Menachot 105a — the Talmud in English

And if one says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering

from the flock,”

he shall bring a sheep, since Scripture opened with it first

among all the burnt-offerings that come from the flock.

And if one says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering

from birds,”

he shall bring turtledoves

and not young pigeons,

since Scripture opened with it first!?

But the tannaitic sage of the beraita did not explain it this way. Rather, he said, “

Lest you say: Indeed, this is the law according to Rabbi Judah, the difficulty is:

why did we learn

below, 107a:

One who says

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

shall bring a sheep.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:

Even

a turtledove or a young pigeon.

And Rabbi Judah did not dispute

in that Mishna to say that he should bring from cattle. Thus, Rabbi Judah does not hold that he must bring what Scripture mentioned first; why, then, when he becomes obligated in a meal-offering does he bring specifically the fine-flour meal-offering!?

Rather,

because of this difficulty the Gemara explains Rabbi Judah’s words in our Mishna in another manner:

What is meant by

“the distinctive one among the meal-offerings”?

That is,

it does not have

the fine-flour meal-offering

an accompanying designation, for it is called simply “a meal-offering”; shall you say this of the other meal-offerings, which are called “a griddle meal-offering,” “a deep-pan meal-offering,” and “an oven-baked meal-offering”?

One who says, “

And we raise an objection to this interpretation from the beraita brought above:

But the tanna

of the beraita did not explain it so; rather,

“since Scripture opened with it first”—

he says

the tanna in its explanation of the Mishna!?

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna of the beraita

said:

Which is the distinctive meal-offering among the meal-offerings that does not have an accompanying

designation?

This is the one with which Scripture opened first, and it follows that Scripture’s opening is not the reason for the law, but a sign identifying the distinctive one among the meal-offerings, on the basis that it has no accompanying designation.

The Gemara challenges this interpretation of the beraita: Why did the tanna need to teach us which meal-offering is the distinctive one among the meal-offerings?

And we raise an objection to this interpretation in the beraita: Why did the tanna need to teach us which meal-offering is the distinctive one among the meal-offerings?

It is obvious that

Or perhaps: Since he said “

the fine-flour meal-offering

means only one offering,

is what Rabbi Judah

said, since he explicitly said so: “He shall bring the fine-flour meal-offering”!?

And we answer: The tanna of the beraita gave us

merely a sign

so that we would know and remember that, according to Rabbi Judah, he brings the fine-flour meal-offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A meal-offering

or

a kind of the meal-offering

—he shall bring one; meal-offerings or a kind of meal-offerings—he shall bring two”:

Rav Pappa raised a question:

One who says

“Kinds of meal-offering

are incumbent upon me”

what is [the law]? How many meal-offerings does he bring? And the sides of the doubt are:

The Gemara rejects the proof:

Shall we say:

Since he said

“kinds”

in the plural, necessarily

two

meal-offerings of two kinds

he said,

and what is meant by

“meal-offering” [and if you say: Why did he say “meal-offering” in the singular]? Because

one, the opposite of the inference from the first clause.

all the meal-offerings also

are called “meal-offering,”

as is called

[all the meal-offerings are called “meal-offering”],

as it is written [Leviticus 6:7] concerning all the meal-offerings:

A type of offerings is incumbent upon me,”

“And this is the law of the meal-offering”

in the singular.

Or perhaps: Since he said

“meal-offering”

in the singular, then

one meal-offering

alone

he said, and what is meant by “kinds” [and if you say: If so, why did he say “kinds” in the plural]?

But this is not what it teaches in the beraita [and from another beraita it should be inferred that one who says, “Types of offering are incumbent upon me,” brings only one]!?

This is what he said: From the kinds of

As it is taught in a beraita: One who says, “

the meal-offering, one meal-offering is incumbent upon me [from among several kinds of meal-offerings I shall bring one meal-offering].

brings two offerings of one type,

Come and hear from what we learned in our Mishna:

Types of offerings are incumbent upon me,”

One who says

“A meal-offering

is incumbent upon me,” or

“a kind of meal-offering

is incumbent upon me,”

shall bring

a meal-offering

one

from among the kinds of meal-offerings.

It follows: Specifically because he said “a kind of meal-offering”—

in the singular—is why he brings only one meal-offering,

but

if he said

“kinds of meal-offering

are incumbent upon me,” he brings

two.

The Gemara rejects the proof: But

say the latter clause

of our Mishna:

One who says

“Meal-offerings

are incumbent upon me,” or

“a kind of meal-offerings

is incumbent upon me,”

shall bring two

meal-offerings—

It follows:

but if he said

“

kinds of meal-offering,” he brings only

The Gemara continues its attempt to resolve the uncertainty:

one; the opposite of the inference from the first clause—

One who says,

Rather, from this

beraita

nothing can be inferred, since the inferences from the first clause and the latter clause contradict one another.

but if he says

The Gemara continues to resolve the doubt:

Come and hear from what we learned in a beraita:

one.

One who says

“a kind of meal-offerings is incumbent upon me,”

shall bring two meal-offerings of one kind,

and it implies:

but

“kinds of meal-offering

are incumbent upon me,” he shall bring only

one.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps

the beraita stated “a kind of meal-offerings” and not “kinds of meal-offering” because when he said “a kind of meal-offerings,” he brings two meal-offerings of one kind, since he said “kind” in the singular and “meal-offerings” in the plural;

but

if he said

“kinds of meal-offering

are incumbent upon me,”

he brings

them

as two meal-offerings of two kinds.

And we still raise an objection:

But it did not teach so

in the beraita [for from another beraita it should be learned that one who says “kinds of meal-offering are incumbent upon me” brings only one]!?

For it was taught: One who says

“a kind of meal-offerings is incumbent upon me”

brings two meal-offerings of one kind,

and if he said

“kinds of meal-offerings are incumbent upon me,”

he brings two meal-offerings of two kinds.

And it implies:

but

if he said

“kinds of meal-offering

are incumbent upon me,” he brings only

one.

Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disputed—in the Mishna above, 63a—concerning the manner of bringing a baked-in-an-oven meal-offering: the view of the Sages is that he brings either all loaves or all wafers, while according to Rabbi Shimon he may divide them as he wishes, so that some are loaves and some are wafers.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps

in fact, one who says “kinds of meal-offering are incumbent upon me” is understood as referring to two meal-offerings, since he said “kinds” in the plural, and this beraita, from which it is evident otherwise,

is according to Rabbi Shimon, who says:

if he wishes to bring a baked-in-an-oven meal-offering,

he shall bring half loaves and half wafers—

And

according to his method,

what is meant by “

kinds of meal-offering”?

Namely,

a meal-offering

one

that contains two kinds, but

for

the Rabbis, who say: half loaves and half wafers—he shall not bring: rather, either ten loaves or ten wafers, it necessarily follows that his intention is for two meal-offerings, and

he brings two meal-offerings of two different kinds

he brings two meal-offerings of two kinds.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I specified, but I do not know what I specified; he shall bring all five.”

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed concerning all the meal-offerings, whether they come as ten loaves each, or whether they come as twelve loaves.

Who is the tanna [who is the tanna of our Mishna]?

who is the author of our Mishna?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Our Mishna is

not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, for if it were Rabbi Shimon, since he said

Rabbi Shimon:

“half loaves and half wafers”—

he shall bring,

and it is likewise possible for him to divide the loaves in another manner, for example, that he should bring nine loaves and one wafer, or nine wafers and one loaf, if so:

Alternatively [even] if

even if

he holds

Rabbi Shimon

in accordance with Rabbi Judah, who says: “All the meal-offerings come as ten,”

and not in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who holds that he brings twelve loaves—

there

is room for uncertainty concerning fourteen meal-offerings, for the oven-baked meal-offering itself can come in eleven forms, and add to them three meal-offerings: fine flour, griddle, and pan; there are thus fourteen possibilities as to what he became obligated to bring. And all the more so if Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, that all the meal-offerings come as twelve loaves, in which case there is uncertainty concerning sixteen meal-offerings.

for the oven-baked meal-offering itself can come in eleven forms, and in addition to them there are the three meal-offerings of fine flour, the griddle-offering, and the deep-pan offering; thus there are fourteen possibilities as to which he became obligated to bring. And all the more so if Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir, that all the meal-offerings come as twelve loaves, in which case there would be uncertainty concerning sixteen meal-offerings.

Abaye said:

Even you may say that our Mishna is

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Shimon; nevertheless, it is sufficient for him to bring two oven-baked meal-offerings, one of ten loaves and one of ten wafers [just as he brings according to the Rabbis]—

.

for

we have heard Rabbi Shimon himself

him

say concerning a case in which he is uncertain whether he is obligated in an offering:

in a case where he is uncertain whether he is obligated in a sacrifice,

This is

what he brings,

that offering,

and stipulates: if he is obligated in it, it shall be for his obligation, and if not, it shall be for a free-will offering. Here too, he shall bring these twenty loaves and wafers and stipulate that those loaves and those wafers that he vowed shall be for the fulfillment of his obligation, and the remainder shall be for a free-will offering.

“If I am obligated in it, this sacrifice fulfills my obligation; and if not, it is a voluntary offering.” Here too, he should bring these twenty loaves and wafers and make a stipulation: those loaves and those wafers that he vowed to bring shall fulfill his obligation, and the rest shall be voluntary offerings.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon says concerning one regarding whom it is uncertain whether he is a confirmed metzora who became pure—and the metzora brings on the eighth day of his purification a guilt-offering and a log of oil, and applies some of them to the altar and to the thumbs and toes of the metzora—and this one is uncertain whether he is obligated in these; this is what he shall do:

regarding a person who is uncertain whether he is a confirmed leper who has become purified: A leper brings on the eighth day of his purification a guilt-offering and a log—a measure—of oil, and he applies some of them to the altar and to the thumbs and big toes of the leper. In the case of one who is uncertain whether he is obligated in these offerings, he should act as follows: