Vayedaber

Simple Havroutah

Mena'hoth

Daf 60b

מִנְחַת חוֹבָה וְנֶאֱמַר הָבֵא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

מנחת חובה. חוטא דהאי קרא דהגשה במנחת נדבה כתיב:

מָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה אַף מִנְחַת חוֹבָה טְעוּנָה הַגָּשָׁה מָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

מנחת סוטה תוכיח. שאינה טעונה שמן ולבונה וטעונה הגשה כדאמרי' לקמן והקריבה לרבות מנחת סוטה להגשה:

מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה תְּנוּפָה מִנְחַת נְדָבָה תּוֹכִיחַ

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

במנחת סוטה כתיב (במדבר ה':כ''ה) והניף את המנחה מנחת חוטא ומנחת נדבה [אין] טעונין תנופה כדקתני במתני':

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

Traduction

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.

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

מנחת חוטא לא הוכשרה לבא אלא בעני. דכתיב בויקרא בקרבן עולה ויורד והביאה אל הכהן וקמץ וגו': ורבי שמעון ותנא קמא לא פליגי אלא מר דריש חדא ומר דריש חדא:

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

Traduction

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).

Rachi non traduit

וכן הוא אומר. במנחת סוטה והקריב אותה אל המזבח:

Tossefoth non traduit

והבאת לרבות מנחת העומר והקריבה לרבות מנחת סוטה. תימה דמוהבאת הוה ליה למילף נמי מנחת סוטה דכתיב בה נמי הבאה כדקאמר ר' יהודה וי''ל דסברא הוא לאוקומי טפי במנחת העומר דאיכא שמן ולבונה ואיכא נמי סולת וזו קמח:

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

והלא דין הוא. ולא בעי קרא למנחת סוטה:

מה מנחת חוטא כו' טעונה הגשה. כדרבינן לעיל מאת המנחה:

Tossefoth non traduit

מנחת סוטה שטעונה תנופה אינו דין וכו'. ותימה ולימא שתי הלחם יוכיחו דטעונים תנופה ולא הגשה כדקאמר במתני' וי''ל דאיכא למיפרך מה לשתי הלחם שכן אין מהן לאישים אך תימה לוג של מצורע ואשמו יוכיחו וכבשי עצרת ושלמי יחיד דטעונין תנופה ולא הגשה ולקמן לרבי יהודה קשה טפי דלא מצריך קרא למנחת העומר מדינא יליף דאיכא למיפרך כדפרישית:

מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תּוֹכִיחַ מָה לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

מנחת העומר באה שעורין בפרק רבי ישמעאל (לקמן מנחות סח:):

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

Traduction

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.

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

ולא הוכשרו לבא קמח. אלא סולת דבמנחת חוטא כתי' עשירית האיפה סולת (ויקרא ה':י''א) ובעומר כתיב (שם ב) מגרשה ומשמנה דהא דכתיב בויקרא וכי תקריב מנחת בכורים במנחת העומר כתיב וגרשה היינו סלת ובמנחת סוטה כתיב קמח שעורים:

ת''ל והקריבה. לרבות מנחת סוטה הואיל ולא אתא מדינא:

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר וְהֵבֵאתָ לְרַבּוֹת מִנְחַת סוֹטָה לְהַגָּשָׁה וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר וְהֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ

Traduction

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).

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

Traduction

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?

Rachi non traduit

אבל מנחת העומר לא צריכא קרא. וא''ת לר' יהודה והקריב מאי דריש ביה תריץ ומוקי לה להך דרשה דדריש רבי שמעון לקמן מן והקריב והקריבה להוציא שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים:

מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה חִיטִּין מִנְחַת סוֹטָה תּוֹכִיחַ מָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן דְּמַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֹן הִיא מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

לברר עון. לידע אם טמאה אם לאו הלכך (לאו) חשיבא היא:

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

Traduction

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.

וּמַאי פָּרְכַתְּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פָּרֵיךְ הָכִי מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן שֶׁכֵּן מְצוּיִין

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

ורבי שמעון. דמצריך קרא למנחת העומר פריך הכי מה להנך שכן מצויין אפי' מאה פעמים בשנה אם אירע הדבר תאמר בעומר דפעם אחת ותו לא:

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

והא מצוייה טפי. דבכל שנה היא:

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

וקפריך תנא או אינו אומר והבאת לא למנחת סוטה ולא לעומר אלא לומר ולרבות שיחיד מתנדב מנחה אחרת שאינו מענין אלו ה' מנחות האמור בפרשה (ויקרא ב':ד') סלת ומחבת ומרחשת ומאפה שיש בה שתים דכל הנך חיטין הן כדכתיב סלת וסלת חטין וקאתי והבאת לרבות שיחיד מתנדב מן השעורין:

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

ומביאין מן השעורין חובת מנחת העומר:

(ת''ל אלה) להך דרשה אלא ללמד על העומר:

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר אֵלֶּה אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה שֶׁמֵּבִיא חֲמִישְׁתָּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מֵאֵלֶּה רָצָה אַחַת מֵבִיא רָצָה חֲמִישְׁתָּן מֵבִיא

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

הרי עלי מנחה. סתם שמביא כל אלה חמישתן בעל כרחו:

מאלה. מקצת אלה:

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

Traduction

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.

Rachi non traduit

רבי שמעון אומר את המנחה. אמרנו לרבות את שאר מנחות כגון של חוטא להגשה יכול שאני מרבה הימנו אף שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים:

מאלה. משמע מיעוטא כלומר אין טעון הגשה אלא הדומה לאלו:

Tossefoth non traduit

רבי שמעון אומר את המנחה כו'. הכא דריש רבי שמעון את ובספ''ק (לעיל מנחות יא:) גבי את כל הלבונה לא דריש [ושם פירשתי]:

יכול שאני מרבה את שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים. משמע הכא דהוי טפי בכלל את המנחה ממנחת העומר ומנחת סוטה ולעיל (מנחות דף נז.) משמע איפכא גבי מחמץ ושם פירשתי וי''ל משום דבאין משעורים גריעי אי נמי בתר דממעטי כל הנהו שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים כתיבי הנך ריבויי:

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

Traduction

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.

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

Traduction

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.

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

Traduction

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?

Rachi non traduit

והא אפיקתיה. לרבות מנחת סוטה:

והקריב. מצי למכתב וכתיב והקריבה ממעטה מנחת נסכים דמשמע מיעוט אותה דאיירי בה ולא אחרת:

Textes partiellement reproduits, avec autorisation, et modifications, depuis les sites de Torat Emet Online et de Sefaria.
Traduction du Tanakh du Rabbinat depuis le site Wiki source