OPINIONS: At the end of the Gemara's lengthy discussion about which Korbanos and groups of Korbanos require Nesachim, the Gemara asks what Rebbi Yoshiyah learns from the word "or" ("O") in the verse, "Min ha'Bakar O Min ha'Tzon" -- "from the cattle or from the sheep" (Bamidbar 15:3). Rebbi Yoshiyah (90b) learns from the words "from the cattle" and "from the sheep" that only Korbanos brought from cattle and sheep require Nesachim, excluding bird offerings. He learns the requirement to bring Nesachim for a cow alone and for a sheep alone (as opposed to bringing Nesachim for an offering of both a cow and a sheep) from a different verse. What does he learn from the word "or" in this verse?
The Gemara answers that without the word "or" in the verse, one might have thought that Nesachim must be brought with each animal only when one brings two different types of Korbanos (such as an Olah and a Shelamim), but when one brings two Olos or two Shelamim, one set of Nesachim suffices. The extra word "or" in the verse teaches that one must bring Nesachim with every Korban, even when he brings two Olos or two Shelamim.
The Gemara then asks what the verse, "Kachah Ta'asu la'Echad" -- "so shall you do for one" (Bamidbar 15:12), teaches. The Gemara answers that one might have thought that the only time that Korbanos of the same type (such as two Olos) need two separate sets of Nesachim is when they are brought one after the other, while two Korbanos of the same type that are brought together do not need two separate sets of Nesachim; one set suffices. The verse teaches that every Korban needs its own set of Nesachim, even two Korbanos of the same type that are brought together.
This seems to be the same law that the Gemara earlier derives from a different verse. What new law is the Gemara deriving?
(a) The YAD BINYAMIN explains that when the Gemara earlier derives that one who brings two Olos or two Shelamim must bring a separate set of Nesachim for each Korban, the Gemara refers only to when the two Korbanos are from different types of animals (that is, the two Olos are comprised of one cow and one sheep). What is the Halachah when both Olos are cows? Does one set of Nesachim suffice in such a case? The extra word "or" ("O") in the verse of "Min ha'Bakar O Min ha'Tzon" teaches that even when the animals are the same type (for example, two cows), each one requires its own Nesachim.
The Gemara then suggests that perhaps separate sets of Nesachim for multiple animals that are the same type of Korban are necessary only when they are not brought at the same time. Perhaps when they are brought at the same time, one set of Nesachim suffices. The verse "la'Echad" teaches that each and every Korban requires its own set of Nesachim, even when brought at the same time as other Korbanos of the same type. (This explanation follows the text of the Gemara according to the SHITAH MEKUBETZES.)
The TZON KODASHIM has difficulty with this text of the Gemara. Why would one have thought that bringing several animals, of the same type of Korban, at the same time exempts one from multiple sets of Nesachim? When the Gemara earlier says that even two Olos or two Shelamim require multiple Nesachim, it obviously is discussing a case in which the animals are brought at the same time. Why are two verses ("O" and "la'Echad") needed to teach this?
(b) The Tzon Kodashim concludes that the correct text of the Gemara should include only the Derashah from the verse "O." The rest of the Gemara, from the word "Kachah" until the end of this section, is an erroneous text. This is also the preferred text of the CHOK NASAN (and appears in the left margin of the Gemara).
The Yad Binyamin, however, is uncertain why the Tzon Kodashim understands that the Gemara's statement earlier, that two Olos or two Shelamim require multiple Nesachim, must refer specifically to when they are brought simultaneously.
(c) The Tzon Kodashim records a third text of the Gemara, according to which the verse of "O" teaches that even two Korbanos brought simultaneously require two sets of Nesachim. The Tzon Kodashim rejects this Girsa for the same reason he rejects the Girsa of our text of the Gemara. Since the Gemara earlier already taught that two Korbanos brought at the same time require separate Nesachim, the verse of "O" is not needed to teach this again. Obviously, the Yad Binyamin's question on the Tzon Kodashim applies according to this text as well; according to this text, the Gemara earlier that discusses two Olos or two Shelamim is discussing two Korbanos that are brought separately, and not at the same time. The EIZEHU MEKOMAN says that this text appears to be the text of RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Hani Mili). (Y. MONTROSE)


OPINIONS: The Gemara asks why the verse of "O la'Ayil" -- "or for an Ayil" (Bamidbar 15:6) is necessary. RASHI KESAV YAD (DH la'Ayil) explains that the Torah later (Bamidbar 28:12) specifically states that one must bring two Esronim of Soles along with an Ayil. Why must the Torah state this measurement twice? (See Rashi DH la'Ayil for an alternative explanation.) The Gemara answers that this verse is needed to include a "Pilgas." What is a "Pilgas"?
(a) RASHI KESAV YAD (DH Pilgas) explains that there are three stages in the development of a ram. Until a ram is twelve months old, it is classified as a sheep ("Keves"), and not as a ram ("Ayil"). When the animal is two years old, it is called a ram. However, as is the case in many areas of Halachah, we do not actually wait a full two years to call the animal a ram. Once it reaches thirteen months and one day old, it is considered two years old and is called a ram. During its thirteenth month, it is neither a sheep nor a ram, but a "Pilgas." (According to the opinion of Bar Pada later in the Gemara, this second stage represents merely a doubt whether the animal is a Keves or an Ayil, and it does not refer to a specific stage of the animal's development).
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 1:14) writes that the words "Keves," "Kisbah," and "Kevasim" denote a one year old sheep. The words "Ayil" or "Eilim" denote animals that are two years old. When exactly is an animal called an "Ayil"? The Rambam writes that it is called an Ayil "when it reaches the thirty-first day into its second year. However, on the thirtieth day, it is still not eligible to be brought as a Keves or as an Ayil, and this is what is called a Pilgas." What does the Rambam mean when he says "the thirtieth day"?
1. The fact that the Rambam says, "On the thirtieth day... it is called a Pilgas," and he does not say, "In the thirteenth month... it is called a Pilgas," indicates that the Rambam maintains that the animal is called a Pilgas only when it is one year and thirty days old. (This approach is suggested by the Hagahos to the SHITAH MEKUBETZES HE'CHADASH #43.)
2. The RADVAZ and MAHARI KURKUS write that the Rambam agrees with Rashi, who says that during the entire thirteenth month the animal is called a Pilgas. The Radvaz says that this must be what the Rambam means, because the Mishnah in Parah (1:3) explicitly states, "A thirteen month old is not valid for [a Korban that requires] an Ayil or for a Keves." He adds that the name "Pilgas" comes from the word "Palga," or "half," indicating that this animal is in a middle stage. (See the MELECHES SHLOMO in Parah who says that the word "Pilgas" is a combination of the words "Plag" ("divide") and the letter "Samech," which has a numerical value of sixty. This alludes to the fact that this animal is in an interim stage for thirty days.)
According to this explanation, why does the Rambam write "the thirtieth day," when the animal is actually a Pilgas for the entire thirteenth month? The TIFERES YISRAEL in Parah explains that the Rambam is merely emphasizing that even though this animal is only one day short from being called an Ayil, it still does not qualify as an Ayil and may not be brought as a Korban.
The words of the Tiferes Yisrael seem problematic. It is obvious that there will be at least one day before this animal is called a ram. Why would one think that the last day when it is not called a ram should be any better than any other day when it is not called a ram? There are many things which alter a Halachic status, and there is no reason for the object's status to change on the day before that change is supposed to occur. (For example, a boy cannot complete a Minyan on the day before his Bar Mitzvah, just as he cannot complete a Minyan on any of the previous days before his Bar Mitzvah, when he was a child.)
(c) RABEINU GERSHOM in Chulin (23a) has a different approach. The Gemara there asks a question about one who brings a Pilgas as a Korban. In defining a Pilgas, Rabeinu Gershom says that a Keves is one year old, and an Ayil is two years old. The Gemara there asks about one who brings "a one and a half year old" animal. It appears that Rabeinu Gershom learns that an animal is called a Pilgas during the entire second year of its life. This understanding certainly is at odds with the Mishnah in Parah (1:3). It is possible that Rabeinu Gershom's explanation is based on a different opinion which argues with the Mishnah in Parah. (See MINCHAS CHINUCH (299:2), who writes that there are opinions that differ with the Mishnah in Parah on this matter.) (Y. MONTROSE)