Traité Menachot

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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).

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.