Menachot 105b — the Talmud in English

On the following day

he brings his guilt-offering and its log ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

with it,

and stipulates

and says:

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

and the log of oil shall be for an oil offering of freewill, for oil offerings may be volunteered.

And since it is doubtfully a guilt-offering and doubtfully a peace-offering, he performs with it as with the acts of a leper’s guilt-offering and as with the acts of a peace-offering:

And that guilt-offering

which he brings

requires slaughtering in the north [

for it is a guilt-offering of the most sacred offerings, and its slaughtering is in the north of the forecourt],

and the placing upon the thumbs

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

and laying of hands and libations,

and the waving of the breast

and the thigh

as with peace-offerings,

and it is eaten by male members of the priesthood

alone, according to the law of a guilt-offering, and

for one day and one night

alone, according to the law of a guilt-offering. [

The continuation of the Gemara is from the later Savoraic Rabbis:

And even though the Master said in Tractate “Slaughtering of Sacred Offerings” [

that is, tractate Zevachim] on folio 76b:

Say that Rabbi Shimon said: He brings and stipulates from the outset,

only concerning a leper, because he needs this

to rectify the person [

to rectify himself] so that he will be fit to eat sacred offerings,

but in general

in cases of offerings of doubtful status—

after the fact, yes [

indeed, he may stipulate, as, for example, when a guilt-offering became mixed with a peace-offering, since if he does not sacrifice and stipulate, it turns out that he must wait until it becomes blemished] but

from the outset, no;

nevertheless:

This applies

in that from the outset he does not bring it,

with regard to peace-offerings [

that is, with regard to this leper, whose offering is doubtfully a guilt-offering and doubtfully a peace-offering, or when a guilt-offering became mixed with peace-offerings] and it turns out

that he diminishes their eating

of the peace-offerings, for peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, whereas a guilt-offering is eaten for one day and one night only,

so they become

he brings

sacred offerings to the place of disqualification,

for after one day and one night he will not be able to eat it, because 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 a case of doubt concerning

meal-offerings [

that is, when he brings a meal-offering and does not know which meal-offering it is, whether one of a vow or one of a freewill offering]

even from the outset

he brings and stipulates.

This is up to here from the later Savoraic Rabbis].

He said

he challenged

Rabbi Pappa to Abaye:

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

and according to his method it was explained above that he brings ten loaves and ten wafers and stipulates that part of them shall be for his vow and part of them for his freewill offering; and likewise he brings two logs of oil, for every meal-offering requires a log of oil, and now this is difficult:

For here he brings one tenth-measure from two tenth-measures and one log from two logs,

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

we have heard Rabbi Shimon

himself

say:

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

that he brought two tenth-measures, and said: Half of this and half of this are for my obligation, and the remainder is a freewill offering]

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

The Gemara adds to explain according to Rabbi Shimon,

and how did he remove a handful [

how will he remove a handful] so that the removal of the handful will be effective for all the possibilities

!? And we explain:

That he stipulates and says

after he removed one handful from the ten loaves and a second handful from the ten wafers:

If it is loaves by themselves and wafers by themselves

that

they said,

for then:

This

which I remove a handful from the loaves: let it be for the loaves,

and

that which I remove a handful from the wafers: let it be for the wafers [

If I vowed loaves alone or wafers alone, then what I removed from the loaves shall be for the loaves, which are either an obligatory or a freewill offering; and what I removed from the wafers—which likewise are either an obligatory or a freewill offering—shall be for the wafers].

And

if it is half loaves and half wafers

that

they said,

for then:

This

which I remove a handful from the loaves: let it be for half loaves and half wafers, and that which I remove a handful from the wafers: let it be for half wafers and half loaves, [

And if I vowed half loaves and half wafers, and it turns out that of the ten loaves half are obligatory and half are a freewill offering, and likewise with the wafers, then what I removed from the loaves shall be a handful for my obligatory meal-offering—which is composed of half loaves and half wafers—and what I removed from the wafers shall be for my freewill meal-offering, which is half wafers and half loaves].

However, the Gemara asks: How can he remove a handful from the loaves alone for a meal-offering composed of loaves and wafers together?