Menachot 106a — the Talmud in English

But does he not need to take one kometz

that is mixed

f

rom the fragments of the

cakes ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and wafers [For with regard to a meal-offering half of which consists of cakes and half of which consists of wafers, he must take one kometz from the mixture of the cakes and wafers together] -

and

if he

takes a kometz from cakes for wafers and from wafers for cakes [and if he does not do so, but takes from the cakes alone for a meal-offering that also contains wafers, and takes a kometz from the wafers for a meal-offering that also contains cakes, this is not valid]!?

And we answer: We have heard

Rabbi Shimon

himself

say

earlier, on 63b:

One who brings a meal-offering half of which consists of cakes and half of which consists of wafers,

if he took a kometz and one of them came into his hand [from the cakes alone or from the wafers alone]

for both of them -

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And we still raise an objection to Rabbi Shimon:

We learned in a beraita earlier, on 75a: A meal-offering that comes half cakes and half wafers—he brings a log of oil and divides it, half for the cakes and half for the wafers; he mixes the cakes [with half the log], and anoints the wafers; and he returns the remainder of the oil [remaining after the anointing] to the cakes. But with regard to a meal-offering consisting entirely of wafers, the remainder of the oil belongs to the priests. If so, let us object:

But there is the remainder

of the

oil

remaining after anointing the wafers,

for if he said, “Half cakes and half wafers,”

then

the remainder of the oil

its law is that it must be

returned to the cakes

and is not given to the priests; but if he said, “All wafers,” the remainder of the oil is eaten by the priests. And this one is uncertain how he spoke: What should he do with the remainder of the oil after anointing the wafers!?

And we answer:

Like Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda! For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

One who vows to bring half cakes and half wafers divides the log, half for the cakes and half for the wafers, and

anoints them

for the wafers

in the form of “

chi” [a Greek letter],

and the remainder of the oil is eaten by the priests [as it would be if he had vowed to bring a wafer meal-offering alone]. If so, according to his view, it makes no difference how he vowed with regard to the remainder of the oil, since in either case the remainder is eaten by the priests.

Said

with astonishment

Rav Kahana to Rav Ashi

both concerning the Sages and concerning Rabbi Shimon, who did not require him to bring, because of the uncertainty, more than five meal-offerings:

But there is also room for uncertainty

regarding a

libation meal-offering [there is another type of meal-offering about which there is room for uncertainty, namely a libation meal-offering], which comes as an obligation and he vowed to bring it!? And a libation meal-offering is mixed in a manner different from a fine-flour meal-offering, and it is also entirely burned on the altar, unlike a fine-flour meal-offering, from which a kometz is taken; he must necessarily bring this meal-offering separately because of the uncertainty!?

Should you say: A person does not vow to bring this meal-offering, and it comes only as an obligation for a sacrifice that he brings—this is not so:

For Rava said: A person may vow to bring a libation meal-offering every day,

and if so, let him bring a sixth meal-offering!?

And we answer: A.

When he is uncertain [he is uncertain only]:

A mnemonic: individual, because of, frankincense, with a log, from which a kometz is taken.

Individual: With regard to the meal-offering that

comes

only

because of an individual—that is, through the vow of an individual, and it does not come from the community [since it does not come in partnership]—but a libation meal-offering, which

that is, through the voluntary offering of an individual and not as a communal offering [ since it does not come through a partnership ]. But a libation meal-offering, which

comes

also

because of the community, since libations are brought even with communal sacrifices, with regard to a meal-offering of this sort he

since libations are brought even with communal offerings, in a meal-offering of this kind he

is not uncertain.

Because of:

When he is uncertain

regarding the meal-offering that

comes because of itself, but a libation meal-offering, which

comes [when it is obligatory]

because of a sacrifice, he is not uncertain.

Frankincense:

When he is uncertain

regarding the meal-offering that

requires frankincense and does not require frankincense, such as a libation meal-offering,

he is not uncertain.

With a log:

When he is uncertain regarding one that comes with a log

of oil for one isaron alone, but a libation meal-offering that

comes with three logs [when it comes for a lamb]

he is not uncertain.

From which a kometz is taken:

When he is uncertain

regarding the meal-offering that

requires taking a kometz, but a libation meal-offering

that does not require taking a kometz, he is not uncertain.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I specified a meal-offering of isaron-measures”

but I do not know how many I specified—he brings sixty isaron-measures. Rabbi says: He brings meal-offerings of isaron-measures from one to sixty:

The Sages taught

in a beraita resembling the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages that was taught in our Mishna:

One who says, “

I specified a meal-offering

of a particular kind

of isaron-measures and I designated

it

in one vessel, but I do not know what I specified,”

this person

shall bring a meal-offering of sixty isaron-measures

as will be explained later in the matter how he acts: whether he stipulates and says, “What I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred”; or says regarding the remainder that it shall be a freewill-offering; or brings everything as his obligation—for although he vowed a small meal-offering, he may bring a large meal-offering -

the words of the Sages.

Rabbi says:

He shall bring meal-offerings

of the same kind that he vowed

of isaron-measures -

in several vessels -

from one to sixty, which are one thousand eight hundred and thirty

isaron-measures, because Rabbi holds that once he designated it in one vessel, he can bring only according to what he vowed in one vessel, and not in several vessels; and Rabbi holds that in each vessel there shall not be more than what he vowed, as the reason for this will be explained later in the sugya, whereas according to the Sages there is no concern that he should bring in that vessel more than what he vowed.

And if he comes before us and says, “

I specified

to bring several isaron-measures in one vessel,

but I do not know which of them [which type of meal-offering]

I specified, and

also

I do not know how many I specified”:

He shall bring five

types of

meal-offerings of sixty sixty isaron-measures, which are three hundred

isaron-measures, and stipulate that the type of meal-offering that he vowed shall be his obligation and the remainder a freewill-offering; and, from that type of meal-offering that I vowed, whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred or a freewill-offering, as will be explained.

The words of the Sages,

and according to their view, that a person brings in one vessel a large meal-offering of which he is obligated only for part.

Rabbi,

according to his view,

says: He shall bring five meal-offerings of sixty isaron-measures from one to sixty, which are nine thousand one hundred and fifty

isaron-measures.

The Gemara asks:

In what do they disagree [what is the reason for the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages], since Rabbi holds that he cannot bring in one vessel a meal-offering for only part of which he is obligated, whereas according to the Sages he does bring it?

Said

and explained

Rav Hisda:

According to everyone, one who vows to bring a small meal-offering cannot bring a large meal-offering for his vow, and it is also impossible to bring a large meal-offering in one vessel and say, “What I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder a freewill-offering,” since according to everyone it is forbidden to mix an obligation with a freewill-offering in one vessel. But according to the Sages, he brings a large meal-offering and says, “What I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred”;

and they disagree concerning the law of

it is permitted to bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard:

Rabbi holds:

It is forbidden to bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard,

and therefore he cannot stipulate concerning a large meal-offering in one vessel that the amount he vowed shall be his obligation and the remainder non-sacred, because it is forbidden to bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard; and to say that the remainder shall be a freewill-offering is also impossible, because non-sacred matter may not be mixed with a freewill-offering. Therefore he is forced to bring all his possible offerings in several vessels and say: Whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the other meal-offerings that I brought in the other vessels shall be freewill-offerings.

And

if

the Sages hold:

It is permitted to bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard,

and therefore he can bring one large meal-offering in one vessel and say, “What I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred.”

Rava said: According to everyone,

and even the Sages hold that

it is forbidden to bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard,

and they too said that he should stipulate that the remainder be non-sacred only in the sense that the remainder shall be a freewill-offering

; and here it is concerning whether it is permitted to mix an obligation with a freewill-offering

that they disagree:

The Sages hold: It is permitted to mix an obligation with a freewill-offering,

and he can stipulate concerning what remains in the vessel, for which he is not obligated, that it shall be a freewill-offering.

And

if

Rabbi holds: It is forbidden to mix an obligation with a freewill-offering,

and since he cannot say that the remainder is non-sacred, because he would thereby bring non-sacred matter into the Temple courtyard, he cannot stipulate concerning a large meal-offering in one vessel, and he must bring his possible offerings in several vessels.

Said

with astonishment

Abaye to Rava:

According to the Sages, who say that it is permitted to mix an obligation with a freewill-offering,

and therefore said that he brings only one large meal-offering of sixty isaron-measures, part of which shall be an obligation and part a freewill-offering, let us object:

But we require two kometz-offerings,

one from the obligatory meal-offering and one from the freewill-offering!?

And we answer:

He takes a kometz

first for the sake of one meal-offering

and then takes a kometz

for the sake of the second meal-offering.

And we object: The priest does not know which part of the meal-offering is for the obligation and which is for the freewill-offering,

but he is taking a kometz from the obligatory portion for the freewill-offering, and from the freewill-offering for the obligatory portion!?

And we answer:

He makes it dependent on the priest’s intention [he determines the place of the obligation and the freewill-offering according to the priest’s actions],

for he says

as follows:

Wherever the priest’s hand reaches now -

it shall be

the obligation [on whichever side the priest first takes the kometz, there is my obligatory meal-offering],

and ultimately the freewill-offering [and the fine flour in the place where the priest takes the second time shall be a freewill-offering if I did not vow sixty isaron-measures].

And we still object:

And how does he offer them [how does he offer these two kometz-offerings]!?

If you say that he should

offer the freewill-offering first [he should offer the kometz of the freewill-offering first],

then the kometz

of the obligation—how can he offer it [how will it be permitted to offer the kometz of the obligation]!? For:

Perhaps it is entirely an obligation [he vowed sixty isaron-measures], and the kometz of the freewill-offering that he offered is not a kometz at all, but rather the offering of the remainder of the obligatory meal-offering,

and

it follows that

the remainder has been diminished

through the offering of this kometz,

and

indeed

the master said [above, 8a]:

Remainders that were diminished between taking the kometz and offering it—he may not offer the kometz upon them.

And if you say,

he should offer the obligation first,

then

how can he offer the freewill-offering!?