Menachot 108a — the Talmud in English

.

And the sheep

.

And the goats

of the communal sin-offerings that were lost and found.

.

And the surpluses,

such as one who offers one of all these, and set aside money for this purpose, and the animals became cheaper and the money remained over; it goes to a voluntary offering.

.

And the ma'a,

is a small ma'a called a kalbon, which two people add when they weighed their shekels jointly.

And the Gemara explains:

All of them,

all the other amoraim,

like Hezekiah

did not say

did not say

regarding the reason for the six collection boxes, because

we are not concerned about quarrelling

for each one performs his day,

because each one performs its service on its day:

for each priestly family performs what fell to it on that day; that is, it is not justified for a priestly family on whose day the voluntary offerings were not offered to demand that they give it some of the hides, for the hides it received on its day from the other offerings brought on that day suffice for it.

And

like Rabbi Yohanan

they did not say,

they did not say,

because

they are not concerned about becoming moldy

Like Zeiri they did not say,

In accordance with Zeiri

corresponding to a bull, a calf, a ram, a sheep, a kid, and a male goat,

they did not say,

because

as an individual view—

that is, like Rabbi—

they do not establish.

Like bar Peda

they also did not say,

they also did not say,

because "<

surpluses!?"

that is, is it possible to say that one box is for surpluses, when

all of them,

the other five boxes,

are also surpluses,

for what difference is there whether money remained over or the offering itself remained over?

And likewise, what bar Peda explained, that the sixth horn is for

a ma'a,

also

is difficult, because the view of the other amoraim is like the view of Rabbi Meir, who holds: that kalbon

goes to

the box into which the

goes to the box into which the

shekels are put, and not to the box for voluntary offerings

! For it was taught:

Where does this kalbon go?

To the shekels, the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Eliezer says: To a voluntary offering.

And Samuel said:

these six boxes

correspond to:

.

the surplus of a sin-offering;

.

and the surplus of a guilt-offering

.

and the surplus of the guilt-offering of a nazirite;

.

and the surplus of the guilt-offering of a person afflicted with scale-disease;

.

and the surplus of the meal-offering of a sinner

.

and the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest.

And Rabbi Oshaya said:

Corresponding to:

.

the surplus of a sin-offering;

.

and the surplus of a guilt-offering;

.

and the surplus of the guilt-offering of a nazirite;

.

and the surplus of the guilt-offering of a person afflicted with scale-disease;

.

and the surplus of pairs of birds

of a woman after childbirth and the like, who set aside money for their pairs of birds, and the pairs became cheaper and the money remained over; and

. the surplus of the meal-offering of a sinner.

the surplus of a poor person's meal-offering.

And Samuel

what is the reason that he did not say like Rabbi Oshaya,

that the additional horn is for the surplus of pairs of birds and not for the surplus of the tenth of an ephah?

Because

Pairs of birds

this

he already taught

at the

at the beginning

of the Mishna, among the other seven horns.

And the Gemara wonders:

But

And

Rabbi Oshaya taught

was the one who taught the seven horns in the Mishna,

and did not teach

among them

pairs of birds

in his version there was no horn for pairs of birds!?

But Rabbi Oshaya taught

the law of the Mishna,

and also taught

also

pairs of birds!?

And we answer:

One is for pairs of birds,

for anyone lacking atonement brings money for his pair of birds and deposits it there, and eats of the sacred things in the evening, relying on the fact that the priests offered his pair,

and one is for the surplus of pairs of birds.

And Rabbi Oshaya

what is the reason that he did not say like Samuel?

Because

because he holds like the one who says: the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest—

must decay

and does not go to a voluntary offering.

For it was taught:

The surplus of a voluntary meal-offering; the surplus of a meal-offering must decay.

What is it saying?

Rav Hisda said: This is what it is saying: The surplus of the meal-offering of a sinner—

a voluntary offering; the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest—

must decay.

Rabba said

to explain the beraita:

Even the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest is also a voluntary offering; rather, the surplus of the loaves of thanksgiving must decay.

It is subject to a dispute:

The surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest:

Rabbi Yohanan said: A voluntary offering.

Rabbi Elazar said: It must decay.

An objection was raised:

The surplus of shekels—

is unconsecrated; and the surplus of the tenth of an ephah, and the surplus of the pairs of birds of men with flux and of women with flux, and of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings—their surpluses are voluntary offerings.

Is it not the case,

is the meaning of what we learned, “the surplus of the tenth of an ephah”:

the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest,

for it is explicitly stated that its surplus goes to a voluntary offering!?

And we reject this:

No,

not as you explained; and what we learned, that the surplus of the tenth of an ephah is for a voluntary offering, refers to

the surplus of the meal-offering of a sinner,

which also comes as a tenth of an ephah.

Rav Nahman bar Rav Yitzchak said:

It is reasonable according to the one who says: The surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the high priest—

must decay, for

behold

it was taught:

It is written concerning the meal-offering of a sinner [Leviticus 5]: "

He shall not put oil upon it and shall not place frankincense upon it, for it is a sin-offering,"

Rabbi Judah said:

for this reason Scripture said “it,” in order to exclude:

It is called a sin-offering,

and it does not require frankincense,

but another is not called a sin-offering,

that is, it does not have the status of a sin-offering and it does require frankincense,

this teaches concerning the tenth of an ephah of the high priest that it is not called a sin-offering and requires frankincense—

And since it is not called a sin-offering,

that is, since it does not have the status of a sin-offering with regard to frankincense, likewise it does not have the status of a sin-offering with regard to its surplus, for although it is called “a sin-offering” it was excluded by “it is a sin-offering,” and therefore

its surplus must decay,

and does not go to a voluntary offering like a sin-offering.

Mishna:

One who makes a voluntary offering and says "

This ox is an elevation-offering,"

and it became blemished

and its law is that it be redeemed and its value be for an elevation-offering:

If he wishes, he may bring with its value two

small ones.

And likewise, if he said "

These two oxen are an elevation-offering"

and they became blemished: if he wishes, he may bring with their value one

large one.

And Rabbi forbids

ab initio, and the Gemara explains that Rabbi disputes both cases.

One who makes a voluntary offering and says "

a ram"

“this is an elevation-offering"

this is an elevation-offering,”

and it became blemished:

If he wishes, he may bring with its value a sheep

One who says "

One who says, “

This sheep is an elevation-offering":

if he wishes, he may bring with its value a ram.

And Rabbi forbids

in both cases.