Menachot 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

from the flock,”

he must bring a sheep, since Scripture began with it first

of all the burnt-offerings brought from the flock.

And if one says, “I take upon myself a burnt-offering

from birds,”

he must bring turtledoves

and not young pigeons,

since Scripture began with it first!?

Lest you say that this indeed is the law according to Rabbi Yehuda, the following difficulty arises:

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

Why, then, did we learn

below, on page 107a:

One who says,

“I take upon myself a burnt-offering,”

must bring a sheep.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:

even

a turtledove or a young pigeon.

And Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree

in that Mishna and say that he must bring one from cattle. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one must bring the type with which Scripture began first. Why, then, when he becomes obligated to bring a meal-offering, does he specifically bring a meal-offering of fine flour!?

Rather,

because of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in our Mishna in a different manner:

What does “

the distinctive one among the meal-offerings” mean?

That is,

it does not have

a

qualifying name,

as the meal-offering of fine flour is simply called “meal-offering,” whereas the other meal-offerings are called “a meal-offering baked on a griddle,” “a meal-offering baked in a deep pan,” and “a meal-offering baked in an oven.”

The Gemara challenges this interpretation from the beraita cited above:

But the tanna

of the beraita did not explain it in this manner. Rather,

“Since Scripture began with it first”

—

he said

this in explaining the Mishna!?

And we answer:

This is what the tanna

of the beraita meant:

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

qualifying name?

You must say:

The one with which Scripture began first. Consequently, the fact that Scripture began with it is not the reason for the law, but a sign identifying the distinctive meal-offering, whose distinction derives from the fact that it has no qualifying name.

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?

It is

obvious that

the meal-offering of fine flour

is the one

that

he said, since Rabbi Yehuda explicitly said so: “He must bring a meal-offering of fine flour”!?

And we answer: The tanna of the beraita gave us

merely a sign

so that we would know and remember that according to Rabbi Yehuda he brings a meal-offering of fine flour.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A meal-offering

or

a type of meal-offering

— he must bring one; meal-offerings or a type of meal-offerings — he must bring two”:

Rav Pappa raised a question:

One who says,

“Types of meal-offering

are upon me,”

what is

the law? How many meal-offerings must he bring? The sides of the uncertainty are:

Should we say:

Since he said

“types”

in the plural, he necessarily

said

two

meal-offerings of two types,

and what is meant by

“meal-offering” and, if you ask why he said “meal-offering” in the singular, this is because

“Types of offering,” he brings only

all the meal-offerings as well are called

“meal-offering,”

as they are called all meal-offerings are called “meal-offering”

The Gemara continues to resolve the uncertainty:

,

as it is written with regard to all the meal-offerings:

A type of offerings is incumbent upon me,”

“And this is the law of the meal-offering,” in the singular.

and the implication is:

Or perhaps: Since he said

“meal-offering”

in the singular, he therefore

said only

one meal-offering,

and what is meant by “types” and, if you ask why he said “types” 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 meant: From the types of

meal-offering, one meal-offering is upon me from among the several types of meal-offerings I will bring one meal-offering].

A type of offerings is incumbent upon me”

Come and hear from what we learned in our Mishna:

One who says,

“A meal-offering

is upon me,” or

“a type of meal-offering

is upon me,”

he must bring

a meal-offering

one

from among the types of meal-offerings.

This implies that it is specifically because he said “a type of meal-offering” —

in the singular — that he brings only one meal-offering;

but if he says

“types of meal-offering are upon me,” he brings

two.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

But say the latter clause of our Mishna:

One who says,

“Meal-offerings

are upon me,” or

“a type of meal-offerings

is upon me,”

he must bring two

meal-offerings —

This implies:

but if he says

“types of meal-offering,”

he brings only

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

Rather, from this

beraita

nothing can be inferred,

since the inferences from the first and latter clauses contradict one another.

The Gemara continues its attempt to resolve the uncertainty:

Come and hear from what we learned in a beraita:

One who says,

“A type of meal-offerings is upon me,”

must bring two meal-offerings of one type,

and it follows:

but if he says

“types of meal-offering

are upon me,” he brings only

one.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps the beraita stated “a type of meal-offerings” and not “types of meal-offering” because when he says “a type of meal-offerings,” he brings two meal-offerings of one type, since he said “type” in the singular and “meal-offerings” in the plural

;

but if he says,

“Types of meal-offering

are upon me,”

he brings

two meal-offerings of two types.

The Gemara still challenges this:

But it did not teach this in the beraita!

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;

As it was taught in a beraita: One who says,

“A type of meal-offerings is upon me,”

must bring two meal-offerings of one type,

and if he says,

“Types of meal-offerings are upon me,”

he brings two meal-offerings of two types.

And it follows:

but if he says,

“Types of meal-offering

are upon me,” he brings only

one. Rabbi Shimon and the Sages disagreed — in the Mishna above, on page 63a — concerning the manner of bringing a meal-offering baked in an oven: the Sages hold that he brings either all loaves or all wafers, whereas Rabbi Shimon says that he may divide them as he wishes, so that some are loaves and some are wafers.

The Gemara rejects this:

Perhaps in fact, when one says, “Types of meal-offering are upon me,” his words are interpreted as referring to two meal-offerings, since he said “types” in the plural. But this beraita, from which the opposite is understood,

is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: If he wishes to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven,

he may bring half loaves and half wafers —

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 view,

what is meant by “

a kind of meal-offering”?

That is,

one meal-offering

of which

there are two kinds, but

according to

the Rabbis, who say that he does not bring half loaves and half wafers, but rather either ten loaves or ten wafers, his intention must necessarily be understood as referring to two meal-offerings, and

he brings two meal-offerings of two different kinds.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I specified, but I do not know what I specified;

he must bring all five”:

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning all the meal-offerings as to whether they come as ten loaves each or whether they come as twelve loaves each.

Who is the tanna

who is the tanna of our Mishna?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Our Mishna is

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

“

Half loaves and half wafers—

he brings them,”

and likewise he could divide the loaves in another manner—for example, bring nine loaves and one wafer, or nine wafers and one loaf—then:

Alternatively,

[even] if

he holds

that Rabbi Shimon agrees

with Rabbi Yehuda, who says: All the meal-offerings come as ten,

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

there are

fourteen meal-offerings concerning which there is uncertainty,

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 if you say

that our Mishna is

Rabbi Shimon’s,

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

say

that in a case where he is uncertain whether he is obligated to bring an offering:

he

brings

that offering,

and stipulates:

If he is obligated to bring it, it shall fulfill his obligation; and if not, it shall be a gift-offering. Here too, he should bring these twenty loaves and wafers and make a stipulation: Those loaves and those wafers that he vowed shall fulfill his obligation, and the remainder shall be gift-offerings.

As it is taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says

concerning one who is uncertain whether he was a confirmed metzora who became pure: 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. In the case of one who is uncertain whether he is obligated to bring these, he should act as follows: