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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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;