Menachot 107b (קז:) — the Talmud in English

This

adds to them

those mentioned above:

a turtledove and a young pigeon.

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanksgiving offering and peace offerings

[or peace offerings],” which may be brought from either a male or a female animal:

he must bring a sheep

, either a ram or a ewe, as these are the least valuable of the animals suitable for a thanksgiving offering and peace offerings.

And if someone came before us and said, “

I specified an offering from cattle, but I do not know what I specified

[whether a large or a small animal, a male or a female],”:

he must bring a bull and a cow, a male calf and a female calf

, [that is, cattle both large and small, male and female].

And if he said, “I specified

an offering from an animal, but I do not know what I specified

”:

he must bring a bull and a cow, a male calf and a female calf, a ram and a ewe, a male goat and a female goat, a kid and a female kid, a lamb and a female lamb

, [that is, all the species mentioned with regard to an olah, except that he brings both a male and a female of each species].

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

bull

worth

a maneh

,” [the stated amount—and likewise for a calf, a ram, and a sheep—is derived from the Oral Torah.

And if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

calf

”:

he must bring it and its libations for five sela. “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

ram

”:

he must bring it and its libations for two sela. “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

sheep

”:

he must bring it and its libations for one sela.

And if he specified, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

bull worth a maneh

”:

he must bring the bull itself

worth a maneh, in addition to its libations.

“

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

calf worth five

”:

he must bring the calf

for five

sela,

in addition to its libations. “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

ram worth two

”:

he must bring the ram

for two, in addition to its libations. “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

sheep worth one sela

”:

he must bring it for one sela, in addition to its libations.

And if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

bull worth a maneh

” and

he brought two bulls worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation; even if one was worth

the equivalent of

a maneh less one dinar, and the other was worth

the equivalent of

a maneh less one dinar

, until there is one bull worth a maneh.

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

that is black

”

and brought a white one

, or who vowed to bring a bull

that is white and brought a black one

; or who vowed to bring a bull

that is large and brought a small one, has not fulfilled his obligation.

But if he vowed to bring a bull

that is small and brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Rabbi says:

even this

does not fulfill his obligation

, but he must bring exactly what he vowed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah”—he must bring a sheep. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Either a turtledove or a young pigeon:

And the Gemara explains:

They do not disagree

, but rather

each one follows the practice of his place

—each tanna ruled according to what was customary in his locale, whether a sheep was considered more valuable than a bird or a bird was considered more valuable than a sheep; and he need bring only the less valuable of the two.

The Sages taught:

One who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah for one sela for the altar

”:

he must bring a sheep, for there is nothing that can be sacrificed for one sela for the altar except a sheep that is sacrificed for one sela.

And if someone came before us and said, “

I specified

which offering I would purchase and bring for one sela,

but I do not know what I specified

”:

he must bring one of everything that can be sacrificed for one sela for the altar.

We learned in the Mishna:

“I specified an offering from cattle but do not know what I specified”—he must bring a bull and a calf

: And we raise an objection:

Why

must he bring both of them?

Let him bring a bull

alone and fulfill his obligation

in any event

, for if he vowed to bring a bull, all the better; and even if he vowed to bring a calf, which is smaller than a bull, he has brought an animal larger than the one he vowed to bring and has fulfilled his obligation!?

And we answer:

Whose opinion is this

—the first clause of our Mishna?

It is Rabbi’s, who says

at the end of our Mishna:

If he vowed to bring a small animal and brought a large one, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And we raise an objection:

If it is Rabbi

whose opinion is expressed in the first clause, then

consider the latter clause: “

If one vowed to bring a bull worth a maneh

and brought two bulls worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if this one was worth a maneh less one dinar and that one was worth a maneh less one dinar; if he vowed to bring a black bull and brought a white one, or a white bull and brought a black one, or a large bull and brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation; if he vowed to bring a small bull and brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation

”—and raise the following difficulty:

Can it be that

both the first clause and the latter clause

of the Mishna express the opinion of

Rabbi

,

while

expresses the opinion of

the middle clause expresses the opinion of the Rabbis

!?

And we answer:

Yes

, indeed

the first clause and the latter clause express Rabbi’s opinion

,

while the middle clause expresses the opinion of the Rabbis; and this is what the tanna says in the latter clause

:

This matter

—that we said he must bring a calf in addition to the bull—

is subject to a dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis

, for according to the Rabbis he need bring only a bull, since one who vows to bring a small animal and brings a large one has fulfilled his obligation.

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim 6:5:

There were thirteen shofar-shaped receptacles [that is, containers made in the form of a shofar into which coins were placed] in the Temple; seven of them are specified in the Mishna there as to what was placed in them— “

Six

[receptacles]

for voluntary offerings

,” that is, olot brought for the upkeep of the altar when the altar was idle, with no other offerings to sacrifice; the flesh was burned for the sake of the altar, and the hides went to the priests.

The Gemara asks:

Corresponding to what

were there specifically six?

A mnemonic: kamaf-shin-ayin.

Ḥizkiya said:

The priests served in watches, and each watch consisted of six priestly families, which divided the work among themselves during the weekdays; on Shabbat, all six shared equally.

Whatever was distributed to the priests was distributed to the priestly family that served on that day.

The six receptacles corresponded to the six priestly families, for whom the Sages instituted six separate receptacles

so

that there would be peace among them

; that is, every voluntary offering was placed in the receptacle designated for the priestly family serving that day. When the altar was idle, with no other offerings to sacrifice, they took funds from the receptacle designated for the family serving that day. This arrangement was necessary because the hides were given to the family serving on that day; otherwise, the families whose day had not yielded offerings for the upkeep of the altar would quarrel with the family that had received the hides, saying: “We have no hides from the public’s voluntary offerings, whereas you have them”; and therefore they used the receptacle of the priestly family serving on that day to fund offerings for the upkeep of the altar.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

—to explain the reason for the number of receptacles for voluntary offerings:

Since voluntary offerings were plentiful, they instituted many receptacles for them, so that the coins would not become moldy

when many of them were placed in a single receptacle.

And Ze'iri said:

They corresponded to a bull, a calf, a ram, a sheep, a kid, and a male goat

; that is, one who donated an olah and transferred it to the public for the upkeep of the altar placed his money in the receptacle designated for one of the six species of animals from which an olah could be brought,

and

they needed to divide the receptacles between large and small offerings rather than suffice with three receptacles for the three species, because

it is Rabbi’s opinion, as he says

: One who vows to bring a

small animal and brings a large one has not fulfilled his obligation

, so one who vowed to bring a calf cannot bring a bull, and likewise in all the other cases.

And bar Peda said:

It is stated in Temura 23b: This is the exposition taught by Yehoyada the priest: Whatever comes from the surplus of a sin offering or from the surplus of a guilt offering is used to purchase olot [for the upkeep of the altar]; the flesh is for the sake of the altar, and the hides go to the priests.

They corresponded to:

a.

The bulls

of communal sin offerings that were lost, for which other bulls were designated in their place, and then the original bulls were found; the law is that the original bulls graze until they become blemished, and their value is then used for voluntary offerings.

b.

And the rams

[of two years] of guilt offerings for robbery and misuse of sacred property, which were lost and for which other rams were designated in their place, and then the original rams were found; their value is used for voluntary offerings.