Menachot 104b — the Talmud in English

But if he vowed

eleven

liters, I have this question:

I ask

what

will be done with his vow?

Is

the person [who made the vow] intending to vow an amount of produce equivalent

to

two bulls [that is, twelve liters],

and

he is intending this, but he has not completed the required amount,

so

they may not be sacrificed until he completes it [until he completes it, they may not be sacrificed], just as one who vows five liters may not offer them until he completes the required amount, since there is a fixed measure for the libations?

Or perhaps:

this person is intending to provide libations equivalent

to

two rams and one lamb [which are eleven liters],

and

he is intending this;

therefore, he has already completed the required amount, and they may be sacrificed. The sides of the question are:

Is it reasonable that he intended

two measures of one type and one measure of another type [two measures of one species and one measure of a second species],

or not?

What is the ruling?

The question remains without a resolution.

Mishna:

For the meal offering accompanying the libations, they would bring fine flour mixed with oil. It was not scooped out as a portion; rather, it was burned in its entirety. Together with it, they would bring wine to pour as a libation on the altar. The Sages disagreed:

They may donate wine

to offer it separately [as explained in the previous Mishna],

but

they may not donate oil

separately, even though oil is brought with the meal offering accompanying the libations—

This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

They may donate oil;

when one donates oil separately, he takes a handful from it and burns that handful, while the remainder is eaten by the priests, as is the law concerning every meal offering.

Rabbi Tarfon said

the reason for his statement:

Just as we find with wine, which is brought as an obligatory offering for the libations, and is also brought as a voluntary offering separately, so too, oil, which is brought as an obligatory offering with the meal offering accompanying the libations, it is

обоснование своих слов:

also brought as a

voluntary offering

separately.

Rabbi Akiva said to him, rejecting the comparison to wine:

You cannot say this with regard to wine, since it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering

separately [when it is brought as an obligatory offering, it is brought separately].

Can you say this with regard to oil, which is not sacrificed

even

with its obligatory offering separately?

Flour is mixed with it, and therefore this does not establish that oil may be brought separately.

Two people may not jointly donate

one

tenth-measure.

But they may jointly donate

an

elevation-offering and peace-offerings—

and in the voluntary offering of a bird

elevation-offering, they may participate,

and

even

in

one bird [a fledgling pigeon or a dove] alone.

один

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: They may donate wine, but they may not donate oil; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: They may donate oil: Rava said: From the statements of both of them [Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon] we learn: A person may donate a meal offering accompanying the libations every day,

since they disagreed only with regard to oil, which is not brought separately.

в качестве доли

всесожжение и мирную жертву —

а

в добровольном пожертвовании

птичьего всесожжения

они могут участвовать совместно,

даже

принеся

одну птицу

We challenge this:

It is obvious; what was Rava teaching us? We answer: Rava needed to teach us that

one might have said: The Torah explicitly mentions these five types of voluntary meal offerings, and no more,

but

not beyond that,

since the Torah enumerated five types of voluntary meal offerings [a fine-flour offering, one prepared on a griddle, one prepared in a shallow pan, and those prepared in an oven—loaves and wafers].

Rava therefore

teaches us:

This applies—that the meal offering comes in one of these five forms—

when no specific type was stated; when he says merely “a meal offering,” he brings one of these. But where he specified in his vow that he would bring a meal offering accompanying the libations, he specified it, and he brings a meal offering accompanying the libations. We learned in the Mishna: Two people may not jointly donate one tenth-measure, but they may jointly donate an elevation-offering and peace-offerings, and in the case of a bird, even one bird:

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that they may not jointly donate a meal offering?

If you say it is because it is written

with regard to a meal offering [Leviticus 2]: “When a person

offers,”

you might say that the reason is that, with regard to a meal offering, the Torah used the singular. But this cannot be said, since:

An elevation-offering also has written with regard to it

[Leviticus 1]: “When a person

offers,”

in the singular, yet our Mishna teaches that it may nevertheless be brought jointly.

Rather, what is the reason—that is, it must be because

it is written

[Numbers 29]: “For your

elevation-offerings,” in the plural. If so,

with regard to a meal offering, it is also written

[there]: “For your

meal offerings,” in the plural. Rather, the reason that a meal offering may not be brought jointly is because it is written with regard to it

[Leviticus 2]: “And a

person who offers,” something that is not written with regard to an elevation-offering.

A beraita also teaches this, with this reason, as it teaches:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is written [Leviticus 22:18]: “Any man from the House of Israel …

who brings his offering for all their vows and for all their voluntary offerings that they bring to the Lord.” The verse teaches that

everything may be brought jointly, and the verse excludes only a meal offering, as it is stated

with regard to it:

“

A person.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

Why does a meal offering differ, that it is stated with regard to it: “And a

person who offers”?

в единственном числе, однако из нашей Мишны следует, что его приносят совместно.

А тогда по какой причине,

The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Who normally brings

a meal offering?

Is it not

a poor person? I regard it for him as though he had offered his soul before Me.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

Why does a meal offering differ, that five types of frying are stated with regard to it

[everything containing oil is called frying] —

these

namely: the fine-flour offering, the griddle offering, the shallow-pan offering, and the loaves and wafers of the oven-baked meal offering?

Но

причина, по которой מנחה не приносят совместно, состоит

в том, что в ней написано

[Левит, 2]: «И

This may be compared to a flesh-and-blood king who prepared a feast for his beloved. Knowing that he was poor, the king said to him

:

Prepare for Me five types of fried food, so that I may take pleasure in you [so that they may be accepted through you before Me].

We have completed the chapter “The Meal Offerings and the Libations.”

Рабби говорит:

написано [Левит, 22:18]: «Каждый человек из сынов Израиля...

который принесет свою жертву для всех своих обетов и всех своих добровольных пожертвований, которые они принесут Всевышнему»,

стих учит, что

все могут приносить совместно; и стих исключил только מנחה, поскольку

в ней написано

«душа».

Рабби Ицхак сказал:

Почему מנחה отличается тем, что о ней сказано

«И

душа

принесет»?

Всевышний сказал: кто обычно приносит

манху?

Ведь это

бедняк; Я засчитываю ему это так, словно он принес передо Мною свою душу.

Рабби Ицхак сказал:

Почему מנחה отличается тем, что о ней сказано: пять видов жарения

все, что содержит масло, называется жарением

этих

а именно: מנחת селе́т, מנחת махават, מנחת мархешет, хлебы и лепешки מנחת, испеченной в печи?

Притча о царе из плоти и крови, который устроил пир для своего любимца и знал, что тот беден. Он сказал ему

царь:

Приготовь для меня пять видов жарения, чтобы я наслаждался тобой

чтобы благодаря им ты был принят передо мной.

Мы завершили трактат о מנחות и נסах

Mishna:

One who says “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth-measure”

shall bring

a meal-offering of one tenth-measure,

one.

And if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

tenth-measures,”

he shall bring

a meal-offering of

two.

And if he came and said: “

I specified

at the time of my vow how many tenth-measures,

but

now

I do not know what I specified,”

he shall bring sixty tenth-measures,

and stipulate and say: Whatever I specified shall be for my vow, and the rest for a freewill-offering. One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering,”

and did not specify which kind of the five meal-offerings he is vowing,

shall bring whichever he wishes.

Rabbi Judah says:

He shall bring the fine-flour meal-offering,

because

it is the distinctive one among the meal-offerings,

and the Gemara explains it.

And if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

a meal-offering,”

or

if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

a kind of the meal-offering”:

he shall bring

a meal-offering

one,

according to the Sages, whichever he wishes, and according to Rabbi, a fine-flour meal-offering.

And if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

meal-offerings,”

or

if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

a kind of meal-offerings,”

And if he comes and says: “

he shall bring two

meal-offerings of one kind.

And if he came and said: “

I specified

at the time of my vow the kind of meal-offering that I vowed,

but

now

I do not know which of them I specified,”

he shall bring all five [the five kinds of meal-offerings: fine flour, griddle, deep pan, baked-in-an-oven loaves, and baked-in-an-oven wafers].

now

And if he came and said: “

I specified a meal-offering of tenth-measures”—

that is, I specified at the time of my vow, when I vowed a particular meal-offering, how many tenth-measures that meal-offering would be—

but

now

I do not know what I specified,”

he shall bring

a meal-offering of

sixty tenth-measures, and stipulate and say: Whatever I specified shall be for my vow, and the rest for a freewill-offering.

sixty

Rabbi says:

It is not sufficient for him to bring one meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures; rather

he shall bring

sixty

meal-offerings of tenth-measures, from one through sixty [one meal-offering of one tenth-measure, and the second of two, and so on until sixty].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth-measure—he shall bring one; tenth-measures—he shall bring two; I specified, but I do not know what I specified—he shall bring sixty tenth-measures”:

And we raise an objection: But

it is obvious

it!?

And we answer: It is the clause of

“tenth-measures—he shall bring two”

that

was needed.

And we raise an objection against it:

This too is obvious,

for

the minimum of tenth-measures is two!?

And we answer: It is the clause of

“I specified”

that

was needed.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I specified, but I do not know what I specified—he shall bring sixty tenth-measures”:

And in the end of the Mishna the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages was explained concerning one who says, “I specified a meal-offering of tenth-measures, but I do not know what I specified.” Rabbi disputes the Sages, who obligate him to bring only sixty tenth-measures, and he says: He shall bring meal-offerings of tenth-measures from one through sixty. Therefore we say:

Who is the tanna [who is the tanna who obligates him at the beginning of the Mishna to bring only sixty tenth-measures]?

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Hezekiah said:

The first clause

is not according to Rabbi, for if

the first clause

were Rabbi,

it

would have said

at the end of the Mishna:

“He shall bring meal-offerings of tenth-measures, from one through sixty,”

and not as explained here, that sixty tenth-measures are sufficient for him.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

You may even say that it is Rabbi

who is the first clause, for the first clause deals

with one who

says: “

I specified tenth-measures, but I did not establish them in one vessel,”

for I bring sixty tenth-measures in sixty vessels [he brings sixty tenth-measures in sixty vessels]—

That is, even Rabbi disputes the Sages only when he must bring his entire meal-offering in one vessel and in the manner of the last clause, but Rabbi concedes that if he did not establish it in one vessel, in a manner in which he can bring each tenth-measure in a different vessel, he need not bring more than one tenth-measure for each vessel, and he stipulates that those tenth-measures that he vowed shall be for his obligation, and the rest for his freewill-offering. We learned in the Mishna:

That is, Rabbi disagrees with the Sages only when he must bring his entire meal-offering in a single vessel, as in the final clause

; but Rabbi concedes that if he did not designate them in a single vessel, in such a manner that he can bring each issaron in a different vessel, he need not bring more than one issaron per vessel, and he stipulates that those issaronot that he vowed shall be for his obligation, and the remainder for his voluntary offering. We learned in the Mishna:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering; he shall bring whichever he wishes;”

Rabbi Judah says: He shall bring the fine-flour meal-offering, which is the distinctive one among the meal-offerings:

A tanna

in a beraita explained Rabbi Judah’s words:

Since Scripture opened with it

with the fine-flour meal-offering

first

of all the meal-offerings, therefore he shall bring a fine-flour meal-offering.

But from now on, one who says

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering”,

is the law that

he shall bring from cattle, since Scripture opened with it ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

first

of all the burnt-offerings!?