Menachot 105b (קה:) — the Talmud in English

The following day

he brings his guilt-offering and its log

with it,

and stipulates

and says:

If he is a leper, this is his guilt-offering and this is its log; but if not, this guilt-offering shall be a voluntary peace-offering,

and the log of oil shall be for a voluntary offering of oil, as one may offer oil voluntarily.

Since it is uncertain whether it is a guilt-offering or a peace-offering, he performs with it the procedures of a leper’s guilt-offering and the procedures of a peace-offering:

And that guilt-offering

that he brings

requires slaughter in the north [

because it is a guilt-offering of the most sacred order, and its slaughter is in the northern part of the Temple courtyard],

and the placing of the blood on the thumbs and toes

from the blood, as with a leper’s guilt-offering,

and semikha and libations,

and the waving of the breast

and the thigh

as with a peace-offering,

and it is eaten only by male members of the priesthood

alone, in accordance with the law of a guilt-offering, and

for one day and the following night

alone, in accordance with the law of a guilt-offering. [

The continuation of the Gemara is from the Savoraim:

And although the Master says in tractate “The Slaughtering of Sacrificial Offerings” [

namely, tractate Zevahim], on folio 76b:

I can say that Rabbi Shimon said that he brings and stipulates ab initio,

only with regard to a leper, because he requires this

to rectify the person [

to rectify himself], so that he will be fit to eat sacrificial meat,

but ordinarily

in cases of uncertain offerings—

after the fact, he may not [

he may indeed stipulate, for example, when a guilt-offering became mixed with a peace-offering; since if he does not offer it and stipulate, he will have to wait until it develops a disqualifying blemish]—but

not ab initio;

nevertheless:

That statement applies

in that he does not bring it ab initio,

with regard to peace-offerings [

namely, in the case of this leper, whose offering is uncertainly a guilt-offering or a peace-offering, or when a guilt-offering became mixed with a peace-offering], and it turns out

that he reduces the time during which they may be eaten,

of the peace-offerings, because peace-offerings may be eaten for two days and the intervening night, whereas a guilt-offering may be eaten only for one day and the following night,

so that they become

he brings

sacred offerings to a state of disqualification,

because after one day and one night he may no longer eat it, since perhaps it is a guilt-offering and it has become notar, and it was permitted to him only in order to rectify the person—

But

in the case of an uncertain

meal-offering [

namely, when he brings a meal-offering and does not know whether it is a meal-offering of a vow or a voluntary meal-offering],

even ab initio

he brings it and stipulates.

This concludes the statement of the Savoraim].

Rabbi Pappa

challenged

Abaye:

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says: He shall bring half loaves and half wafers,

and according to his view it was explained above that he brings ten loaves and ten wafers and stipulates that some of them be for his vow and some for his voluntary offering; and he likewise brings two logs of oil, since every meal-offering requires a log of oil, and now the following difficulty arises:

He is bringing one tenth-measure from two tenth-measures and one log from two logs,

meaning, the loaves were necessarily sanctified in one vessel and the wafers in another vessel; and since according to Rabbi Shimon he must be concerned that perhaps he vowed to bring a tenth-measure of fine flour consisting of half loaves and half wafers, it follows that this meal-offering comes from what was sanctified in two vessels. And we answer:

We have heard Rabbi Shimon

himself

say:

If he brought one tenth-measure from two tenth-measures [

having brought two tenth-measures and said: Half of this one and half of that one are for my obligatory offering, and the remainder is a voluntary offering],

and one log from two logs, he has fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara adds an explanation according to Rabbi Shimon:

And how does he perform kemitza? [

how will he perform kemitza] so that the kemitza will be effective in all the possible cases?!

And we explain:

He stipulates and says

after performing one kemitza from the ten loaves and a second kemitza from the ten wafers:

If the loaves alone and the wafers alone

are what

I said,

then:

As for

that which I take by kemitza from the loaves: Let it apply to the loaves,

and

that which I take by kemitza from the wafers: Let it apply to the wafers [

If I vowed to bring loaves alone or wafers alone, then that which I took by kemitza from the loaves shall apply to the loaves, which are either an obligatory or a voluntary offering; and that which I took by kemitza from the wafers—which are likewise either obligatory or voluntary—shall apply to the wafers].

And

if half loaves and half wafers

are what

I said,

then:

As for

that which I take by kemitza from the loaves: Let it apply to half loaves and half wafers; and that which I take by kemitza from the wafers: Let it apply to half wafers and half loaves, [

And if I vowed to bring half loaves and half wafers, and it turns out that among the ten loaves half are obligatory and half voluntary, and likewise among the wafers, then that which I took by kemitza from the loaves shall be a kometz for my obligatory meal-offering—which consists of half loaves and half wafers—and that which I took by kemitza from the wafers shall apply to my voluntary meal-offering, which consists of half wafers and half loaves].

The Gemara, however, raises the following difficulty: How can he perform kemitza from the loaves alone for a meal-offering composed of both loaves and wafers?