Menachot 106a (קו.) — the Talmud in English

But does he not need to take one handful

of the mixture

of

the pieces of the

loaves

and wafers [ After all, in the case of a meal-offering half of which consists of loaves and half of wafers, he must take one handful from a mixture of the loaves and wafers together ] -

And

if he

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

And we answer:

We have heard Rabbi Shimon himself

say

that

earlier, on 63b:

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

if he takes a handful and one of them comes into his hand [ either loaves alone or wafers alone ]

for both of them -

he has fulfilled his obligation.

We nevertheless raise an objection to Rabbi Shimon:

We learned in a baraita above, on 75a: In the case of a meal-offering consisting of half loaves and half wafers, he brings one log of oil and divides it, half for the loaves and half for the wafers; he mixes the loaves [with the half-log], and smears the wafers, and returns the remainder of the oil [left after the smearing] to the loaves. But in the case of a meal-offering consisting entirely of wafers, the remainder of the oil belongs to the priests. If so, this is difficult:

But there is the remainder

of the

oil

left after smearing the wafers,

for if he said that it was half loaves and half wafers,

then

the remainder of the oil

must

be returned to the loaves

and is not given to the priests; whereas if he said that it consisted entirely of wafers, the remainder of the oil is eaten by the priests. Since he is uncertain what he said, what should he do with the remainder of the oil left after smearing the wafers!?

And we answer:

It is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

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

smears

the wafers

in the form of a

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 meal-offering consisting solely of wafers ]. Accordingly, according to his view, it makes no difference, with regard to the remainder of the oil, how he formulated his vow, since in either case the remainder is eaten by the priests.

Rabbi

Rabbi Kahana

said in astonishment to Rav Ashi,

questioning both the Sages and Rabbi Shimon, who required him to bring only five meal-offerings because of his uncertainty:

But there is also room for uncertainty

regarding a

libation meal-offering [ There is another type of meal-offering about which he must be uncertain, namely, a libation meal-offering ], which ordinarily comes as an obligatory offering, but he may have vowed to bring it voluntarily. A libation meal-offering is mixed differently from a meal-offering of fine flour, and it is burned in its entirety on the altar, unlike a meal-offering of fine flour, from which a handful is taken. Therefore, he must bring this meal-offering separately because of the uncertainty!?

Lest you say that a person does not voluntarily bring this meal-offering, and that it comes only as an obligation accompanying an offering that he brings, this is not so:

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

so should he not bring a sixth meal-offering!?

And we answer: a.

When he is uncertain [ his uncertainty concerns only the following ]:

A mnemonic: individual, because of, frankincense, by a log, taking a handful.

Individual: The meal-offering

that comes

only

because of an individual,

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 offerings, in a meal-offering of this kind he

is not uncertain.

Because of:

When he is uncertain

about the meal-offering

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

comes [ when it is obligatory ]

because of an animal-offering, he is not uncertain.

Frankincense:

When he is uncertain

about a meal-offering

that requires frankincense or does not require frankincense, such as a libation meal-offering, he

is not uncertain.

By a log:

When he is uncertain about one that comes with a log

of oil per issaron, but a libation meal-offering

comes with three logs [ when it accompanies a lamb ] and

he is not uncertain.

Taking a handful:

When he is uncertain

about a meal-offering

that requires taking a handful, but in the case of a libation meal-offering,

which does not require taking a handful, he is not uncertain.

We learned in the Mishna:

I specified a meal-offering of issaron-measures

but I do not know how many I specified; he must bring sixty issaron-measures. Rabbi says: He must bring meal-offerings of issaron-measures from one through sixty:

The Sages taught

in a baraita corresponding to the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages stated in our Mishna:

One who says: “

I specified a meal-offering

of a particular type

of issaron-measures and designated

it

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

he

must bring a meal-offering of sixty issaron-measures,

as will be explained below with regard to what he does: whether he stipulates and says, “Whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred”; or says that the remainder shall be a voluntary offering; or brings all of it as his obligation—for although he vowed a small meal-offering, he may bring a large one -

the statement of the Sages.

Rabbi says:

He must bring meal-offerings

of the type that he vowed

of issaron-measures -

in several vessels -

from one through sixty, which total one thousand eight hundred and thirty

issaron-measures. This is because Rabbi maintains that, since he designated the offering in one vessel, he may bring only the amount that he vowed in one vessel, and not in several vessels. Rabbi maintains that each vessel may contain no more than the amount he vowed, as the Gemara will explain below; but according to the Sages, there is no concern that he brings in that vessel more than he vowed.

And if he comes before us and says: “

I specified

to bring several issaron-measures in one vessel,

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

I specified, and

also

I also do not know how many I specified”:

He must bring five

types of

meal-offerings of sixty issaron-measures each, totaling three hundred

issaron-measures, and stipulate that the type of meal-offering that he vowed shall fulfill his obligation and the others shall be voluntary offerings; and, concerning the type of meal-offering that I vowed, the amount that I vowed shall fulfill my obligation, while the remainder shall be non-sacred or a voluntary offering, as will be explained.

The statement of the Sages,

who maintain that a person may bring in one vessel a large meal-offering, even though he is obligated only with regard to part of it.

Rabbi,

according to his own view,

says: He must bring five meal-offerings of sixty issaron-measures, from one through sixty, totaling nine thousand one hundred and fifty

issaron-measures.

The Gemara asks:

With regard to what do they disagree [ what is the basis of the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages ]? Rabbi maintains that he cannot bring in one vessel a meal-offering with regard to only part of which he is obligated, whereas according to the Sages he may bring such an offering.

Rav Hisda

Rav Chisda

said:

Everyone agrees that one who vows to bring a small meal-offering cannot bring a large meal-offering to fulfill his vow, and that it is likewise impossible to bring a large meal-offering in one vessel and say, “Whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be a voluntary offering,” since everyone agrees that one may not mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering in one vessel. According to the Sages, he brings a large meal-offering and says, “Whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred”;

and they disagree about the law of whether

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

Rabbi maintains:

It is prohibited to bring non-sacred substances into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, he cannot stipulate regarding a large meal-offering in one vessel that the amount he vowed shall be his obligation and the remainder shall be non-sacred, since it is prohibited to bring non-sacred substances into the Temple courtyard. Nor can he say that the remainder shall be a voluntary offering, because one may not mix non-sacred substances with a voluntary offering. Therefore, he must bring all his possible offerings in several vessels and say: The amount that I vowed shall be my obligation, and the other meal-offerings that I brought in the other vessels shall be voluntary offerings.

and therefore he cannot stipulate regarding a large meal-offering in a single vessel that the amount he vowed shall fulfill his obligation and the rest shall be non-sacred, since it is forbidden to bring non-sacred material into the Temple courtyard. Nor can he say that the remainder shall be a voluntary offering, since non-sacred material may not be mixed with a voluntary offering. Therefore, he must bring all the possible offerings because of his uncertainty in several vessels and say: The amount I vowed shall fulfill my obligation, and the other meal-offerings that I brought in the other vessels shall be voluntary offerings.

But

if

the Sages maintain:

It is permitted to bring non-sacred substances into the Temple courtyard, and therefore he may bring one large meal-offering in one vessel and say, “Whatever I vowed shall be my obligation, and the remainder shall be non-sacred.”

then he may bring one large meal-offering in a single vessel and say, “Whatever I vowed shall fulfill my obligation, and the rest shall be non-sacred.”

Rava said: Everyone,

including the Sages, maintains that

it is prohibited to bring non-sacred substances into the Temple courtyard.

And they did not say that he should stipulate that the remainder shall be non-sacred; rather, the remainder shall be a voluntary offering

and here they disagree about whether it is permitted to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering

they disagree:

The Sages maintain: It is permitted to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering,

and he may stipulate that whatever remains in the vessel, with regard to which he is not obligated, shall be a voluntary offering.

But

if

Rabbi maintains: It is prohibited to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering,

and since he cannot designate the remainder as non-sacred, as this would involve bringing non-sacred substances into the Temple courtyard, he cannot stipulate regarding a large meal-offering in one vessel, and must bring his possible offerings in several vessels.

Abaye

Abaye

said to Rava in astonishment:

According to the Sages, who say that it is permitted to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering,

and therefore said that he brings only one large meal-offering of sixty issaron-measures, part of which is obligatory and part of which is voluntary, this is difficult:

But we require two handfuls,

one from the obligatory offering and one from the voluntary offering!?

And we answer:

He takes a handful

first for the sake of one meal-offering,

and then takes a handful

for the sake of the second meal-offering.

And we raise an objection: The priest does not know which part of the meal-offering is obligatory and which is voluntary.

But he takes a handful from the obligatory portion for the voluntary portion, and from the voluntary portion for the obligatory portion!?

And we answer:

He makes it dependent on the priest’s intention [ he determines the location of the obligatory and voluntary portions according to the priest’s actions ],

as he says

the following:

Whenever the priest’s hand reaches now -

that portion shall be

obligatory [ the side from which the priest first takes a handful is the meal-offering that fulfills my obligation ],

and afterward voluntary [ while the flour at the place from which the priest takes the second handful shall be a voluntary offering if I did not vow sixty issaron-measures ].

We nevertheless ask:

And how does he offer them [ how does he offer these two handfuls ]!?

If you say that

he offers the voluntary portion first [ he offers the handful of the voluntary offering first ],

then the

obligatory handful—how can he offer it [ how can it be permitted to offer the obligatory handful ]!? For:

Perhaps it is entirely an obligatory offering [ he vowed sixty issaron-measures , and the handful of the voluntary offering that he offered is not a handful at all, but the offering of the remainder of the obligatory meal-offering],

and

it turns out that

the remainder has been diminished

by offering this handful,

and

yet

the Master said [ above, 8a ]:

If the remainder was diminished between taking the handful and offering it, he may not offer the handful upon it.

And if you say:

Let him offer the obligatory portion first,

then

how can he offer the voluntary portion!?