Menachot Daf 91 (מנחות דף צ״א)
Daf: 91 | Amudim: 91a – 91b | Date: 11 Nisan 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (91a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution for Rabbi Yonatan: the prefix “and” in Leviticus mimics “together”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״, כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ דָּמֵי.
English Translation:
Since in Leviticus 1:2 it is written: “And of the flock,” and not merely: Of the flock, it is as though the word: Together, was written in the verse. Therefore, the verse in Numbers 15, which does state: “Or of the flock,” is necessary to teach that this is not the case.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment resolves the challenge raised at the end of the previous daf against Rabbi Yonatan. His principle states that when the Torah mentions two items together, both are not required unless the Torah says “together” (yachdav). But Leviticus 1:2 writes “and of the flock” (u’min hatzon) — the conjunctive prefix “and” (vav) functions as if “together” were written, implying both types are required. Therefore, Numbers 15’s “or of the flock” is necessary to override this implication and teach that either one suffices.
Key Terms:
- וּמִן = “And of”; the conjunctive vav prefix that mimics “together”
- יַחְדָּו = Together; a keyword that mandates both items
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
For Rabbi Yoshiya, where does he learn that either type suffices?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב ״יַחְדָּו״ דָּמֵי, לִיבְעֵי קְרָא!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said that even though it is not explicitly written in the verse: Together, it is as though it is written: Together, i.e., it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled only when both details are realized, a verse should be required. Yet, in the baraita, Rabbi Yoshiya expounds the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” to teach a different halakha. From where, then, does he derive that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering does not need to bring both types of animals?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns the challenge around. Rabbi Yoshiya holds that whenever two items are listed together, both are always required — even without the word “together.” So he should need Numbers 15’s “or” to teach that either animal suffices. But the baraita shows him using that phrase for a different derivation (excluding bird offerings). Where, then, does he learn that one type of animal suffices?
Key Terms:
- לִיבְעֵי קְרָא = He should need a verse; the expected derivation is missing
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yoshiya derives it from the separate verses in Leviticus 1
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכְתִיב: ״אִם עֹלָה קׇרְבָּנוֹ מִן הַבָּקָר״, ״וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן קׇרְבָּנוֹ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Isn’t it written: “If his offering is a burnt offering of the herd” (Leviticus 1:3), and then in a separate verse it states: “And if his offering is of the flock” (Leviticus 1:9)? The fact that these possibilities are presented in two disjointed verses is an explicit indication that the burnt offering can be brought from even just one of these animals. Therefore, even Rabbi Yoshiya concedes that there is no reason to presume a burnt offering must be brought from both types there.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegant. Leviticus 1 presents the herd and flock options in completely separate passages — each with its own opening phrase “If his offering is…” This structural separation is far stronger than just using the word “or”; it explicitly presents them as independent alternatives. Even Rabbi Yoshiya, who normally requires both items when listed together, concedes that separate verses establish independent options.
Key Terms:
- אִם = If; introducing an independent conditional case
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yonatan still needed the verse for unspecified vows
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִידָּךְ, אִיצְטְרִיךְ – סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּמְפָרֵשׁ, אֲבָל בִּסְתָמָא – לַיְיתֵי מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ! קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And as for the other tanna, Rabbi Yonatan, why does he require a verse at all? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to have a verse to teach this, because otherwise it might enter your mind to say: These statements, i.e., the verses that indicate it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal, concern a case where one specifies in his vow that he intends to bring just one animal, and the verses indicate that it is valid to bring just one. But if one vowed without specification, one might say: Let him bring burnt offerings from both of them. Therefore the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” teaches us that even in that case, it is sufficient to bring just one type of animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Despite his general principle that two listed items need not both be fulfilled, Rabbi Yonatan still needed the verse in Numbers 15. One might distinguish between a specified vow (“I will bring a bull”) and an unspecified vow (“I will bring a burnt offering”). The separate verses in Leviticus 1 might only apply when the type is specified; an unspecified vow might still require both types. The “or” in Numbers 15 eliminates this distinction.
Key Terms:
- מְפָרֵשׁ = Specifies; explicitly stating what one intends to bring
- סְתָמָא = Without specification; an unqualified vow
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Why does the thanks offering need a separate derivation for libations?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: תּוֹדָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ זֶבַח״. אַטּוּ תּוֹדָה לָאו זֶבַח הוּא? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיכָּא לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – לָא תִּיבְעֵי נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: From where is it derived that a peace offering requires libations? The verse states: “A sacrifice.” From where is it derived that a thanks offering requires libations? The verse states: “Or a sacrifice.” The superfluous word “or” includes thanks offerings. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that a thanks offering is not referred to as a sacrifice? It certainly is. Why, then, is it only included through the word “or”? The Gemara answers: An independent inclusion was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since in any event there is bread brought together with the thanks offering, it should not require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses a logical question: the thanks offering (todah) is a type of sacrifice (zevach), so it should automatically be included in the libation requirement without needing the word “or.” The answer reveals a potential reasoning for exclusion: since the todah already comes with forty loaves (four types of bread), one might think it does not also need libations (flour, oil, and wine). The word “or” preemptively rejects this argument.
Key Terms:
- לֶחֶם = Bread; the forty loaves accompanying the thanks offering
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
But the nazirite’s ram also has bread and requires libations!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵאֵיל נָזִיר, דְּאִיכָּא בַּהֲדֵיהּ לֶחֶם, וּבָעֵי נְסָכִים?
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a question concerning this explanation: But in what way is a thanks offering different from a nazirite’s ram, as there is bread brought together with it also, and yet it requires libations? The verse states with regard to the ram of a nazirite: “And one unblemished ram for a peace offering, and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their meal offering, and their libations” (Numbers 6:13–15).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the reasoning. If the presence of bread should exempt an offering from libations, why doesn’t the nazirite’s ram — which also comes with a basket of unleavened bread — get the same exemption? The nazirite’s ram explicitly requires libations despite its accompanying bread.
Key Terms:
- אֵיל נָזִיר = Ram of a nazirite; a peace offering brought upon completing the nazirite vow
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The todah has four types of bread vs. two for the nazirite — hence separate derivation needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָתָם שְׁנֵי מִינִין, הָכָא אַרְבַּעַת מִינִין – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that one should differentiate between the thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram as there, together with the nazirite’s ram, he brings only two types of bread, i.e., loaves and wafers, whereas, here, together with the thanks offering, one brings four types of bread. Therefore, one might have concluded that since there are many types of loaves it does not require libations. For that reason it is necessary to have an independent derivation that teaches us that it does require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction lies in the quantity and variety of bread. The nazirite’s ram comes with only two types of bread (loaves and wafers), while the todah comes with four types (loaves, wafers, poached loaves, and leavened bread). One might argue that with so many bread varieties already accompanying the offering, additional libations would be excessive. The verse preempts this reasoning.
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Why is “burnt offering” needed in the verse? “Vow or gift” should suffice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״עֹלָה״?
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes another one of the derivations of the baraita. The verse states: And you will make a fire offering to the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice, in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift.” This teaches that an offering that comes in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations. The Gemara challenges: But if that is the halakha, then let the Merciful One write only: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,” and it would be unnecessary to write: “A burnt offering,” as a burnt offering is a type of offering that can be brought as a vow or gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions the seemingly redundant mention of “burnt offering” in the verse. If the neder/nedavah criterion already establishes which offerings need libations, why mention “burnt offering” separately? The answer will reveal that without it, the verse would be expounded differently using the hermeneutical principle of kelal ufrat ukhlal (generalization, detail, generalization).
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = Generalization, detail, generalization; a hermeneutical principle for expounding verses
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Without “burnt offering,” kelal ufrat ukhlal would include bekhor, ma’aser, and Pesach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לָא כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֹלָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: ״וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳״ – כְּלָל, ״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה״ – פְּרָט, ״לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט: מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בָּא עַל חֵטְא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Had the Merciful One not written “a burnt offering,” I would say that the verse should be expounded as follows: “And you will make a fire offering to the Lord” is a generalization, indicating that all offerings require libations. But then it states: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered, or as a gift,” which is a detail, indicating that the requirement applies only to offerings brought in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift. But with “to make a pleasing aroma to the Lord” it then generalized. If so, this is a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and according to the principles of exegesis you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the detail is explicit in referring to an offering that does not come to atone for a sin, but comes to fulfill a vow or as a gift, so too any offering that does not come to atone for a sin requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a masterful application of the kelal ufrat ukhlal hermeneutic. Without the word “burnt offering,” the verse would be read as: generalization (“fire offering”) — detail (“vow or gift”) — generalization (“pleasing aroma”). This would yield: any offering similar to the detail requires libations. The similarity would be “not coming to atone for sin” — which would include the firstborn, tithe, and Paschal offerings (which are not sin-related but are obligatory). Only sin and guilt offerings would be excluded. The word “burnt offering” disrupts this reading and narrows the criterion to voluntary offerings.
Key Terms:
- כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט = Similar to the detail; the resulting category must share the detail’s key characteristic
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Without “burnt offering,” bekhor, ma’aser, and Pesach would incorrectly require libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹצִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא, אָבִיא בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹלָה״.
English Translation:
Accordingly, I would exclude a sin offering and a guilt offering from the requirement to have libations, as they come to atone for a sin, and I would include the firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, as they do not come to atone for a sin. In order to preclude the possibility of expounding the verses in this way, the verse states: “Burnt offering,” as an additional detail, which serves to further exclude offerings that are brought only in fulfillment of an obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The word “burnt offering” prevents the incorrect inclusion of bekhor, ma’aser, and Pesach. These offerings are not sin-related, so the kelal ufrat ukhlal reading would have included them. By adding “burnt offering” as an additional detail, the Torah narrows the criterion from “not sin-related” to “voluntarily brought” — effectively requiring the neder/nedavah characteristic.
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
What does the kelal ufrat ukhlal now include?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״עֹלָה״, כְּלָל וּפְרָט, מָה מְרַבֵּית בֵּיהּ? מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב וְעוֹמֵד, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּיָּיב וְעוֹמֵד.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Now that it is written: “Burnt offering,” what do you include through the generalization and detail and generalization in this verse? The Gemara explains: Just as the detail of a burnt offering is explicit in referring to an offering that one had not always been obligated to bring, as it is referring to a burnt offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, which one became obligated to bring only once the vow was taken, so too, any offering that one had not always been obligated to bring requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
With the revised criterion — “not always obligated” — the kelal ufrat ukhlal framework now includes offerings that arise from circumstances other than an always-existing obligation. This broader category captures several edge cases listed in the following segments.
Key Terms:
- מְחוּיָּיב וְעוֹמֵד = Always obligated; an obligation that exists from the outset, like the firstborn
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Included: offspring of consecrated animals, substitutes, offerings from surpluses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהָבִיא וַלְדוֹת קֳדָשִׁים, וּתְמוּרָתָן, וְעוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת.
English Translation:
This serves to include in the requirement for libations the offspring of consecrated animals, e.g., of a female peace offering; and substitutes of consecrated animals, i.e., a non-sacred animal with regard to which one stated that it should be a substitute for a consecrated animal, in which case the result is that both animals are consecrated and must be sacrificed; and a burnt offering that comes from the proceeds of having sold surpluses of items donated to the Temple that were not needed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The kelal ufrat ukhlal framework now includes three categories of offerings that were not always obligatory: (1) offspring of consecrated animals — if a consecrated female peace offering gives birth, the offspring is also consecrated; (2) substitutes — when someone declares a non-sacred animal as a substitute for a consecrated one, both become sacred; (3) surplus offerings — items donated to the Temple that exceed requirements are sold, and the proceeds buy burnt offerings. All three arise from circumstances, not from pre-existing obligations.
Key Terms:
- וַלְדוֹת קֳדָשִׁים = Offspring of consecrated animals
- תְּמוּרָה = Substitute; a non-sacred animal declared as a replacement for a consecrated one
- מוֹתָרוֹת = Surpluses; excess donated items
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Also included: redirected guilt offerings and offerings slaughtered not for their sake
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה, וְכׇל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.
English Translation:
And this also serves to include a guilt offering whose owner either died or achieved atonement through sacrificing another animal and which was therefore consigned to grazing until it developed a blemish, at which point it should be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings for the altar. If instead, the guilt offering itself was sacrificed as a burnt offering, it is valid. In such a case, the offering requires libations. And this also serves to include all offerings that were slaughtered not for their own sake. Such offerings were brought to fulfill the owner’s obligation. Since they were not sacrificed for the sake of that purpose, the owner does not fulfill his obligation, but nevertheless the offerings are valid. In such a case, these offerings also require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more categories are included. A redirected guilt offering (asham shenitak lire’iyah) — when the owner no longer needs it, the animal grazes until blemished, then is sold for supplementary offerings; if instead sacrificed directly as a burnt offering, it requires libations. And all offerings slaughtered not for their intended purpose (shelo lishman) — valid post-facto but do not fulfill the owner’s obligation. These too require libations, connecting to Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling discussed on daf 89b.
Key Terms:
- נִיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה = Consigned to grazing; a guilt offering no longer needed by its owner
- שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן = Not for their own sake; slaughtered with wrong intent
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Why “or” is needed in “vow or gift” — to separate between the two
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״אוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁא, לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ לִנְדָבָה, לְמָה לִי? לְחֶלְקָם. אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עַד דְּמַיְיתֵי נֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה לָא לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַיְיתִי נֶדֶר לְחוֹדֵיהּ לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, וְאִי אַיְיתִי נְדָבָה לְחוֹדֵיהּ לַיְיתֵי נְסָכִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And now that you have said that the word “or” in the phrase “or a sacrifice” is necessary for the derivation that teaches that the thanks offering requires libations, I can similarly ask why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “in fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or as a gift,” to separate between them? The Gemara explains: It was necessary to write “or” in that phrase, as it might enter your mind to say that until one brings both a vow offering and a gift offering together they do not require libations. The word “or” teaches us otherwise, that even if one brings a vow offering by itself it requires libations, and if one brings a gift offering by itself he must bring libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara systematically accounts for every “or” in the passage. This “or” between neder and nedavah teaches that each type independently requires libations — one need not bring both a vow and a gift offering for the libation requirement to apply. Each offering stands alone.
Key Terms:
- לְחֶלְקָם = To separate them; to teach that each applies independently
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
For Rabbi Yonatan: “or” teaches that even two together each need separate libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: אַיְיתִי נֶדֶר לְחוֹדֵיהּ – לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, אַיְיתִי נְדָבָה לְחוֹדֵיהּ – לִיבְעֵי נְסָכִים, אַיְיתִי נֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה – תִּיסְגֵּי בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, as he holds that whenever the Torah does not explicitly separate between two details stated with regard to a halakha, it is presumed that the halakha is fulfilled only when both details are realized. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan, who holds that in general it is presumed that either detail is sufficient, why do I need the word “or”? The Gemara explains: Were it not for this word, it might enter your mind to say that although the halakha is that if one brings a vow offering by itself it requires libations, and if one brings a gift offering by itself it requires libations, nevertheless, if one brings both a vow offering and a gift offering together, it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the word “or” teaches us that libations are required for each offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
For Rabbi Yonatan, the “or” serves a different purpose. Since he already holds that each item independently suffices, the “or” teaches something new: even when two offerings of different types are brought together, each one requires its own separate libations. You cannot combine or share libations between a vow offering and a gift offering.
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
“Or on your Festivals”: even if offerings differ only in type but share commitment type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה בְּנֶדֶר וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “or on your Festivals”? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that even when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only when they are distinct both in the type of offering and in the nature of the obligation to bring them, such as where one brings a burnt offering in fulfillment of a vow and a peace offering as a gift offering, or vice versa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a systematic exploration of when multiple offerings each require their own libations. Each successive “or” in the passage eliminates another possible scenario where one might think shared libations suffice. This “or” addresses the case where offerings differ in type (olah vs. shelamim) but share the same commitment type (both neder or both nedavah).
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Even same commitment type requires separate libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר, אִי נָמֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, שֵׁם נֶדֶר אֶחָד וְשֵׁם נְדָבָה אַחַת הִיא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״אוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.
English Translation:
But where one brings a burnt offering and a peace offering both in fulfillment of a vow, or alternatively, a burnt offering and a peace offering both as gift offerings, one might have said that since in the former case both offerings are of a single type of commitment, i.e., a vow, and in the latter case both are of a single type of commitment, i.e., a gift offering, therefore it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” in the phrase “or on your Festivals” teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the type of offering, libations are required for each offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Even when both offerings share the same commitment type (both vows or both gifts), separate libations are still required because they are different types of offerings (olah vs. shelamim). The “or” prevents the conclusion that shared commitment type allows shared libations.
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
“Burnt offering or sacrifice” (Numbers 15:9): same type different commitment
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְכִי תַעֲשֶׂה בֶן בָּקָר עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״, לְמָה לִי? אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר, אִי נָמֵי עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues its analysis: Why do I need the word “or” in the verse: “And when you prepare a young bull for a burnt offering or for a sacrifice” (Numbers 15:9)? The Gemara explains: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only when the two offerings are distinct in the type of offering, such as where one brings a burnt offering and a peace offering both in fulfillment of a vow, or alternatively, a burnt offering and a peace offering both as a gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The next “or” addresses the reverse case from the previous segment: when the offerings are the same type but differ in commitment type.
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Even same type with different commitment requires separate libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים, אֶחָד בְּנֶדֶר וְאֶחָד בִּנְדָבָה, אֵימָא שֵׁם שְׁלָמִים אַחַת הִיא, שֵׁם עוֹלָה אַחַת הִיא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
But where one brings two burnt offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, I would say that since in the former case both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a peace offering, and in the latter case both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a burnt offering, therefore it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” teaches us that even if they are distinct only in the nature of the commitment to bring them, libations are required for each offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two burnt offerings — one vowed, one voluntary — might seem like “one type” that could share libations. The “or” teaches otherwise: each offering requires its own libations regardless of shared type.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
“Vow or peace offerings” (Numbers 15:8): even completely identical offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לְפַלֵּא נֶדֶר אוֹ שְׁלָמִים״, לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּמַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים, חֲדָא בְּנֶדֶר וַחֲדָא בִּנְדָבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: Why do I need the word “or” in the verse: “In fulfillment of a vow clearly uttered or for peace offerings” (Numbers 15:8)? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where two offerings are distinct from each other either in the nature of the commitment to bring them or in the type of offering, such as where one brings two burnt offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, one in fulfillment of a vow and one as a gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes the analysis to its logical conclusion. The previous derivations covered cases where offerings differed in at least one dimension (type or commitment). What about completely identical offerings?
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
Even two identical offerings each need their own libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּקָא מַיְיתֵי שְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת בְּנֶדֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי עוֹלוֹת בִּנְדָבָה, אִי נָמֵי שָׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים בְּנֶדֶר וּשְׁנֵי שְׁלָמִים בִּנְדָבָה, שֵׁם עוֹלָה אֶחָד הוּא וְשֵׁם נֶדֶר אֶחָד הוּא, וְתִיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
But where one brings two burnt offerings, both in fulfillment of a vow, or two burnt offerings, both as a gift offering, or alternatively, two peace offerings, both in fulfillment of a vow, or two peace offerings, both as a gift offering, I might have said with regard to the first of these cases that since both offerings are of a single type of offering, i.e., a burnt offering, and of a single type of commitment, i.e., a vow, and likewise with regard to the other cases, therefore, it would be sufficient to bring libations for just one of them. Consequently, the word “or” teaches us that even if the offerings are not distinct from each other at all, libations are nevertheless required for each one.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the culmination of the “or” analysis. Even two completely identical offerings — same type, same commitment type — each require their own separate libations. The principle is absolute: every individual animal offering requires its own independent set of libations. There is no “bulk discount” or sharing of libations between offerings.
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yoshiya: what does “or” in “of the herd or of the flock” teach him?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, הַאי ״מִן הַבָּקָר אוֹ מִן הַצֹּאן״ לְמָה לִּי?
English Translation:
The baraita teaches that according to Rabbi Yonatan, the word “or” in the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” teaches that one who takes a vow to bring a burnt offering fulfills his obligation even if he brings only one animal, either from the herd or from the flock. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yoshiya, why do I need the word “or” in this phrase “of the herd or of the flock”? Although the baraita explains that he expounds the phrase to teach that one does not bring libations with a bird offering, it does not explain what he derives from the word “or.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Having exhausted the analysis of each “or” according to Rabbi Yonatan, the Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoshiya. He used the phrase “of the herd or of the flock” to exclude birds. But what about the word “or” specifically?
Segment 23
TYPE: תירוץ
For Rabbi Yoshiya: “or” teaches same-kind animals still need separate libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי [בִּתְרֵי מִינֵי, אֲבָל בְּחַד מִינָא – תִּסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: The word “or” is necessary, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where one brings two kinds of animals, i.e., one from the flock and one from the herd; but where both animals are of a single kind, it would be sufficient for him to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the word “or” teaches us that even if the offerings are of the same kind of animal, libations are nevertheless required for each one.
קלאוד על הדף:
For Rabbi Yoshiya, the “or” between “herd” and “flock” teaches that even two animals of the same species — e.g., two lambs from the same flock — each require independent libations. This final case ensures that the principle of individual libations per offering is comprehensive.
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
“So shall be done for each one” — even if consecrated simultaneously
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כָּכָה תַּעֲשׂוּ לָאֶחָד״, לְמָה לִי? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי] בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲבָל בְּבַת אַחַת – תִּיסְגֵּי לֵיהּ בִּנְסָכִים דְּחַד; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
Later in the passage concerning libations it states: “So shall be done for each young bull, or for each ram, or for each of the lambs, or of the goats. According to the number that you may prepare, so you shall do for each one according to their number” (Numbers 15:11–12). The Gemara asks: Why do I need this verse? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that when two offerings are brought together libations are required for each of them, applies only where the offerings were consecrated one after the other. But if they were consecrated at the same time, it would be sufficient for him to bring libations for just one of them. Therefore, the verse teaches us that in all cases, one must bring separate libations for each animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
This final verse addresses the last possible scenario for shared libations: simultaneous consecration. Even if two animals are consecrated in a single statement at the same moment, each still requires its own libations. The verse “so you shall do for each one according to their number” makes the principle absolute and exhaustive.
Key Terms:
- בְּבַת אַחַת = Simultaneously; at the same time
- בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה = One after another; sequentially
Segment 25
TYPE: ברייתא
Source for the leper’s sin and guilt offerings requiring libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע וַאֲשָׁמוֹ טָעוּן נְסָכִים, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים סֹלֶת מִנְחָה״ – בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that in general sin offerings and guilt offerings do not require libations. But the exception is that the sin offering of a leper and his guilt offering require libations. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita concerning the following verse, which details the offerings a leper is required to bring as part of his purification process: “And on the eighth day he shall take two unblemished male lambs, and one unblemished female lamb in its year, and three-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, and one log of oil” (Leviticus 14:10). The baraita explains: It is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks, and so it is stating that each of the three offerings mentioned requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the most notable exception: why do the leper’s sin and guilt offerings require libations when all other sin and guilt offerings are exempt? The answer begins with Leviticus 14:10, which mentions “three-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering” in the context of the leper’s three offerings. The “three tenths” matches the three offerings (one tenth per offering), establishing that each of the leper’s offerings comes with a meal offering — and therefore with libations.
Key Terms:
- שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים = Three tenths of an ephah; one for each of the leper’s three offerings
Segment 26
TYPE: ברייתא
The meal offering accompanies the animal offering, not independent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהֶעֱלָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָעֹלָה וְאֶת הַמִּנְחָה״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בְּמִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Do you say that it is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks? Or perhaps it is only with regard to a meal offering that comes by itself. When the verse states, in the continuation of that passage: “And the priest shall sacrifice the burnt offering and the meal offering” (Leviticus 14:20), which demonstrates that the meal offering accompanies the burnt offering, you must say that in the earlier verse as well it is with regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering that the verse speaks.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita confirms that the three-tenths meal offering is an accompanying offering (minchat nesakhim), not an independent meal offering. Leviticus 14:20 explicitly pairs the meal offering with the burnt offering, proving they are linked. This is significant because accompanying meal offerings are part of the libation system, confirming that the leper’s offerings require full libations.
Segment 27
TYPE: ברייתא
Each word in Numbers 15:5 refers to one of the leper’s three offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַעֲדַיִין אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים וְאִם לָאו, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְיַיִן לַנֶּסֶךְ רְבִיעִית הַהִין תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הָעֹלָה אוֹ לַזָּבַח לַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד״, ״עֹלָה״ – זוֹ עוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, ״זָבַח״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע, ״אוֹ לַזָּבַח״ – זוֹ אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
English Translation:
But still, I do not know whether this meal offering requires wine libations or whether it does not. Therefore, the verse states: “And wine for pouring a libation, a quarter-hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb” (Numbers 15:5). The verse is expounded as referring to each of the leper’s offerings: “The burnt offering”; this is referring to the burnt offering of a leper. “The sacrifice”; this is referring to the sin offering of a leper. And as for the word “or” in the phrase “or for the sacrifice,” this is referring to the guilt offering of a leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the derivation by connecting Numbers 15:5 to the leper’s three offerings. Each term in the verse corresponds to one offering: “burnt offering” = the leper’s olah, “sacrifice” = the leper’s hattat, and “or for the sacrifice” = the leper’s asham. This triple derivation from a single verse confirms that all three of the leper’s offerings require wine libations in addition to the meal offering already established from Leviticus 14.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע = Burnt offering of a leper
- חַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע = Sin offering of a leper
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע = Guilt offering of a leper
Segment 28
TYPE: קושיא
Why can’t both sin and guilt offerings be derived from “sacrifice” alone?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִ״זָּבַח״,
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna derive both the sin offering and the guilt offering from the word “sacrifice” alone, without relating to the word “or.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the need for two separate derivations (one from “sacrifice” and one from “or for the sacrifice”). If “sacrifice” (zevach) can encompass both sin and guilt offerings — as it does in other contexts — why not derive both from the single word? The answer, which appears on the next amud, will distinguish between the leper’s and the nazirite’s offerings.
Amud Bet (91b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
In the nazirite context, both are derived from one word because they serve the same purpose
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר מָר: חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זָּבַח״.
English Translation:
This would be just as the Master said in a baraita concerning a nazirite: A nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship is required to shave his hair and bring various offerings. With regard to the shaved hair, the verse states: “And he shall take the hair of his nazirite head, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Numbers 6:18). The baraita asks: From where is it derived that if, instead of putting his hair on the fire under the peace offering, he puts it on the fire under his sin offering or under his guilt offering, he still fulfills the obligation? The verse states: “The sacrifice,” which serves to include these two offerings. Evidently, the term “sacrifice” refers both to a sin offering and to a guilt offering. Why does the baraita concerning a leper derive a guilt offering only from the word “or”?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a parallel case. For a nazirite, the single word “sacrifice” includes both sin and guilt offerings — proving the term can cover both. If so, why can’t the same be done for the leper’s offerings?
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The leper’s sin and guilt offerings serve different purposes, requiring separate derivations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאָשָׁם לְהַכְשִׁיר וְחַטָּאת לְכַפֵּר – בָּעֵינַן תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: This matter, that both a sin offering and a guilt offering can be derived from the same term, applies only where they are both brought together, for the same purpose, as in the case of a nazirite. Both offerings serve to render him fit, in the case of a pure nazirite to partake of wine and cut his hair, and in the case of an impure nazirite to begin counting his term of naziriteship again. But in the case of a leper, where his guilt offering serves to render him fit to return to the camp and his sin offering serves to atone for the sin that was the cause of his leprosy, since they come for different purposes, we need two verses, i.e., sources, to teach about the two of them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The key distinction: the nazirite’s offerings all serve a unified purpose (rendering him fit), so a single derivation covers both. The leper’s offerings serve fundamentally different purposes — the asham permits his reentry to the camp (lehaKhshir), while the hattat atones for the sin that caused his leprosy (lekhaper). Since they serve different functions, each requires its own independent scriptural source.
Key Terms:
- לְהַכְשִׁיר = To render fit; the guilt offering restores the leper’s status
- לְכַפֵּר = To atone; the sin offering addresses the underlying transgression
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps “sacrifice” refers to the nazirite’s offerings, not the leper’s
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״זָבַח״ – זוֹ חַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע, וְאֵימָא זוֹ חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּנָזִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara once again questions the derivations in the baraita: “The sacrifice”; this is referring to the sin offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite. The sin offering is brought by a nazirite who completes his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering is brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure. Accordingly, only those offerings of a nazirite would require libations, but not the burnt offering of a leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the assignment of terms to offerings. Why assume “sacrifice” refers to the leper’s sin offering rather than the nazirite’s? If it referred to the nazirite’s offerings, there would be no scriptural source for the leper’s unique libation requirement.
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
A nazirite’s sin and guilt offerings do not require libations — derived from the ram paradigm
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ – בְּעוֹלָתוֹ וּבִשְׁלָמָיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this possibility. This should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita: In describing the offerings a nazirite brings upon the completion of his term of naziriteship, the verse states: “And he shall sacrifice his offering to the Lord, one unblemished male lamb in its year as a burnt offering, and one unblemished female lamb in its year as a sin offering, and one unblemished ram as peace offerings…and their meal offering, and their libations” (Numbers 6:14–15). The baraita explains that it is with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering, mentioned earlier in that passage, that the verse speaks, and so it is only those nazirite offerings that require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the challenge. A separate baraita establishes that “their meal offering and their libations” in Numbers 6:14-15 refers only to the nazirite’s burnt offering and peace offering — not to his sin offering. Since the nazirite’s sin offering is already known not to require libations, “sacrifice” in Numbers 15:5 cannot refer to it and must refer to the leper’s sin offering.
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Confirmation: the nazirite’s libation requirement covers only olah and shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעוֹלָתוֹ וּבִשְׁלָמָיו, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חַטָּאת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶת הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים וּמִנְחָתוֹ וְנִסְכּוֹ״.
English Translation:
Do you say that the verse speaks with regard to his burnt offering and his peace offering? Or perhaps the verse speaks even with regard to the sin offering that a nazirite brings if he becomes ritually impure? To preclude the possibility of explaining the verse in that way, the verse states in the subsequent verses: “And he shall make the ram a sacrifice of a peace offering to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread; and the priest shall offer its meal offering and its libations” (Numbers 6:16–17).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita proves that the nazirite’s sin offering is excluded from libations through the singling out of the ram in Numbers 6:16-17. Since the ram (peace offering) was already included in the general libation requirement, its separate mention must serve to establish a paradigm.
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
The ram paradigm: only vow/gift offerings require libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַיִל בַּכְּלָל הָיָה, וְלָמָּה יָצָא? לְהַקִּישׁ אֵלָיו. מָה אַיִל מְיוּחָד בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה, אַף כֹּל בָּא בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה.
English Translation:
Now, this ram offering was already included with all other peace offerings, which all require libations. Why, then, was it singled out in this verse with an independent statement teaching that it requires libations? It was in order to equate all other offerings to it, teaching that the requirement of libations applies only to offerings similar to it. Just as a ram is distinct in that it can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering, so too, any offering that can come in fulfillment of a vow or as a gift offering requires libations. This excludes the sin offering and guilt offering of a nazirite, as they cannot be brought as vow offerings or gift offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The nazirite’s ram serves the same paradigmatic function as the young bull discussed earlier on daf 90b. The principle “davar shehayah bikhlal veyatza” (something singled out from a general rule) is applied: the ram establishes that only offerings capable of being voluntary require libations. This definitively excludes the nazirite’s sin offering, confirming that “sacrifice” in Numbers 15:5 must refer to the leper’s offerings.
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps “burnt offering” in Numbers 15:5 refers to a woman who gave birth, not a leper
Hebrew/Aramatic:
״עֹלָה״ – זוֹ עוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, וְאֵימָא זוֹ עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת?
English Translation:
The Gemara questions another of the derivations in the baraita: “The burnt offering”; this is referring to the burnt offering of a leper. The Gemara asks: And how does the baraita know this? I could say instead that this is referring the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth (see Leviticus 12:6), and if so, there would be no source to require libations for the burnt offering of a leper.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises another possible reassignment. “Burnt offering” could refer to the olat yoledet (the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth) rather than the leper’s burnt offering. This would leave the leper without a source for libations on his burnt offering.
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye: the yoledet’s offering is derived from the end of the verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת מִסֵּיפָא דִּקְרָא נָפְקָא.
English Translation:
Abaye said: The requirement to bring libations with the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth is derived from the end of that verse, so the term “the burnt offering,” mentioned just before it, remains available to include the burnt offering of a leper in the requirement for libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves the challenge by showing that the yoledet’s offering is derived from a different part of the same verse (“for the one lamb” at the end), leaving “the burnt offering” at the beginning available for the leper. Each part of the verse is assigned to a different offering, preventing duplication.
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Natan: “for the lamb” = yoledet; “the one” = eleventh animal of tithe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: ״לַכֶּבֶשׂ״ – זוֹ עוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת, ״הָאֶחָד״ – זֶה אַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר [שֶׁקָּרֵב שְׁלָמִים].
English Translation:
This is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And wine for pouring libations, a quarter-hin, you shall prepare with the burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for the one lamb” (Numbers 15:5). Rabbi Natan says: “For the one lamb”; this is referring to the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and includes that offering in the requirement for libations. “The one”; this is referring to the eleventh animal of the animal tithe, which is sacrificed as a peace offering. In order to tithe his animals, the owner counts them one by one, and every tenth animal is consecrated as an animal tithe offering. If, when counting, he accidently counts the tenth animal as the ninth and the eleventh as the tenth, both are consecrated, the former as the animal tithe and the latter as a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Natan’s reading assigns every word in the verse to a specific offering. “For the lamb” includes the yoledet’s offering. “The one” includes an unusual case: the eleventh animal that was accidentally counted as the tithe. Since the tenth animal (the actual tithe) doesn’t require libations, the eleventh — which becomes a peace offering — might seem exempt too. The verse teaches otherwise.
Key Terms:
- אַחַד עָשָׂר שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר = The eleventh animal of the tithe; accidentally consecrated as a peace offering
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Why the eleventh animal needs its own derivation: the ancillary can’t be stricter than the principal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לָהּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁיְּהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.
English Translation:
The baraita comments: It is necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that the eleventh animal requires libations, because we do not find another halakha like this in the entire Torah, in which the ancillary case is more stringent than the principal case. In this case, the animal tithe offering itself does not require libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
A remarkable principle: the “ancillary cannot be more stringent than the principal” (tafel hamur min ha’ikkar). The eleventh animal’s sanctity derives from the tenth animal (the actual tithe). Since the tithe itself doesn’t require libations, one would expect the derivative eleventh animal — which only becomes a peace offering by accident — to also be exempt. Without an explicit derivation, it would be illogical for the derivative to bear a greater burden than its source.
Key Terms:
- טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר = The ancillary is more stringent than the principal; an anomalous result requiring explicit derivation
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava’s alternative: three inclusions point to the leper’s three offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה רִבּוּיִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ מְצוֹרָע.
English Translation:
The Gemara presents another answer. Rava says: The verse is expounded to be referring to three different offerings and includes them in the requirement to bring libations. It is reasonable that these three offerings all share an association with each other. What is the only matter in which three offerings are brought that would necessitate three inclusions to teach that each of them require libations? You must say that this is the offerings of a leper, who brings three different offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers a different approach entirely. Rather than assigning each term to a specific offering, he reasons structurally: the verse contains three inclusionary elements, so they must correspond to a set of three related offerings that all need inclusion. The only set that fits is the leper’s three offerings — olah, hattat, and asham. This elegant argument makes the identification without relying on the specific word assignments used by the previous derivation.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
“For a ram” in Numbers 15:6 includes the High Priest’s ram on Yom Kippur
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לָאַיִל״, לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְרַבּוֹת אֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן.
English Translation:
§ It is further stated in the passage concerning libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6–7). The details of the meal offering brought with a ram are also mentioned elsewhere: “And two-tenths of fine flour for a meal offering, mixed with oil, for the one ram” (Numbers 28:12); therefore, the Gemara asks: Why do I need the verse here to state this? Rav Sheshet says: This verse serves to include in the requirement for libations the ram of Aaron, i.e., the ram of the High Priest that he sacrifices as a burnt offering on Yom Kippur.
קלאוד על הדף:
The duplicate mention of ram libations in Numbers 15 (when Numbers 28 already states the same) serves to include the High Priest’s Yom Kippur ram in the libation requirement. This is an individual obligation with a fixed time — characteristics that might otherwise exclude it.
Key Terms:
- אֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן = Aaron’s ram; the High Priest’s burnt offering on Yom Kippur
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Shouldn’t the Yom Kippur ram be included from “on your Festivals”?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵילוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, מִ״בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ נָפְקָא! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּצִבּוּר, אֲבָל דְּיָחִיד – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But the requirement to bring libations with the ram of Aaron should be derived from the term: “On your Festivals” (Numbers 15:3), as the baraita derived from that term that all obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations. The Gemara resolves this challenge: It is necessary to have an independent derivation for the ram of Aaron, as it might enter your mind to say that this matter, that obligatory offerings of Festivals require libations, applies only to communal offerings, but not to offerings of an individual, such as the ram of Aaron.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises the expected challenge: “on your Festivals” should already include Yom Kippur offerings. The answer: one might limit “Festivals” to communal obligations, while the High Priest’s ram is an individual’s obligation. An independent derivation is needed.
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
How is the ram of Aaron different from a yoledet’s offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת?
English Translation:
The Gemara questions this: But why would one think that because the ram of Aaron is an offering of an individual it would not require libations? In what way is it different from the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, which is also brought by an individual and yet it requires libations?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that individual offerings requiring libations already exist — the yoledet’s offering is one. Why would the High Priest’s ram be excluded simply for being individual?
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
The yoledet has no fixed time; the High Priest’s ram does
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן, אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן – אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this matter, i.e., the conclusion drawn from the halakha of the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth that even offerings of an individual require libations, applies only to an offering that does not have a fixed time when it must be sacrificed; but with regard to an offering that has a fixed time when it must be sacrificed, I might say that it does not require libations. Accordingly, it is necessary to have an independent derivation that teaches us that the ram of Aaron requires libations.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is between time-bound and non-time-bound individual obligations. A yoledet brings her offering whenever she is ready — no fixed calendar date. The High Priest’s ram must be brought on Yom Kippur — a fixed date. One might think that individual fixed-time obligations are excluded from libations (since “on your Festivals” might apply only to communal fixed-time obligations). The verse prevents this exclusion.
Key Terms:
- קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן = Has a fixed time; must be brought on a specific date
- אֵין קָבוּעַ לוֹ זְמַן = Has no fixed time; can be brought whenever
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
“Or for a ram” includes the palges in the libation requirement
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְמָה לִי? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues to expound the verse cited: Why do I need the word “or” in the phrase “or for a ram”? The Gemara explains: It serves to include the sacrifice of a palges in the requirement to bring libations. When referring to sheep, the Torah speaks only of lambs and rams. A sheep during its first twelve months is called a lamb, and one older than thirteen months is called a ram. A palges is a sheep in its thirteenth month and is never explicitly mentioned by the Torah. It is therefore necessary to have an independent derivation to teach that if one is sacrificed, libations must be brought with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The palges occupies an unusual halakhic position: a sheep in its thirteenth month that is neither a lamb (first year) nor a ram (second year and beyond). The Torah never mentions this intermediate category, so without the “or” in “or for a ram,” there would be no explicit source for its libation requirement.
Key Terms:
- פַּלְגָּס = Palges; a sheep in its thirteenth month, between lamb and ram status
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yohanan vs. Bar Padda on the nature of a palges
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר בִּרְיָה הוּא, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוּ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵי אַיִל, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that a palges is considered an independent entity, i.e., it is not regarded as a lamb or a ram, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): One who is obligated to sacrifice a lamb or a ram and sacrificed a palges should bring with it the libations that are required when bringing a ram, but nevertheless its sacrifice is not considered a fulfillment of his obligation to bring an offering of a ram or a lamb. And, commenting on this mishna, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring libations in this case is derived from the phrase “or for a ram,” which serves to include the sacrifice of a palges.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yohanan views the palges as a unique entity (beriyah) — not a lamb, not a ram, but its own category. As such, it needs an explicit verse to be included in the libation requirement, since the Torah’s standard categories (lamb, ram) don’t naturally cover it. The mishna confirms this: a palges brings ram-level libations but doesn’t fulfill either a lamb or ram obligation.
Key Terms:
- בִּרְיָה = An independent entity; its own unique category
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
For Bar Padda, who says the palges is a doubtful case, why is a verse needed?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְבַר פְּדָא, דְּאָמַר: מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי, דִּסְפֵיקָא הוּא, אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי סְפֵיקָא?
English Translation:
But the need for an independent derivation is difficult according to the opinion of bar Padda; as he said that in the mishna’s case, the individual brings the libations of a ram but stipulates concerning them that if a palges is a ram, then all of the libations should be regarded as its libations, and if a palges is a lamb, then the quantity of those libations required for a lamb should be regarded as its libations and the rest should be regarded as a gift offering, because he holds that a palges is either a lamb or a ram but that it is uncertain to us which it is. According to bar Padda, one can ask: Is it necessary to have a verse to include an uncertain case? Although it is not known how to categorize a palges, it is included either in the category of a sheep or a ram, and its libations are therefore detailed in the verse.
קלאוד על הדף:
Bar Padda views the palges as a case of uncertainty (safek) — it is definitely either a lamb or a ram, we just don’t know which. Since it falls into one of the existing categories regardless, it shouldn’t need a special verse to include it. The owner simply brings ram-level libations with a stipulation covering both possibilities. This makes the verse seemingly unnecessary.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵיקָא = Uncertainty; a doubtful case
- מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי = He brings and stipulates; making a conditional declaration
Segment 19
TYPE: מסקנא
The difficulty for Bar Padda stands
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַדַּאי לְבַר פְּדָא קַשְׁיָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: Certainly, according to the opinion of bar Padda, this matter is difficult.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara leaves the difficulty unresolved — a kashya (difficulty) against Bar Padda’s position, though not a decisive refutation. This is stronger than a mere question but weaker than a complete disproof.
Segment 20
TYPE: גמרא
Numbers 15:11 — “for the one bull”: no distinction between bull and calf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לַשּׁוֹר הָאֶחָד אוֹ לָאַיִל הָאֶחָד אוֹ לַשֶּׂה בַכְּבָשִׂים אוֹ בָעִזִּים״. ״לְשׁוֹר הָאֶחָד״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין נִסְכֵי אַיִל לְנִסְכֵי כֶבֶשׂ, יָכוֹל נְחַלֵּק בֵּין נִסְכֵי פַר לְנִסְכֵי עֵגֶל – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לַשּׁוֹר הָאֶחָד״.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara discusses another verse in the passage about libations: “So it shall be done for the one bull, or for the one ram, or for the kid of the lambs or of the goats” (Numbers 15:11). Ostensibly, this verse states nothing beyond that which has already been explained in the beginning of that passage, which delineates the requirement of libations for each type of animal offering. The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “For the one bull”? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates between the libations of a ram and the libations of a lamb, even though they are both sheep, one might have thought that we should likewise differentiate between the libations of a bull, which is in its second year, and the libations of a calf, which is still in its first year. Therefore, the verse states: “For the one bull,” teaching that there is one halakha for all bulls, including calves, i.e., the same requirement applies to them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Numbers 15:11 seems redundant — it restates what was already taught about animal libations. The Gemara explains that each phrase prevents a potential incorrect analogy. Since the Torah differentiates between a ram and a lamb (both sheep but different libation amounts), one might similarly differentiate between an adult bull and a calf. “For the one bull” teaches that all cattle, regardless of age, follow the same libation standard.
Key Terms:
- פַר = Bull; a mature bovine
- עֵגֶל = Calf; a young bovine in its first year
Segment 21
TYPE: גמרא
“For the one ram”: no distinction between a second-year and third-year ram
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אוֹ לָאַיִל״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין נִסְכֵי בֶּן שָׁנָה לְנִסְכֵי בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, יָכוֹל נְחַלֵּק בֵּין נִסְכֵי בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם לְנִסְכֵי בֶּן שָׁלֹשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ לָאַיִל הָאֶחָד״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “For the one ram”? The Gemara answers: Since we have found the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a lamb in its first year and the libations of a ram in its second year, one might have thought that we should further differentiate with regard to rams themselves between the libations of a ram in its second year and the libations of a ram in its third year. Therefore, the verse states: “For the one ram,” teaching that there is one halakha for all rams.
קלאוד על הדף:
The lamb/ram distinction (first-year vs. second-year sheep) might suggest further age-based distinctions among rams. “For the one ram” establishes that all rams, regardless of age beyond their second year, follow the same libation standard.
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
“For the kid of the lambs”: no distinction between female lamb and ewe
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אוֹ לַשֶּׂה בַּכְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין נִסְכֵי כֶבֶשׂ לְנִסְכֵי אַיִל, יָכוֹל נְחַלֵּק בֵּין נִסְכֵי כִבְשָׂה לְנִסְכֵי רְחֵלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ לַשֶּׂה בַּכְּבָשִׂים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “For the kid of the lambs”? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to male sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a female lamb and the libations of a ewe. Therefore, the verse states: “For the kid of the lambs.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Since male sheep are differentiated by age for libation purposes (lamb vs. ram), one might similarly differentiate among female sheep (young kivsah vs. mature rechelah). The verse prevents this: all female sheep follow the same standard.
Key Terms:
- כִּבְשָׂה = Female lamb; a young female sheep
- רְחֵלָה = Ewe; a mature female sheep
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
“Or of the goats”: no distinction between kid and older goat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אוֹ בָעִזִּים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין נִסְכֵי כֶבֶשׂ לְנִסְכֵי אַיִל, יָכוֹל נְחַלֵּק בֵּין נִסְכֵי גְדִי לְנִסְכֵי שָׂעִיר – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ בָעִזִּים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why must the verse state: “Or of the goats”? The Gemara answers: Since we have found that the verse differentiates with regard to sheep between the libations of a male lamb and the libations of a ram, one might have thought that we should further differentiate between the libations of a kid and the libations of an older goat. Therefore, the verse states: “Or of the goats.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The final phrase prevents extending the sheep-based age distinction to goats. A young kid and an older goat follow the same libation standard. This completes the systematic demonstration that within each animal category (cattle, rams, female sheep, goats), there are no age-based distinctions for libation quantities. Only the lamb-to-ram transition within male sheep creates a distinction.
Key Terms:
- גְּדִי = Kid; a young goat
- שָׂעִיר = Older goat; a mature male goat
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
Rava tested his students with a question about ewe libations
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בָּדֵיק לַן רָבָא,
English Translation:
§ Having mentioned the libations of a ewe, the Gemara relates that Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us by asking the following question:
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief transitional statement introduces a practical question that Rava posed to his students. The question, which continues on the next daf, likely concerns the practical application of the libation rules regarding ewes — whether a ewe follows the lamb standard or some other measure. This shows how the abstract derivations of this daf were applied as teaching tools.
Key Terms:
- בָּדֵיק לַן = He tested us; Rava challenged his students with a question