## Menachot Daf 89b

###### Menachot 89b:1
[Menachot 89b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:1)

שֶׁל יוֹם בְּשֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And one may mix together the libations **of** an offering brought on one **day with** those **of the day before,** if the meal offerings have the same ratio of oil to flour.


###### Menachot 89b:2
[Menachot 89b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:2)

אֲבָל אֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאִם בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ – כְּשֵׁרִים, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַל – פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or** the libations of **rams,** as the meal offerings have different ratios of oil to flour. **And** nevertheless, **if one intermingled** the flour and oil of **these** lamb offerings **by themselves and** the flour and oil of **these** bull or ram offerings **by themselves, and** only then **were they mixed together,** then they remain **fit** to be sacrificed. **If** they were mixed together **before** the oil and flour of each offering **were** independently **intermingled** to form the meal offering, then they are **disqualified.**


###### Menachot 89b:3
[Menachot 89b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:3)

הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה – לֹא הָיוּ נְסָכָיו כְּפוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the lamb** offering **that comes with the *omer*** meal offering, which is accompanied by another meal offering and a wine libation, **even though** the quantity of flour used in **its meal offering is doubled,** i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, **its** oil and wine **libations were not doubled;** rather, three *log* of oil and three *log* of wine were used, per the standard quantities used for a lamb.


###### Menachot 89b:4
[Menachot 89b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna states that different types of libations may be mixed together provided that the meal offerings have the same flour to oil ratio. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from a *baraita* discussing the verse: “And he shall sacrifice, from the peace offerings, a fire to the Lord: The fat covering the innards, and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys with the fat that is on them, which is over the loins; and the diaphragm with the liver, with the kidneys, he shall take away. And Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar, apart from the burnt offering, which is on the wood that is on the fire; it is a fire of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 3:3–5).


###### Menachot 89b:5
[Menachot 89b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:5)

״וְהִקְטִירוֹ״, שֶׁלֹּא יְעָרֵב חֲלָבִים בַּחֲלָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The direct object of the term: **“And they shall burn,”** i.e., the pronoun “it,” is singular, despite referring to the many types of fats listed in the verse. This indicates **that one may not mix fats** of one offering **with the fats** of a different offering, but should burn the parts from each offering separately. Similarly, it follows that the libations accompanying different animal offerings should not be mixed together.


###### Menachot 89b:6
[Menachot 89b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אִם נִתְעָרְבוּ״ קָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The mishna **stated** only that **if** libations of different offerings **were mixed** together one may still sacrifice them, but not that this is permitted *ab initio*. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and *baraita*.


###### Menachot 89b:7
[Menachot 89b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:7)

אִי הָכִי, וְאֵין מְעָרְבִין נִסְכֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנִסְכֵי פָרִים וְאֵילִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִתְעָרְבוּ נָמֵי לָא? וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: בְּלָלָן אֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְאֵלּוּ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְנִתְעָרְבוּ כְּשֵׁרִין, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לְכַתְּחִלָּה קָא אָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **If that is so,** then when the mishna states in its first clause: **And one may not mix together the libations of lambs with the libations of bulls or** the libations of **rams,** the intention is that **even** after the fact, if **they were mixed together,** they are **also not** valid. The Gemara challenges: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause teaches:** If **one intermingled** the flour and oil of **these** lamb offerings **by themselves and** the flour and oil of **these** bull or ram offerings **by themselves and** only then **were they mixed together** then they remain **fit** to be sacrificed, which is explicitly referring to the *halakha* after the fact, **it may be inferred that the first clause stated** the *halakha **ab initio*****.**


###### Menachot 89b:8
[Menachot 89b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר, מְעָרְבִין יֵינָן, אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that **this** is what the mishna **is saying:** When different animal offerings are sacrificed, **their wine** libations **may be mixed together** *ab initio*, but only **if their fine flour and their oil** from their respective meal offerings **were** already **mixed together,** albeit improperly.


###### Menachot 89b:9
[Menachot 89b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:9)

וְיֵינָן לְכִתְחִלָּה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּסֹלֶת וָשֶׁמֶן, אֲבָל יַיִן מְעָרְבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is it correct that one may **not** mix together the **wine** libations of different offerings ***ab initio*** unless their flour and oil were already mixed? **But isn’t it taught** in the continuation of the *baraita* just cited: **In what** case **is this statement,** that one may not mix together parts from different offerings, **said?** It is said only **with regard to flour and oil. But one may mix together** the **wine** libations of different offerings. The implication is that this is the *halakha* even if their meal offerings had not been mixed together.


###### Menachot 89b:10
[Menachot 89b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר – הֵיכָא דְּהוּקְטַר סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין יַיִן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הֵיכָא דְּלָא הוּקְטַר – אִם נִתְעָרֵב סׇלְתָּן וְשַׁמְנָן, מְעָרְבִין נָמֵי יֵינָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין מְעָרְבִין, דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹבֵי סֹלֶת וְשֶׁמֶן לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** that **this** is what the mishna **is saying:** With regard to offerings of similar types of animals, **where their fine flour and their oil** from their respective meal offerings **have been burned** on the altar, **one may mix together** the **wine** libations ***ab initio*.** And even **where** their fine flour and their oil **have not been burned, if their fine flour and their oil have** at least **been mixed together, one may mix together their wine** libations *ab initio*. **But if** the fine flour and oil have **not** been mixed together, then **one may not mix** the libations **together.** The reason is that if one does mix the libations, **perhaps one will come to mix together** their **flour and oil *ab initio*,** which is prohibited.


###### Menachot 89b:11
[Menachot 89b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:11)

כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר, תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״, לִימֵּד עַל כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **the lamb** offering **that comes with the *omer*** meal offering, the quantity of flour used in its meal offering is doubled, i.e., one uses twice the amount that is generally used for meal offerings that accompany the sacrifice of a lamb, but the quantities of oil and wine are not doubled. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the *omer* meal offering: **“And its meal offering shall be two tenths”** (Leviticus 23:13). This verse **teaches about** the **lamb that comes with the *omer* that** the size of **its meal offering is doubled.**


###### Menachot 89b:12
[Menachot 89b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:12)

יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, כָּךְ יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ יַיִן רְבִיעִית הַהִין״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יֵינוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ, אֲבָל יְהֵא שַׁמְנוֹ כָּפוּל שֶׁנִּבְלָל עִם מִנְחָתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״ – כׇּל נְסָכָיו לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא רְבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that **just as its meal offering is doubled, so** too **its wine** libation should be **doubled,** i.e., instead of using a quarter-*hin*, as is generally done for lambs, one should use a half-*hin*. To counter this, **the verse states,** in its continuation: **“And its libation shall be of wine, a quarter-*hin*”** (Leviticus 23:13). One **might** have thought that it is only **its wine** libation that **should not be doubled, as it is not intermingled with** the flour of **its meal offering, but its oil should be doubled, as it is intermingled with** the flour of **its meal offering.** To counter this, **the verse states: “And its libation** shall be of wine, a quarter-*hin*,” which teaches that **all of its libations shall be only a quarter**-***hin***, but no more.


###### Menachot 89b:13
[Menachot 89b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:13)

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּתִיב ״וְנִסְכָּהּ״, וְקָרֵינַן ״וְנִסְכּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates on the final proof in the *baraita*: **What is the** biblical **derivation** here? **Rabbi Elazar says:** There is an ambiguity as to whether the possessive pronoun in the term “and its libation” is referring to the lamb offering or the meal offering, both of which are mentioned previously in the verse. This is due to a disparity between the way the Hebrew word for the term is written and the way it is vocalized. **It is written** as ***veniskah*,** with the possessive pronoun in the feminine form. This would be referring to the meal offering [*minḥa*], which is a feminine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the meal offering, and it is referring to the oil that is intermingled in the meal offering. **And we read it** as ***venisko*,** with the possessive pronoun in the masculine form. This would be referring to the lamb offering itself [*keves*], which is a masculine noun. Accordingly, this means: The libation of the lamb offering, which is a reference to the wine libation that accompanies the lamb offering.


###### Menachot 89b:14
[Menachot 89b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:14)

כֵּיצַד? ״נִסְכָּהּ״ דְּמִנְחָה כְּ״נִסְכּוֹ״ דְּיַיִן – מָה יַיִן רְבִיעִית, אַף שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי רְבִיעִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How** can this be explained? It teaches that **the libation of the meal offering,** i.e., its oil, **is like the libation of** the lamb **of wine: Just as** the quantity of **wine** used is **a quarter**-*hin*, **so too,** the quantity of **oil** used is **a quarter**-*hin* and no more.


###### Menachot 89b:15
[Menachot 89b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, טָעוּן נְסָכִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a related discussion: A guilt offering brought by a leper as part of his purification process is distinct from other guilt offerings in that there is an additional requirement that it must be brought together with a meal offering and a wine libation. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of **a guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for its own sake,** although the leper can therefore no longer fulfill his obligation with it, the offering continues to be regarded as a guilt offering of a leper and still **requires libations,** i.e., a meal offering and a wine libation; **as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.** To bring it without libations one would have to regard it as a standard guilt offering, but the *halakha* is that an offering may not be sacrificed for a different purpose than the one for which it was originally consecrated.


###### Menachot 89b:16
[Menachot 89b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:16)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כֶּבֶשׂ הַבָּא עִם הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, תְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ כְּפוּלָה, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Menashya bar Gadda objects to this: If that is so,** that whenever an offering is consecrated for a specific purpose that requires various additional conditions to be fulfilled beyond those normally required for that type of offering, then even if it is then slaughtered not for its own sake those conditions must still be fulfilled in order for the offering to be valid; then with regard to the **lamb** offering **that comes with the *omer*** meal offering the *halakha* should likewise be that if **one slaughtered it not for its own sake,** the flour in **its meal offering should** still **be doubled** in quantity, as normally required for the *omer* meal offering, because it continues to be regarded as an *omer* meal offering, **as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.**


###### Menachot 89b:17
[Menachot 89b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:17)

וְתָמִיד שֶׁל שַׁחַר שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ. וְתָמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, יְהֵא טָעוּן שְׁנֵי גְזִירִין בִּשְׁנֵי כֹהֲנִים, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – פְּסַלְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, with regard to the **daily morning offering,** if **one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should** still **require** the arrangement of **two logs** of wood on the fire on the altar **by one priest,** because it continues to be regarded as a daily morning offering; **as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it. And** similarly, with regard to the **daily afternoon offering,** if **one slaughtered it not for its own sake, it should** still **require** the arrangement of **two logs** of wood on the fire on the altar **by two priests,** because it continues to be regarded as a daily afternoon offering; **as if you do not say this, you have disqualified it.** The fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not mention these *halakhot* suggests that he holds they are not correct, but then his opinion is logically inconsistent.


###### Menachot 89b:18
[Menachot 89b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:18)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ נְקַט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara deflects the objection: **Yes, it is indeed so** that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling should be extended to other cases, as Rav Menashya bar Gadda claimed. **Rather, Abaye said:** Rabbi Yoḥanan **mentioned** just **one of them** as an example, even though they are all correct.


###### Menachot 89b:19
[Menachot 89b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/89b:19)

רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנָךְ, עוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said** that there is a different resolution: Actually, Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling is limited to a guilt offering of a leper. The other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid even if the additional conditions that originally applied to them were not fulfilled. The reason for this is as follows: **Granted, these** other offerings that Rav Menashya bar Gadda mentioned would be valid, as **they are burnt offerings;**