Menachot 104a (קד.) — the Talmud in English

And that man

was also speaking about himself,

relies on the baker

—I, too, understand those who rely on the baker, for I am worried and do not have the strength to answer.

The Gemara asks: In the end,

what conclusion was reached

regarding the question raised by Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna?

Rabbi Yosef said:

Rabbi Yehuda

son of Rabbi Ilai

was the halakhic decisor in the house of the Nasi

—he was the halakhic authority in the Nasi’s household—

and he instructed them in accordance with his teaching

—he ruled for them that the blood of an animal carcass imparts ritual impurity, in accordance with his view—

As we learned in a Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda

son of Rabbi Ilai

says:

There are six matters

that represent

the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

and one of them is:

With regard to the blood of animal carcasses: Beit Shammai deem it pure, and Beit Hillel deem it impure,

so according to the view of Beit Hillel, the blood of animal carcasses imparts ritual impurity, and Rabbi Yehuda ruled in accordance with their view.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said:

Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed it impure only in the measure of a revi'it, since it can coagulate and stand at the measure of

the volume of

an olive-bulk,

which is the measure of flesh required for the impurity of animal carcasses.

Mishna:

A person may donate wine alone for its libation on the altar, provided that he donates it in the measure of the libations stated in the Torah. Therefore:

One may not donate one log,

alone, or

two or five

[or five] logs, since we do not find libations in these measures.

But one may donate three

logs, corresponding to the libation of a lamb,

four

logs, corresponding to the libation of a ram,

six

logs, corresponding to the libation of a bull,

and

likewise

six

logs

or more,

for seven logs equal the libations of a lamb and a ram together, eight logs equal the libations of two rams, and so on.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma before them:

Is there a fixed measure for libations,

meaning: when one says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring such-and-such a number of logs for libations,” have all the logs been designated to be offered together—

or is there no fixed measure for libations,

and he may offer them separately?

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances,

meaning, what practical difference does it make?

The Gemara explains:

For example, he brought five

[he vowed to bring five logs of wine], which is not a measure corresponding to any libation and he cannot offer them—as explained in the Mishna—and the question is what he should do:

If you say that there is no fixed measure for libations,

then

he pours and offers

[pours as a libation]

four of them, which are fit for the libation of a ram

[he pours four logs, the measure of a ram’s libation],

and the other becomes a donation

[the additional log, which he cannot pour as a libation, is redeemed, and with its value burnt-offerings are brought for the maintenance of the altar].

And if you say that there is a fixed measure for libations,

then

until he completes them

[until he donates additional libations that complete the measure of a Torah-prescribed libation]

they may not be offered,

not even the four that are suitable for the libation of a lamb, since he cannot offer the five except together.

What

is the law in this situation?

Abaye said: Come and hear

that he cannot offer the four, and that the fifth log does not go for a donation, from what we learned in tractate Shekalim:

Six

collection boxes [boxes made in the form of shofarot, narrow at their mouths and broad below] were in the Temple

for donations

[in order to place in them money used for the maintenance of the altar].

And we say: Corresponding to what

were there six collection boxes—that is, what was the purpose of the six collection boxes?

Corresponding to the surplus of a sin-offering

[for example, one set aside money for a sin-offering, the price of the lambs fell, and money remained],

and the surplus

of ordinary

guilt-offerings, the surplus of a nazirite’s guilt-offering, and the surplus of a leper’s guilt-offering,

as all these surpluses go toward the maintenance of the altar.

And if it is so

that one who vows five logs sends one log to the maintenance of the altar, then

let them establish another collection box corresponding to the surplus of libations

[let the Sages establish a seventh collection box in which this money would be placed]; rather, evidently nothing goes for a donation. Instead, he waits until the measure is complete and offers it all together.

And we answer: Even if we say that there is no fixed measure for libations, and he offers what is fit, nevertheless there is no need to make a collection box for the remainder. For granted,

these

[the surpluses mentioned above]

go for a communal donation

[they go for the communal donation, that is, for the maintenance of the altar], it is understandable that he must wait until his money is needed, so that offerings can be brought from it on the altar when no other offerings are being brought, and therefore the money is placed meanwhile in collection boxes—

but

these

[the surpluses of libations] do not require him to wait, since

they are common

[they are readily available], and

it is possible that this person’s and that person’s surpluses will join one another and be offered

[it is possible that the surpluses of one person and another will combine to form a complete measure of libations, and they will be offered].

Rava said: Come and hear

that there is no fixed measure for libations, and if one donated five, he brings as much as he can, from the following beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning libations, after the Torah detailed all the laws of libations: “Every

citizen

shall do these things in this manner,” and this phrase is superfluous. Rather,

it teaches that one may donate libations

alone.

And how much

may one donate?

Three logs,

which is the smallest measure among the libations, as we derive from the phrase “in this manner” that this measure may not be reduced.

And from where do we know that if he wishes to add

to this measure,

he may add?

The verse states

further in that passage: “Half a hin

shall be

for a bull,” which indicates that there are other libations as well.

One might have thought that he may reduce

the amount below three logs.

The verse states “in this manner.”

But

what

“he may add”

does the verse need to teach us?

If we say four and six

logs, that cannot be the meaning, since no special verse is needed for this, for:

What is different about three

logs, that he may donate it because

they are fit

[they are suitable]

for a lamb?

But

four and six are also fit:

four

for a ram and

six for a

bull.

Rather, is it not

that the verse teaches that one may donate

five,

but he certainly offers only the measure that is suitable, and the remainder goes for a donation?

And learn from this: There is no fixed measure for libations.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that there is no fixed measure for libations.

He

objected,

Rav Ashi:

But we

in our Mishna

did not teach this,

but rather that one may not donate five, as we learned:

One may not donate one log, two, or five—

Behold, it

teaches “

five”

analogously to “

two.”

Just as two are not fit at all,

since they are less than the required measure,

so too, five are not fit at all,

teaching that he offers nothing, because there is a fixed measure for libations!? The Gemara answers:

Is that necessarily so

[must they necessarily be equated]!? It can be said that

this [“

five”]

is as it is stated, whereas this [“

two”]

is as it is stated.

is as it is.

Abaye said:

If you should conclude

that

there is no fixed measure for libations—yes, there is no fixed measure for libations,

and I have nothing further to add concerning this; however,

if you should conclude

that

there is a fixed measure for libations—

then:

If he vowed

up to ten

logs,

it is obvious to me

what their status is, as explained above—