Menachot 108a (קח.) — the Talmud in English

c.

And the sheep

[one-year-old sheep] that were brought for the nazirite guilt-offering and the leper’s guilt-offering, for if they were lost and then found, their monetary value goes to the voluntary offerings fund.

d.

And the goats

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

e.

And the surpluses,

for example, when one offers one of all these offerings, sets aside money for that purpose, and the animals become cheaper, leaving surplus money; that money goes to the voluntary offerings fund.

f.

And the small coin,

this is the small coin called a kalbon, which is added when two people jointly weigh out their half-shekels.

And the Gemara explains:

All of them

all the other amoraim

in accordance with Hezekiah

[so that there should be peace among them]

did not say

that the reason for the six collection boxes is

that we are not concerned about quarrels

[there is no concern that disputes will arise between the ancestral houses]

for each one performs its service on its day,

[because each ancestral house performs the service that fell to it on that day]. That is to say, it is not legally justified for an ancestral house to claim that, since the voluntary offerings were not sacrificed on its day, it should receive some of the hides; it is enough for it to receive on its day the hides from the other offerings brought that day.

f.

In accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan

[so that they would not spoil]

they did not say,

because

they were not concerned about spoilage

[they were not concerned that the hides would spoil].

In accordance with Ze’iri

[corresponding to a bull, a calf, a ram, a sheep, a kid, and a goat]

they did not say,

because

they would not establish the Mishna

according to an individual opinion—

namely, according to Rabbi.

In accordance with bar Padda

[corresponding to bulls, rams, sheep, goats, offerings that must die, and the small coin]

they likewise did not say,

because: “

Surpluses!?

That is, can it be said that one box is for surpluses, when

all of them

the other five boxes

are also for surpluses—for what difference is there between money that remains and the offering itself that remains?

And likewise, what bar Padda explained—that the sixth collection horn is for

“

the small coin”—

also

is difficult, because the other amoraim follow the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that that kalbon

goes to

the box into which the

shekels are placed,

and not to the box for voluntary offerings

as it is taught:

Where does this kalbon go?

To the shekels, the statement of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Eliezer says: To the voluntary offerings fund.

And Shmuel said:

These six collection boxes

correspond to:

a.

The surplus of a sin-offering;

b.

and the surplus of a guilt-offering

[namely, a stolen-property guilt-offering and a sacrilege guilt-offering]; c.

the surplus of a nazirite guilt-offering;

d.

the surplus of a leper’s guilt-offering;

e.

the surplus of a sinner’s meal-offering

[the meal-offering brought by one in the most impoverished category, when he became liable to a sliding-scale offering for his sin]; f.

the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest.

And Rabbi Oshaya said:

They correspond to:

a.

the surplus of a sin-offering;

b.

and the surplus of a guilt-offering;

c.

the surplus of a nazirite guilt-offering;

d.

the surplus of a leper’s guilt-offering;

e.

the surplus of bird-pairs

brought by a woman after childbirth and the like, where they set aside money for their bird-pairs, the birds became cheaper, and money remained; and f.

the surplus of a sinner’s meal-offering.

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

And Shmuel,

what is the reason he did not state his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya,

that the additional horn is for the surplus of bird-pairs and not for the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah?

Because

bird-pairs

are

already taught

in the

first part

of the Mishna, among the other seven collection horns.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

is it the case that

Rabbi Oshaya taught

[the version] of the seven collection horns in the Mishna

and did not teach

among them

bird-pairs

[in his version there was no horn for bird-pairs]?!

But Rabbi Oshaya taught

the law of the Mishna,

and also taught

bird-pairs

!?

And we answer:

One is for bird-pairs

for anyone who is lacking atonement: he brings money for his bird-pair, deposits it there, and eats consecrated food in the evening, relying on the fact that the priests sacrificed his bird-pair;

and one is for the surplus of bird-pairs.

And Rabbi Oshaya,

what is the reason he did not state his opinion in accordance with Shmuel?

Because

he follows the opinion of the one who says: The surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest

must be left to decay

and does not go to the voluntary offerings fund.

As it is taught:

The surplus of a voluntary meal-offering, and the surplus of a meal-offering, must be left to decay.

What is it saying?

Rav Ḥisda said: This is what it is saying: The surplus of a sinner’s meal-offering—

goes to the voluntary offerings fund; the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest—

must be left to decay.

Rabba said,

explaining the beraita:

Even the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest also goes to the voluntary offerings fund; rather, the surplus of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering must be left to decay.

There is a dispute:

The surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It goes to the voluntary offerings fund.

Rabbi Elazar said: It must be left to decay.

The Gemara raises an objection:

The surplus of shekels—

unconsecrated; and the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah, and the surplus of the bird-pairs of men with gonorrhea and women with gonorrhea, and of women after childbirth, and the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings—their surpluses go to the voluntary offerings fund.

Is it not so

that what we learned, “the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah”

means the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest,

and it is explicitly stated that its surplus goes to the voluntary offerings fund?!

And we reject this:

No,

it is not as you explained it. What we learned, that the surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah goes to the voluntary offerings fund, refers to

the surplus of a sinner’s meal-offering,

which is also brought as one-tenth of an ephah.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

It is reasonable to follow the opinion of the one who says: The surplus of the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest—

must be left to decay, for

indeed

it is taught:

It is written with regard to the sinner’s meal-offering [Leviticus 5]: “

He shall not place oil upon it, nor put frankincense upon it, for it is a sin-offering.”

Rabbi Yehuda said: The verse said “it” in order to exclude:

The verse says “it” in order to exclude another offering:

It is called a sin-offering

and does not require frankincense,

but no other one is called a sin-offering,

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

This teaches with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah of the High Priest that it is not called a sin-offering and does require 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, so too it does not have the status of a sin-offering with regard to surplus. For although it is called a “sin-offering,” it was excluded by the phrase “it is a sin-offering,” and therefore

its surplus must be left to decay,

and does not go to the voluntary offerings fund as does the surplus of a sin-offering.

Mishna:

One who vows and says, “

This ox is an olah,”

and it develops a blemish

[a blemish occurred in it], and its law is that it must be redeemed, with its monetary value used for an olah:

If he wishes, he may bring two animals with its value,

smaller ones.

And likewise, if he said, “

These two oxen are olot,”

and they developed blemishes: if he wishes, he may bring one animal with their value,

a larger one.

But Rabbi prohibits

this initially, and the Gemara explains that Rabbi disputes both cases.

One who vows and says, “

This ram”

[a two-year-old sheep] “

is an olah,”

and it develops a blemish:

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

[up to one year old].

One who says, “

This sheep is an olah”:

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

But Rabbi prohibits

this in both cases.