Menachot 106b (קו:) — the Talmud in English

For

perhaps it is all an obligation

, and it follows that he has already burned part of this meal-offering on the altar, while what remains is its remainder,

and

it is forbidden to burn it, for the Torah says: “For any leaven or any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord,” and the Sages expounded:

Anything of which some is for the fire

[anything that you place from it on the altar’s fire]

it is

[the remainder]

subject to “

You shall not burn”?!

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said

he resolved the difficulty:

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi:

Actually, he first burns the one that is entirely an obligation. And as for your difficulty—how can he burn the handful of the voluntary offering, since perhaps it is not voluntary, and he would thereby be burning the remainder on the altar—it is not difficult:

he raises it for the sake of wood

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

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer

who permits burning the remainder for the sake of wood;

as it is taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

After the verse “For any leaven or any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord”—from which we derive two laws: that leaven or honey may not be placed on the altar, and that the remainder of fire-offerings may not be placed upon it—the verse states: “As an offering of first fruits”—i.e., the first fruits and the two loaves—“you shall bring them [the leaven and the honey] to the altar,

but they shall not ascend on the altar for a pleasing fragrance.”

We expound the end of the verse with regard also to the second law in the preceding verse, to teach:

For a pleasing fragrance, you may not raise it—

leaven and honey, and the remainder—

but you may raise it for the sake of wood.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said

he raised an objection

to Rav Ashi:

What is the basis for your interpretation of Rabbi’s reason when he says that one must bring meal-offerings from one to sixty in several vessels, and not in accordance with the Rabbis—that it is because it is forbidden to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering?!

And

indeed,

perhaps everyone—

even Rabbi—

permits mixing an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering,

and here they disagree with regard to Rabbi Eliezer:

The Rabbis hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

and one may take two handfuls because of the uncertainty and burn them, as explained above,

and

if

Rabbi does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

then if he brings sixty issaron in a single vessel, there is concern for the prohibition of “Anything of which some is for the fire is subject to ‘You shall not burn it,’” when he burns the handful of the voluntary offering, since perhaps it is the remainder of the obligatory offering.

Rav Ashi said

he resolved the difficulty

to him,

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava:

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

only because

he does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer—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 in the following 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 issaron in a single vessel], allocating part of it as obligatory and part of it—as long as he had not vowed sixty—as voluntary, as the Rabbis do, except that he does not take two handfuls from the same vessel; rather, he first takes a single handful of the obligatory portion,

and

then he brings another

single

issaron of a voluntary offering

in a single vessel

[in another vessel]—

And he brings them into contact

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

and takes a handful

from the second vessel on behalf of the entire voluntary meal-offering in the two vessels, and he initially burns the handful of the voluntary offering and afterward the handful of the obligatory offering—

And in this manner there is no difficulty in asking how he could burn the handful of the obligatory offering, since the remainder was diminished through the taking of the handful of the voluntary offering from the second vessel. The meal-offering in the second vessel is not the remainder of the obligatory meal-offering, since he was not obligated to bring more than sixty issaron, and all of them are in the first vessel.

Rather, certainly Rabbi’s fundamental reason is that it is forbidden to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering. Therefore, he is compelled to bring sixty meal-offerings, each of which is entirely obligatory or entirely voluntary.

Rava said

to explain the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis:

Everyone

even Rabbi holds:

It is permitted to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering,

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

And everyone

even Rabbi

holds in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

and it is not because of concern that he might burn the remainder that Rabbi requires sixty meal-offerings—

And here they disagree with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and the Rabbis,

in which

Rabbi and the Rabbis disagree:

:

As we learned

above, 88a:

Even a meal-offering of sixty issaron requires sixty log

of oil, one log for each issaron.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Even a meal-offering of sixty issaron requires only its log

[only one log],

as it is stated: “

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

The Rabbis hold: The sixty that they stated:

sixty log for sixty issaron,

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

and

it follows that

each and every issaron—

whether it is obligatory or voluntary—

takes its log

[he takes its log].

And Rabbi holds in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who says: It requires only its log, and therefore he cannot mix an obligatory meal-offering and a voluntary meal-offering in a single vessel when he is uncertain whether it is all obligatory, since

we do not know

:

Whether it is one meal-offering—

because he undertook to bring sixty issaron—

which suffices with a single log

[and requires only one log]—

or whether they are meal-offerings

obligatory and voluntary

—

because he did not undertake all the issaron as an obligation—

in which case we require two log;

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

Rav Ashi said

to explain the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis:

In the case of

one who was obligated to bring a small ox

and brought

an ox

that was 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 may bring a single meal-offering of sixty issaron and one handful, since even if he was obligated to bring only a small meal-offering, he may 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 may not add to it, unless he adds a separate voluntary meal-offering; and it is forbidden to mix an obligatory offering with a voluntary offering.

We raise an objection to Rav Ashi’s interpretation:

But they already disagreed about this once

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

as

this

we learned

below, 107b:

One who vows to bring a

small

ox and brings a

large one has fulfilled his obligation; and Rabbi holds: He has not fulfilled his obligation.

If so, according to Rav Ashi, this is the same dispute as that stated in our Mishna. Why did they need to disagree about it twice?!

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the Mishna to teach their dispute both with regard to a meal-offering and with regard to an offering:

For if

it were not

stated

but

in this case

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

It is in this case

that

the Rabbis say

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

because in either case

[whether it is a small meal-offering or a large meal-offering]

a handful

alone

is

burned on the altar, and therefore, with regard to the burning, they are equal—

But there

with regard to a large and a small ox,

where there are more sacrificial portions

[more sacrificial portions are burned on the altar in the case of a large ox],

perhaps they concede to him

the Rabbis

in accordance with Rabbi

that one may not burn on the altar more than the amount he vowed.

And if

it were not

stated

that their dispute applies only

in that case

[with regard to a large and a small ox], I would say:

It is only in that case

that

Rabbi says

that one may not burn on the altar more than the amount he vowed,

but in this case

[with regard to a meal-offering]

perhaps he concedes to the Rabbis, since what difference is there between the handful from a small meal-offering and the handful from a large meal-offering?

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 was necessary

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

A mnemonic for the headings of the following mishnayot: “[If I undertake to bring] wood,” “[If I undertake to bring] gold,” wine, a burnt-offering, a thanksgiving-offering, an ox.

Mishna:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring wood

for the arrangement [on the altar]”:

he may not bring less

than two

logs

[two large pieces of wood] of wood. One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

frankincense”:

he may not bring less than a handful

of frankincense.

There are five handfuls:

A.

One who says “

It is incumbent

upon me to bring frankincense”:

he may not bring less than a handful

of frankincense.

B.

One who voluntarily brings a meal-offering:

he

must bring with it a handful of frankincense.

C.

One who raises the handful outside:

he

is liable

for raising consecrated matter outside [the Temple].

D–E:

The two bowls

arranged with the showbread on the Table

require two handfuls

of frankincense.

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring gold

for the repair of the House”:

he may not bring less than a gold dinar.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

silver”:

he may not bring less than a silver dinar.

One who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

copper”:

he may not bring less

than 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 continue bringing

until he says “

I did not have that amount in mind

[I certainly did not have such a sum in mind].”

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

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

an offering”

rather than saying, “And when you bring a meal-offering.” This

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

Two logs.

And likewise

it says: “

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

which demonstrates that they are called an offering.

Rabbi says:

One who voluntarily brings wood—the

wood

itself

is an offering,

like a meal-offering, and

requires salt

like every meal-offering,

and requires presentation

at the southwest corner, like other meal-offerings.

I skazal

dobavil

Rava:

I, po mneniyu Rabbi: drova trebuyut kemitza

kak menakha, tak kak ikh izmelchayut v tonkie drovyanie kuski.

Skazal

dobavil eshche

Rav Pappa: po mneniyu Rabbi, drova trebuyut drov

drugikh drov, chtoby sozhigat na nih zhertvu drov, kak i obychnuyu menakhu.

My uchili v Mishne: «

levonah»

“

ne dolzhno byt menshe, chem komets:

I obyasnyaem:

otkuda eto izvestno

chto po umolchaniyu podrazumevaemym razmerom dlya sozhzheniya yavlyaetsya komets?

Poskolku

skazano

v razdele o menakhe: «

I uderzhit ot neyo —

iz menakhi —

svoey gorstyu, ot muki menakhi i ot ee masla, i vsyu levonah»,

levonah sravnivaetsya s udaleniem iz menakhi

[to, chto udalyayut iz menakhi, chtoby sozhch na mizbeakhe],

i podobno tomu, kak udalenie iz menakhi

ved

yavlyaetsya komtsom,

tak

i levonah,

sozhigaemaya vmeste s komtsom, ee razmer

komets.

Uchili Mudretsy:

Tot, kto skazal: «

Vot, ya obyazuyus prines ti na mizbeakh»,

no ne utochnil, chto imenno on prineset,

prinosit levonah,

poskolku

net takogo predmeta, kotoryy sozhigaetsya

tsel ikom

na mizbeakhe, krome levonakh.

A esli on prishol k nam i skazal: «

Ya utochnil

chto prinesu na mizbeakh

no

odnako

ne znayu, chto imenno ya utochnil»,

on prinosit iz kazhdogo predmeta, kotoryy prinositsya na mizbeakh.

I vozrazhaem protiv skazannogo v barayte, chto net takogo predmeta, kotoryy sozhigaetsya tselikom na mizbeakhe, krome levonakh:

razve bolshe net

[razve net i drugikh predmetov, kotorye sozhigayutsya tselikom na mizbeakhe]?!

No ved est olah

kotoraya sozhigaetsya tselikom na mizbeakhe?!

I otvechaem: no

u nee est kozha,

kotoraya ne voskhodit na mizbeakh, a otdayotsya

koenam.

I vse eshche vozrazhaem:

no ved est olat ha-of

kotoraya sozhigaetsya tselikom vmeste so svoey kozhey?!