## Menachot Daf 60b

###### Menachot 60b:1
[Menachot 60b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:1)

מִנְחַת חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. מָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה – אַף מִנְחַת חוֹבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
which is **an obligatory meal offering; and it is stated there,** with regard to the deep-pan meal offering, which is **a voluntary meal offering. Just as a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near, so too an obligatory meal offering,** such as the meal offering of a sinner, **requires bringing near.**


###### Menachot 60b:2
[Menachot 60b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:2)

מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this inference: **What** is notable about **a voluntary meal offering?** It is notable in that **it requires oil and frankincense** upon it, rendering its *halakha* more stringent than that of the meal offering of a sinner, which does not include oil and frankincense. Therefore, it would be logical to suggest that a voluntary meal offering requires bringing near but the meal offering of a sinner does not. The *baraita* responds: **The meal offering** brought by **a *sota*,** i.e., the meal offering of jealousy, **can prove** that this factor is not decisive, as it does not include oil and frankincense either, and yet it requires bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:3
[Menachot 60b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:3)

מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this claim: One cannot derive the *halakha* of the meal offering of a sinner from the meal offering brought by a *sota*, as there is another requirement that applies to the meal offering brought by a *sota* but not to the meal offering of a sinner: **What** is notable **about the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*?** It is notable **in that it requires waving,** whereas the meal offering of a sinner does not. The *baraita* responds: **The voluntary meal offering can prove** that waving is not the decisive factor, as a voluntary meal offering does not require waving and yet it requires bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:4
[Menachot 60b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:4)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁשָּׁוָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תַּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point, as **the aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that** the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a *sota* **are equal with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful, and** similarly **they are equal with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near. I will also bring** the additional case of **the meal offering of a sinner, which is equal to them with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful,** and conclude that **it should** likewise **be equal to them with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near.**


###### Menachot 60b:5
[Menachot 60b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:5)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי, תֹּאמַר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא בְּעָשִׁיר כִּבְעָנִי? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this suggestion: **What** is notable **about** the **common element** of the voluntary meal offering and the meal offering brought by a *sota*? It is notable **in that they are suited to come** as the meal offering **of a wealthy person** just **as** they are suited to come as the meal offering **of a poor person.** Shall **you say** the same **with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, which is not suitable to come** either as the meal offering **of a wealthy person** or as the meal offering **of a poor person,** since a sinner who is not poor does not bring a meal offering but a different offering (see Leviticus 5:6–11)? Therefore, **the verse states: “The meal offering”** (Leviticus 2:8), with the addition of the definite article, to include the meal offering of a sinner in the requirement of bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:6
[Menachot 60b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:6)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״, ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon** adds to the logical inference and **says** that other cases are included in the derivation from the verse, as the term **“and you shall bring”** serves **to include the *omer* meal offering in** the requirement of **bringing near** to the altar; **and so** the verse **states** with regard to the *omer* meal offering: **“Then you shall bring the *omer*, the first of your harvest to the priest”** (Leviticus 23:10). Furthermore, **“and it shall be drawn near”** serves **to include the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*** in the requirement **of bringing near; and so** the verse **states** with regard to the meal offering brought by a *sota*: **“And draw it near to the altar”** (Numbers 5:25).


###### Menachot 60b:7
[Menachot 60b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:7)

וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת סוֹטָה, שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה! מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* challenges: **But** this *halakha* **is** capable of being derived *a fortiori* by **logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner,** which includes a lenient aspect, **as it does not require waving,** nevertheless **requires bringing near,** then with regard to **the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*, which does require waving, is it not logical** to conclude **that** it should **require bringing near?** The *baraita* rejects this logical inference, as there is a stringency that applies to the meal offering of a sinner which does not apply to the meal offering brought by a *sota*: **What** is notable **about the meal offering of a sinner?** It is notable **in that it comes from wheat,** whereas the meal offering brought by a *sota* comes from barley, an inferior product.


###### Menachot 60b:8
[Menachot 60b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:8)

מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה? מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* responds: **The *omer* meal offering can prove** that this factor is not decisive, as it also comes from barley, and yet it requires bringing near. Therefore, the same should apply to the meal offering brought by a *sota*. The *baraita* rejects this claim: **What** is notable **about the *omer* meal offering?** It is notable **in that it requires oil and frankincense,** whereas the meal offering brought by a *sota* does not. The *baraita* answers: **The meal offering of a sinner can prove** that the requirement of oil and frankincense is not a decisive factor, as the meal offering of a sinner does not require oil and frankincense and yet it requires bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:9
[Menachot 60b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:9)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁשָּׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה – תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point, as **the aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that** both the *omer* meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner **are equal with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near. I will also bring** the additional case of **the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*, which is equal to them with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful,** and conclude that **it should** likewise **be equal to them with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near.**


###### Menachot 60b:10
[Menachot 60b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:10)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּכְשְׁרוּ לָבֹא קֶמַח, תֹּאמַר מִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה לָבֹא קֶמַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this suggestion: **What** is notable **about** the **common element** of the *omer* meal offering and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable **in that they are** both **not suited to come** as coarse **flour,** but only as fine flour. Shall **you say** the same **with regard to the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*, which is suited to come** as coarse **flour?** Therefore, **the verse states: “And draw it near,”** which serves to include the meal offering brought by a *sota* in the requirement of bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:11
[Menachot 60b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:11)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ – לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת קׇרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was stated that Rabbi Shimon derives from the term “and you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:8), written in the context of the deep-pan meal offering, that the *omer* meal offering is included in the requirement of bringing near. Conversely, **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The term **“and you shall bring”** serves **to include the meal offering** brought by **a *sota* in** the requirement of **bringing near; and so** the verse **states** with regard to the meal offering brought by a *sota*: “Then the man shall bring his wife to the priest, **and shall bring her offering for her,** a tenth of an ephah of barley flour; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor give frankincense upon it, for it is a meal offering of jealousy, a meal offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance” (Numbers 5:15).


###### Menachot 60b:12
[Menachot 60b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:12)

אֲבָל מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא צְרִיכָא קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? מִדִּינָא קָא אָתְיָא: וּמָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה, מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁטְּעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to **the *omer* meal offering, a verse is not needed** to teach that it requires bringing near. The *baraita* asks: **What is the reason** that no verse is needed for the *omer* meal offering? It is because this *halakha* **is derived** *a fortiori* **by logical inference: And if the meal offering of a sinner,** which includes a lenient aspect, **as it does not require waving,** nevertheless **requires bringing near,** then with regard to **the *omer* meal offering,** which includes a stringent aspect, **as it** does **require waving, is it not logical** to conclude **that** it should **require bringing near?**


###### Menachot 60b:13
[Menachot 60b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:13)

מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין? מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ. מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן, דְּ״מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן״ הִיא! מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this inference: **What** is notable **about the meal offering of a sinner?** It is notable **in that it comes from wheat,** whereas the *omer* meal offering comes from barley. The *baraita* responds: **The meal offering** brought by **a *sota* can prove** that this factor is not decisive, as it comes from barley and yet it requires bringing near. The same should apply to the *omer* meal offering. The *baraita* rejects this claim: **What** is notable **about the meal offering** brought by **a *sota*?** It is notable **in that it comes to clarify** whether or not the wife committed the **transgression** of adultery, **as it is** described with the phrase: **“Bringing iniquity to remembrance,”** whereas the omer meal offering does not come to clarify whether or not one transgressed. The *baraita* answers: **The meal offering of a sinner can prove** otherwise, as it does not come to clarify transgression and yet it requires bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:14
[Menachot 60b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:14)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן שָׁווּ לִקְמִיצָה, וְשָׁווּ לְהַגָּשָׁה, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה לָהֶן לִקְמִיצָה, תִּשְׁוֶה לָהֶן לְהַגָּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the inference has reverted** to its starting point, as **the aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case; **their common element** is **that** both the meal offering brought by a *sota* and the meal offering of a sinner **are equal with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful, and they are equal with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near. I will also bring** the additional case of **the *omer* meal offering, which is equal to them with regard to** the requirement of the **removal of a handful,** and conclude that **it should** likewise **be equal to them with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near.** In this manner the requirement of bringing the *omer* meal offering near to the altar is derived jointly from the meal offering brought by a *sota* and the meal offering of a sinner.


###### Menachot 60b:15
[Menachot 60b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:15)

וּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And how** would you **refute** this logical inference? In other words, there is no refutation of this claim, and it is therefore unclear why it was necessary for Rabbi Shimon to derive the requirement of bringing near concerning the *omer* meal offering from the term: “And you shall bring.” The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Shimon refutes** the claim in **this** manner: **What** is notable **about** the **common element** of the meal offering brought by a *sota* and the meal offering of a sinner? It is notable **in that they are common** offerings, i.e., they can be brought many times over the course of a year, whereas the *omer* offering is sacrificed only once a year.


###### Menachot 60b:16
[Menachot 60b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:16)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אַדְּרַבָּה, הָא מְצוּיָיה טְפֵי, הָנָךְ זִימְנִין דְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Yehuda** respond to this claim? He maintains that this is not a valid refutation, as **on the contrary, this** *omer* meal offering is **more common** than the meal offering brought by a *sota* and the meal offering of a sinner. The *omer* meal offering is definitely brought once a year, whereas in the case of **these** offerings, **there** may be **times when you do not find it at all,** if no poor sinners come forward and no women are accused of adultery by their husbands.


###### Menachot 60b:17
[Menachot 60b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:17)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״וְהֵבֵאתָ״ אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּחִיד מִתְנַדֵּב וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת, חוּץ מֵאֵלֶּה שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita*: **Or** perhaps when the verse **states: “And you shall bring,”** this does **not** serve to teach about the requirement of bringing near **but rather** is written for a different reason: To indicate **that an individual** Jew **may donate and bring a different** kind of **meal offering,** one made from barley, **apart from these** five meal offerings, all made from wheat, **which** the verse mentions **with regard to this matter** (see Leviticus 2:1–13). The five offerings are the fine-flour meal offering, the meal offering prepared in the pan, the meal offering prepared in the deep pan, and the meal offering baked in the oven, either in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers.


###### Menachot 60b:18
[Menachot 60b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:18)

וְדִין הוּא: צִיבּוּר מֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין חוֹבָה, וּמֵבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין חוֹבָה, אַף יָחִיד שֶׁמֵּבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַחִיטִּין נְדָבָה – יָכוֹל יָבִיא מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נְדָבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֵלֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this *halakha* **is** necessary because the opposite conclusion could otherwise have been derived by **logical inference** based on juxtaposition: The **community brings an obligatory meal offering from wheat,** i.e., the two loaves brought on the festival of *Shavuot*, **and** the community also **brings an obligatory meal offering from barley,** the *omer* meal offering. **So too an individual, who brings a meal offering from wheat** as a voluntary **gift** offering, **can** likewise **bring a meal offering from barley** as a voluntary **gift** offering. Therefore, to prevent this inference, **the verse states:** “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of **these** to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:8), which teaches: I have **nothing other than these** five meal offerings as individual meal offerings.


###### Menachot 60b:19
[Menachot 60b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:19)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר ״אֵלֶּה״ אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״, שֶׁמֵּבִיא חֲמִישְׁתָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״ – רָצָה אַחַת מֵבִיא, רָצָה חֲמִישְׁתָּן מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* raises a difficulty: **Or** perhaps the verse **states “these” not** in order to exclude other individual meal offerings **but rather to** teach a *halakha* **with regard to** one who takes a vow to bring a meal offering and **says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a meal offering,** without specifying a particular type of meal offering, and it teaches **that he must bring** all **five of them.** The *baraita* explains: **The verse states: “Of these,”** which indicates that if the one who took a vow **wants, he brings one** meal offering, and if he **wants, he brings** all **five of them.**


###### Menachot 60b:20
[Menachot 60b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:20)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״אֶת הַמִּנְחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם מִנְחַת נָשִׁים, לְהַגָּשָׁה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מֵאֵלֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Shimon says:** When the verse states: **“The meal offering”** (Leviticus 2:8), this serves **to include** the **other meal offerings, for example the meal offering of gentiles** and **a meal offering** brought **by women, with regard to** the requirement of **bringing near.** One **might** have thought **that I** should **include** from this verse **even the two loaves and the shewbread.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Of these,”** which indicates that not all meal offerings are included in the requirement of bringing near.


###### Menachot 60b:21
[Menachot 60b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:21)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, וּלְהוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵהֶן לָאִישִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **And what did you see** that led you **to include** the **other meal offerings** in the requirement of bringing near, **and to exclude the two loaves and the shewbread** from this *halakha*? One could suggest the opposite conclusion, to include these two offerings while excluding the others. The *baraita* answers: **I include** the **other meal offerings, as there is** a portion **of them** burned **in** the **fire** on the altar, **and I exclude the two loaves and the shewbread** from the requirement of bringing near, **as there is no** portion **of them** burned **in** the **fire** on the altar. Rather, they are eaten by the priests in their entirety.


###### Menachot 60b:22
[Menachot 60b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:22)

וַהֲלֹא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים כּוּלָּהּ לָאִישִּׁים, יָכוֹל (יְהֵא) [תְּהֵא] טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **But** with regard to the **meal offering** brought with **libations,** which is **entirely** burned **in** the **fire,** by this logic one **might** have thought that **it** should **require bringing near.** The *baraita* answers: **The verse states:** “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, **and it shall be drawn near** to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). This indicates that the requirement of bringing near applies only to those meal offerings listed in this chapter, not to the meal offering brought with libations, which is not mentioned.


###### Menachot 60b:23
[Menachot 60b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/60b:23)

וְהָא אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ ״וְהִקְרִיב״ ״וְהִקְרִיבָהּ״, וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת שְׁאָר מְנָחוֹת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִנְחַת נְסָכִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **But didn’t you** already **derive** from the term: “And it shall be drawn near,” that the meal offering brought by a *sota* is included in the requirement of bringing near? The *baraita* answers: As the verse could have stated: **And shall be drawn near,** and instead it states: **“And it shall be drawn near,”** this addition serves to exclude the meal offering brought with libations from the requirement of bringing near. The *baraita* asks: **And what did you see** that led you **to include** the **other meal offerings** in the requirement of bringing near **and to exclude the meal offering** brought with **libations** from this requirement?