.');">³</span> and there is also written, And if his offering be of the flock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10. Since each is dealt with separately it is obvious that each may be brought by itself.');">⁴</span>

הכתיב (ויקרא א, ג) אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר (ויקרא א, י) ואם מן הצאן קרבנו

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can R.Jonathan suggest that both kinds were to be brought together seeing that each is dealt with alone in separate passages?');">⁵</span> - I might have thought that that was so only when a man expressly said so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., 'I take upon myself to offer a lamb (or a bullock) for a burnt-offering'. In this case he expressly mentioned one animal.');">⁶</span>

ואידך איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי במפרש אבל בסתמא לייתי מתרוייהו קמ"ל

but when he did not say so expressly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But simply said, 'I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering'.');">⁷</span> [I would say that] he must bring from [each of] the two kinds; we are therefore taught [otherwise].

אמר מר תודה מנין תלמוד לאמר או זבח אטו תודה לאו זבח הוא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיכא לחם בהדה לא תיבעי נסכים

The Master stated: 'And whence the thank-offering? Because the text added.

ומאי שנא מאיל נזיר דאיכא בהדיה לחם ובעי נסכים

Or a sacrifice'. But is not the thank-offering also a sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thank-offering is surely included under the term 'sacrifice', consequently the expression 'or' is rendered superfluous.');">⁸</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא התם שני מינין הכא ארבעת מינין קמ"ל

- I might have thought that since it is accompanied by a bread-offering it does not require the drink-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the bread-offering (cf. Lev. VII, 12, 13) would take the place of the drink-offerings.');">⁹</span> 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 kinds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bread-offering which accompanied the Nazirite's ram consisted of two kinds only, viz., unleavened cakes and unleavened wafers (cf. Num. VI, 15) , whereas the thank-offering had two additional kinds of cakes, viz., soaked cakes and leavened cakes.');">¹⁰</span>

ולכתוב רחמנא (במדבר טו, ג) לפלא נדר או לנדבה ולא בעי עולה

[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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the burnt-offering would have been included since it is usually brought in fulfilment of a vow or as a 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'.');">¹¹</span>

אי לא כתב רחמנא עולה הוה אמינא ועשיתם אשה לה' כלל לפלא נדר או לנדבה פרט לריח ניחוח חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שאינו בא על חטא אף כל שאין בא על חטא

- 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3.');">¹²</span>

אוציא חטאת ואשם שהן באין על חטא אביא בכור ומעשר ופסח שאין באין על חטא תלמוד לאמר עולה

was a general proposition, 'in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or as a freewill-offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3.');">¹³</span> a specification, and 'to make a sweet savour'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 3.');">¹³</span>

השתא דכתיב עולה כלל ופרט מה מרבית ביה מה הפרט מפורש שאינו מחוייב ועומד אף כל שאינו מחוייב ועומד

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly by the application of the principle of two general propositions separated by a specification we would 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');">¹⁴</span>

להביא ולדות קדשים ותמורתן ועולה הבאה מן המותרות

the text therefore stated, A burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The expression 'a burnt-offering' is also taken as a specification inserted between two general propositions, and it serves to exclude the firstling and the tithe.');">¹⁵</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the burnt-offering mentioned in the verse is clearly a freewill-offering.');">¹⁶</span>

ואשם שניתק לרעיה וכל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן

so every offering which one is under no obligation to offer [requires drink-offerings]; this includes [for drink-offerings] the young of consecrated animals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the young of a peace-offering.');">¹⁷</span> and their substitutes, the burnt-offering brought out of the surplus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the overflow of measures, v. supra 90a. According to another reading given in Rashi MS. and also found in R. Gershom: 'the ,urun,v ,ur,unv substitute of the burnt-offering' (reading , for) .');">¹⁸</span>

והשתא דאמרת או לדרשא לפלא נדר או לנדבה למה לי לחלקם איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא עד דמייתי נדר ונדבה לא ליבעי נסכים קמ"ל דאייתי נדר לחודיה ליבעי נסכים ואי אייתי נדבה לחודיה לייתי נסכים

the guilt-offering condemned to pasture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the guilt-offering was no longer required for its purpose as when the owner thereof had died. The animal was condemned to pasture until it became blemished when it was redeemed and the proceeds used for burnt-offerings. V. supra 4a.');">¹⁹</span> and all offerings that were slaughtered under any name other than their own.

הניחא לרבי יאשיה אלא לר' יונתן למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא אייתי נדר לחודיה ליבעי נסכים אייתי נדבה לחודיה ליבעי נסכים אייתי נדר ונדבה תיסגי בנסכים דחד קמ"ל

Now that you have established that the term 'or' was inserted for an exposition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To indicate disjunction, namely that a burnt-offering of any one animal of the herd or of the flock requires drink-offerings.');">²⁰</span> 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 indicat 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.

או במועדיכם למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי דקא מייתי עולה בנדר ושלמים בנדבה אי נמי איפכא

This is quite in order according to R'Josiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that in the absence of any disjunctive term the particular items would be taken together as one; accordingly the term 'or' is essential here.');">²¹</span> but what need was there for that term according to R'Jonathan?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he holds that without any disjunctive term the items can be taken individually.');">²²</span>

אבל היכא דקא מייתי עולה ושלמים בנדר אי נמי עולה ושלמים בנדבה שם נדר אחד ושם נדבה אחת היא ותיסגי ליה בנסכים דחד קמ"ל או במועדיכם

- 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 that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each offering drink-offerings are required.');">²³</span>

(במדבר טו, ח) וכי תעשה בן בקר עולה או זבח למה לי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי היכא דקא מייתי עולה ושלמים בנדר אי נמי עולה ושלמים בנדבה

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 o 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 8.');">²⁴</span>

אבל היכא דקא מייתי שתי עולות חדא בנדר וחדא בנדבה אי נמי שני שלמים אחד בנדר ואחד בנדבה אימא שם שלמים אחת היא שם עולה אחת היא ותיסגי ליה בנסכים דחד קמ"ל

- It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each offering drink-offerings are required.');">²³</span> 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].

(במדבר טו, ח) לפלא נדר או שלמים למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי היכא דמייתי שתי עולות חדא בנדר וחדא בנדבה אי נמי שני שלמים חדא בנדר וחדא בנדבה

And what need was there for [the 'or' in] the expression 'in fulfilment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace-offerings'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 8.');">²⁵</span> - It was necessary, for [without it] I might have thought that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each offering drink-offerings are required.');">²⁶</span>

אבל היכא דקא מייתי. שתי עולות בנדר ושתי עולות בנדבה אי נמי שני שלמים בנדר ושני שלמים בנדבה שם עולה אחד הוא ושם נדר אחד הוא ותיסגי ליה בנסכים דחד קמ"ל

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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 3. The expression in general has been utilized by him to exclude bird-offerings, but what is the point of the disjunctive term 'or'?');">²⁷</span>

ורבי יאשיה האי מן הבקר או מן הצאן למה לי

- It was necessary. for [without it] I might have thought that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each offering drink-offerings are required.');">²⁶</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי [בתרי מיני אבל בחד מינא תסגי ליה בנסכים דחד קמ"ל

was so only [where the two animals were] of two kinds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., a bullock and a sheep.');">²⁸</span> 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].

(במדבר טו, יב) ככה תעשו לאחד למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא הני מילי] בזה אחר זה אבל בבת אחת תיסגי ליה בנסכים דחד קמ"ל:

And what need was there for the verse, So shall ye do for every one according to their number?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12. This verse also implies that for each offering there must be the drink-offerings.');">²⁹</span> - [Without it] I might have thought that that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each offering drink-offerings are required.');">²⁶</span>

אלא שחטאתו של מצורע ואשמו טעון נסכים: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא יד, י) ושלשה עשרונים סלת מנחה במנחה הבאה עם הזבח הכתוב מדבר

was so only [where the two animals were consecrated] one after the other, but where they were [consecrated] simultaneously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And brought into the Temple at the same time.');">³⁰</span> it is sufficient if the drink-offerings for on only are brought; we are therefore taught [otherwise].

אתה אומר במנחה הבאה עם הזבח או אינו אלא במנחה הבאה בפני עצמה כשהוא אומר (ויקרא יד, כ) והעלה הכהן את העולה ואת המנחה הוי אומר במנחה הבאה עם הזבח הכתוב מדבר

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 10, in reference to the sacrifices brought by a leper of substantial means on the day of his purification. 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.');">³¹</span>

ועדיין איני יודע אם טעונה נסכים ואם לאו תלמוד לאמר (במדבר טו, ה) ויין לנסך רביעית ההין תעשה על העולה או לזבח לכבש האחד עולה זו עולת מצורע זבח זו חטאת מצורע או לזבח זו אשם מצורע

this verse refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., each of the three animal-offerings (v. prec. n.) was accompanied by a meal-offering of one tenth of an ephah of flour as a drink-offering.');">³²</span> You say it refers to the meal-offering that is offered with the animal-offering, but perhaps it is not so but rather it ref to the meal-offering that is offered by itself! Since it says, And the priest shall offer the burnt-offering and meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. In this verse the meal-offering is clearly that which accompanies the burnt-offering as a drink-offering.');">³³</span>

ותיפוק ליה תרוייהו מזבח

you may be sure that the other verse [also] refers to the meal-offering that is offered with t animal-offering. But I still do not know whether it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. each of the leper's animal-offerings.');">³⁴</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 5.');">³⁵</span> 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 deriv from 'the sacrifice'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why are two separate expressions required?');">³⁶</span>