Menachot 106b — the Talmud in English

For

perhaps it is all an obligation

, and it turns out that he has already burned some of this meal-offering on the altar, and what remains is leftovers,

and

it is forbidden to burn them, for the Torah said: “For any leaven or any honey, you shall not burn of it an offering made by fire to the Lord,” and the Sages expounded:

Anything of which there is for the fire

[anything that you place of it upon the fire of the altar]

is

[the leftovers]

subject to “

you shall not burn”!?

Said

he explained

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

He always burns the one that is an obligation first. And as for what is difficult for you—how can he burn the handful of the voluntary offering, since perhaps it is not voluntary, and it turns out that he is burning leftovers upon the altar—do not find this difficult:

for he raises them for the sake of wood

[he raises the handful of the voluntary offering upon the altar—if it is not a voluntary offering—not for the sake of burning, but for the sake of wood],

and in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who permits burning leftovers for the sake of wood;

as it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is written after the verse “For any leaven or any honey, you shall not burn of it an offering made by fire to the Lord” [from this verse we derive two laws: that leaven or honey may not be placed upon the altar, and that the leftovers of offerings made by fire may not be placed upon it]: “As an offering of first fruits—you shall offer them [the leaven and the honey] upon the altar,

but they shall not go up upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance,” and we expound the end of the verse also regarding the second law in the preceding verse, to teach:

We interpret the end of the verse as also referring to the second law in the preceding verse, teaching:

For a pleasing fragrance, you may not raise it—

leaven and honey, and leftovers—

but you may raise it for the sake of wood.

Said

he raised a difficulty

to Rav Ashi Rabbi Aha, son of Rava:

What is your source for interpreting the reason of Rabbi, who says that one brings meal-offerings from one to sixty in several vessels, and not in accordance with the Rabbis, as being that it is forbidden to mix an obligation with a voluntary offering!?

And

behold,

perhaps everyone—

even Rabbi—

permits mixing an obligation with a voluntary offering,

and here they disagree concerning Rabbi Eliezer:

The Rabbis hold by Rabbi Eliezer,

and he can take two handfuls on account of the uncertainty and burn them, as was explained above,

but

if

Rabbi does not hold by Rabbi Eliezer,

then if he brings sixty tenth-measures in one vessel, there is concern for the prohibition “Anything of which there is for the fire is subject to ‘you shall not burn it,’” when he burns the handful of the voluntary offering, since is it not possible that it is the leftovers of the obligation?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Ashi to Rabbi Aha, son of Rava:

If it enters your mind that according to Rabbi it is permitted to mix an obligation with a voluntary offering, and

only because

Rabbi Eliezer does not hold—then, as you said, this is difficult: why does he need to bring meal-offerings from one to sixty? He could resolve the matter of the two handfuls in this manner:

—then, as you said, the following difficulty arises: Why does he need to bring meal offerings from one to sixty? He could resolve the matter of the two handfuls as follows:

It is possible that he brings sixty in one vessel

[he brings one meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures in one vessel, allotting part of it to the obligation and part of it—if he did not vow sixty—to the voluntary offering, as he does according to the Rabbis, except that he does not take two handfuls from that same vessel, but first takes only one handful of the obligation],

and

he brings another

one

tenth-measure of a voluntary offering

in one vessel

[in another vessel]—

And he brings their ends together

[he brings the ends of the halves of the meal-offerings into contact with one another]

and takes a handful

from the second vessel on behalf of the entire voluntary offering in the two vessels, and he burns the handful of the voluntary offering first and afterward the handful of the obligation—

In this manner there is no difficulty: how can he burn the handful of the obligation, since the leftovers were diminished by taking the handful of the voluntary offering that he took from the second vessel? For the meal-offering in the second vessel is not leftovers of the meal-offering of the obligation, since he was not obligated to bring more than sixty tenth-measures, and all of them are in the first vessel.

Rather, certainly the essential reason of Rabbi is that it is forbidden to mix an obligation with a voluntary offering. Therefore, he is compelled to bring sixty meal-offerings, each one entirely an obligation or entirely a voluntary offering.

Rava said

to explain the disagreement between Rabbi and the Rabbis:

Everyone

and even Rabbi holds:

it is permitted to mix an obligation with a voluntary offering,

and it is not because of the prohibition against mixing an obligation with a voluntary offering that Rabbi requires sixty-one meal-offerings—

And everyone

and even Rabbi

holds by Rabbi Eliezer,

and it is not because of concern about burning leftovers that Rabbi requires sixty meal-offerings—

And here they disagree over the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis,

that

Rabbi and the Rabbis disagree

about:

As we learned

above, 88a:

Even a meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures is given sixty log

of oil, one log for each tenth-measure.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Even a meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures has only its log

[only one log],

as it is stated: “

For a meal-offering and a log of oil.”

The Rabbis hold: the sixty that they stated:

sixty log for sixty tenth-measures,

and here too he brings a meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures and sixty log,

and

it turns out that

each single tenth-measure—

whether it is an obligation or whether it is a voluntary offering—

takes its log

[it takes its own log].

And Rabbi holds like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who says: it has only its log,

and therefore he cannot mix an obligatory meal-offering and a voluntary meal-offering in one vessel when he is uncertain that perhaps the entire amount is an obligation, for

we do not know:

Whether it is one meal-offering—

since he accepted upon himself sixty tenth-measures—

which is adequately served by one log

[and one log is sufficient for it]—

the meal-offerings

—obligatory and voluntary—

are—

since he did not accept all the tenth-measures upon himself as an obligation—

so that we require two log;

but according to Rabbi’s Rabbis, who hold like the Rabbis of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, it follows that the measure of oil depends not upon the number of meal-offerings but only upon the number of tenth-measures, and consequently he can mix an obligation with a voluntary offering.

Rav Ashi said

to explain the disagreement between Rabbi and the Rabbis:

In the case of

one who was obligated to bring a small bull

and brought

a bull

large—

or one who was obligated to bring a small meal-offering and brings one large meal-offering—

they disagree:

The Rabbis hold:

If he was obligated to bring a small one and brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation;

and he can bring one meal-offering of sixty tenth-measures and one handful, because even if he was obligated only in a small meal-offering, he can bring a large meal-offering.

And Rabbi holds: he has not fulfilled his obligation,

and even one who was obligated to bring a small meal-offering cannot add more to it, unless he adds a separate voluntary meal-offering, and it is forbidden to mix an obligation with a voluntary offering.

And we raise an objection to Rav Ashi’s explanation:

But they already disagreed about this once

[the Rabbis and Rabbi already disagreed elsewhere concerning the law of one who brings a large one in place of a small one],

for

this

we learned

below, 107b:

One who vows to bring a bull

small and brought

a bull

large, has fulfilled his obligation; and Rabbi holds: he has not fulfilled his obligation,

and according to Rav Ashi, this disagreement is one and the same as that stated in our Mishna. Why did they need to disagree about this twice!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

for the Mishna to inform us of their disagreement both regarding a meal-offering and regarding an offering:

For if

not

stated

only

in this case,

[if they had disagreed only regarding a meal-offering], I would say:

In this case

it is that

the Rabbis say

that there is no distinction between a small meal-offering and a large one,

because this and that

[whether from a small meal-offering or from a large meal-offering]

a handful

alone

is

what is burned upon the altar, and therefore, with regard to the burning, the two are equal—

But there

with regard to a large bull and a small one,

since there are more sacrificial parts

[more sacrificial parts are burned upon the altar in the case of a large bull],

I might say that they concede to him

the Rabbis

to Rabbi

that one should not burn upon the altar more than he vowed.

And if

not

stated

their disagreement only

in that case

[with a large and small bull], I would say:

Only in that case

alone

does Rabbi say

that one should not burn upon the altar more than he vowed,

but in this case

[with a meal-offering]

I might say that he concedes to the Rabbis,

for what difference is there to me between a handful from a small meal-offering and a handful from a large meal-offering?

Therefore,

it is necessary

to state their disagreement both with regard to a meal-offering and with regard to an offering.

A mnemonic for the headings of the following Mishnayot: “[If I have] upon me” wood, “[if I have] upon me” gold, wine, a burnt-offering, a thanksgiving-offering, a bull.

Mishna:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me wood

for the arrangement”:

he may not give less than

two

logs

[two large pieces of wood] of wood.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me

frankincense”:

he may not give less than a handful

of frankincense.

There are five handfuls:

A.

One who says “

It is incumbent

upon me frankincense”:

he may not give less than a handful

of frankincense.

B.

One who makes a meal-offering voluntary:

this person

must bring with it a handful of frankincense.

C.

One who raises the handful outside,

this person

is liable

for raising sacred things outside.

D–E:

The two bowls

arranged with the showbread upon the table

require two handfuls

of frankincense.

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me gold

for the repair of the House”:

he may not give less than a gold dinar.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me

silver”:

he may not give less than a silver dinar.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me

copper”:

he may not give less

than bringing copper whose value is less

than a silver ma'a.

And if he comes before us and says, “

I specified

how much gold, silver, or copper I vowed,

but

however

I do not know what

[how much]

I specified”:

he shall bring

and bring

until he says, “

I did not intend that

[I certainly did not intend such a sum].”

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of the meal-offering, “And when you bring an offering of a meal-offering,” and therefore Scripture said “

offering”

and did not say, “And when you bring a meal-offering.” This

teaches that one may voluntarily offer wood. And how much?

Two logs.

And likewise

it says: “

And we cast lots concerning the offering of the wood,”

so it follows that they are offerings.

Rabbi says:

One who voluntarily offers wood, the

wood

itself

is an offering, like a meal-offering, and

they

require salt

like every meal-offering,

and require presentation

at the corner, like the other meal-offering.

And he said:

he added,

Rava:

And according to Rabbi: wood requires kemitza

like a meal-offering, for he crushes it into thin pieces of wood.

He said

he added further,

Rav Pappa: According to Rabbi: wood requires wood

other wood upon which to burn the offering of wood, as with any other meal-offering.

We learned in the Mishna: "

frankincense"

“

may be no less than a kometz:

And we explain:

From where do we know

that an unspecified burning is a kometz?

Because

it is written

in the section of the meal-offering: "

and he shall raise from it—

from the meal-offering—

with his handful, from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all its frankincense,"

he compares frankincense to the raising of the meal-offering

[what one raises from the meal-offering in order to burn upon the altar],

just as the raising of the meal-offering

is indeed

a kometz

it is,

so too frankincense

which is burned together with the kometz, its measure is

a kometz.

The Sages taught:

One who says, "

It is upon me for the altar,"

and did not specify what he will bring,

shall bring frankincense,

because

there is no other thing that is burned

entirely

for the altar, except frankincense.

And if he came before us and said: "

I specified

what I would bring to the altar

and

but

I do not know what I specified,"

he shall bring from every thing that is burned upon the altar.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what is explained in the beraita, that there is no other thing that is burned entirely for the altar except frankincense:

and is there no other

[are there not additional things that are entirely burned for the altar]?!

But there is the burnt-offering

which is entirely burned upon the altar?!

And we answer: Behold,

there is its hide

which does not go up upon the altar, but is given

to the priests.

And we still raise a difficulty:

But there is the bird burnt-offering

which goes up entirely, including its hide?!