Talmud - Menachot 44b מנחות מ״ד ב׳

“The Lord is upon them, they will live, and altogether therein is the life of my spirit; and have me recover, and make me to live” (Isaiah 38:16). This is interpreted as referring to those who don phylacteries, which contain the name of the Lord, on their heads; as a result, they will live, be healed and merit long life.

MISHNA: The mishna returns to discussing the halakhot of meal offerings, which are the central theme of this tractate. The absence of the fine flour and the oil for the meal offering accompanying burnt offerings and peace offerings does not prevent libation of the wine, and the absence of the wine for libation does not prevent sacrifice of the flour and the oil. Failure to perform some of the placements of blood on the external altar does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other placements, as even if the priest performed only one placement of blood, the offering effects atonement after the fact.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the additional offerings sacrificed on Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly states: “And their meal offering and their libations for the bulls, for the rams and for the lambs” (Numbers 29:18). This indicates that after the animal is sacrificed, one must bring the meal offering and then bring the libations. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that since the verse states: “To bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, an animal offering, and libations, each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37), one must bring the animal offering and then bring the libations, and only then bring the meal offering.

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “And their meal offering and their libations,” indicating that the meal offering precedes the libations? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary in order to teach that once the animals have been sacrificed during the day, their meal offering and their libations may be offered even at night, and similarly, their meal offering and their libations may be offered even the next day.

The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis also, isn’t it written: “An animal offering, and libations,” indicating that the libations immediately follow the animal offering and precede the meal offering? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri, as Ze’eiri says: The libations that accompany animal offerings are consecrated only through the slaughter of the animal offering. This means that once the animal is slaughtered, the libations that were set aside to be brought with that animal offering cannot be diverted to accompany a different animal offering.

The Gemara points out that both opinions remain difficult: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should also require the phrase “an animal offering, and libations” to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Ze’eiri. And the Rabbis should also require the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” to indicate that their meal offering and their libations may be offered even at night, and their meal offering and their libations may be offered even the next day.

The Gemara offers a different explanation of the dispute in the baraita: Rather, this is the reasoning of the Rabbis, as it is written in the verse: “To bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, an animal offering, and libations, each on its own day.” The Rabbis derive from this that the meal offering should be offered immediately following the animal burnt offering. The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “A burnt offering, and a meal offering”?

Rather, with regard to libations that accompany an animal offering, everyone agrees that the meal offering should be brought and afterward the libations should be brought, as it is written: “A burnt offering, and a meal offering.” When they disagree it is with regard to meal offerings and libations that are brought by themselves. The Rabbis hold that from the fact that when meal offerings and libations accompany offerings, the meal offerings are brought and then the libations are brought, it can be derived that when they are brought by themselves also, first the meal offering is brought and then the libations are brought.

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is specifically there, in the case of meal offerings and libations that accompany an animal offering, that the meal offering is burned on the altar before the wine libation is poured on the altar. This is because since the altar has started to eat, i.e., consume, the animal offering, one must first complete the entire matter of the altar’s eating, including the meal offering. The pouring of the wine on the altar is likened more to drinking than to eating. But when the meal offering and the libations are brought by themselves, the libations are considered preferable, because the song of the Levites is recited over them. Consequently, the pouring of the libations precedes the burning of the meal offering on the altar.

§ The mishna teaches: Failure to perform some of the placements of blood on the external altar does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the other placements, as even if the priest performed only one placement, the offering effects atonement after the fact.

Apropos this statement, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to all offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar that if one placed their blood with one act of placement, as opposed to the two or four that are required depending upon the offering, that the offering has nevertheless effected atonement after the fact, i.e., one has fulfilled his obligation to bring the offering? As it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).

MISHNA: Failure to sacrifice one of the bulls, the rams, the sheep, or the goats of the additional offerings brought on Festivals does not prevent the sacrifice of the others. Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to these bulls, rams, and sheep mentioned in the mishna, on which festival are they offered? If we say that these are the offerings of the festival of Sukkot, this is difficult: It is written with regard to those days that their offerings must be brought: “According to the ordinance” (see, e.g., Numbers 29:18), and: “According to their ordinance” (Numbers 29:33). This indicates that no deviation from the Torah’s prescription is possible.

Rather, the mishna must be referring to the two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep of the New Moon and Shavuot, as mentioned in the book of Numbers (28:11, 27).

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 44b explores tefillin's link to divine healing, then examines the required sequence of meal offerings, wine libations, and blood sprinkling in sacrifices.