Parallel
מנחות 105:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
first; and if ‘of the flock’, he should have to bring a lamb since Holy Writ stated that first; and if ‘of the birds’, he should have to bring turtle-doves, since Holy Writ stated them first. Wherefore then have we learnt: [If a man said,] ‘I take upon myself to bring a burnt-offering’, he should bring a lamb; but R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, [He may bring] a turtledove or a young pigeon? And R. Judah does not differ there! — We must therefore say that it is accounted the principal meal-offering because it has no descriptive name. But the Tanna gave as the reason ‘Because Holy Writ stated it first’! — This is what he meant to say. Which is the meal-offering described as ‘the principal one’ by virtue of the fact that it has no descriptive name? It is that which Holy Writ stated first. But this is obvious, for [R. Judah] expressly mentioned the meal-offering of fine flour! — It is merely stated as a mnemonical sign. [IF HE SAID,] ‘A MEAL-OFFERING’ OR ‘A KIND OF MEAL-OFFERING’ etc. R. Papa raised the following question. What if he said ‘kinds of meal-offering’? [Shall I say that] since he said ‘kinds!. he obviously meant two, and the term ‘meal-offering’ [is generic], since all meal-offerings are referred to as ‘meal-offering’, as it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering? Or [shall I rather say that] since he said ‘meal-offering’ he meant only one meal-offering, and by the expression ‘kinds of meal-offering’ he meant to imply, ‘Of the kinds of meal-offering I take upon myself [to bring] one meal-offering’? — Come and hear: [IF HE SAID,] ‘A MEAL-OFFERING’ OR ‘A KIND OF MEAL-OFFERING’, HE MUST BRING ONE [OF ANY KIND]. It follows, however, that [if he said] ‘kinds of meal-offering’ he would have to bring two! — Read the next clause: IF MEAL-OFFERINGS’ OR ‘A KIND OF MEAL-OFFERINGS’, HE MUST BRING TWO. It follows, however, that [if he said] ‘kinds of meal-offering’ he would have to bring only one! The truth is that we cannot decide from here. Come and hear: [If he said,] ‘I take upon myself to bring a kind of meal-offerings’, he must bring two meal-offerings of the same kind. It follows, however, that [if he said] ‘kinds of mealoffering’ he would only have to bring one! — Perhaps the inference is this: [if he said] ‘kinds of meal-offering’, he must bring two meal-offerings of two kinds. But it has been taught otherwise: [If he said,] ‘I take upon myself to bring a kind of meal-offerings’, he must bring two meal-offerings of the same kind. But if he said, ‘I take upon myself to bring kinds of meal-offerings’, he must bring two meal-offerings of two kinds. If follows from this, that [if he said] ‘kinds of meal-offering’ he would have to bring only one! — Perhaps that [Baraitha] represents the view of R. Simeon who ruled that one may bring it the half in cakes and the half in wafers; accordingly the expression ‘kinds of meal-offering’ refers to that meal-offering which may be of two kinds. According to the Rabbis, however, who ruled that one may not bring it the half in cakes and the half in wafers, he would then have to bring two meal-offerings of two kinds. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [A CERTAIN KIND] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT KIND I SPECIFIED’. HE MUST BRING THE FIVE KINDS. Who is the Tanna that taught this? — R. Jeremiah said, It is not R. Simeon; for according to R. Simeon who stated that he may bring it the half in cakes and the half in wafers, even though R. Judah's view were accepted, that all meal-offerings consisted of ten cakes each, he would have to bring fourteen meal-offerings because of the doubt. Abaye said. You may even say that it is R. Simeon. for we have heard R. Simeon express the view that one may bring an offering and make conditions about it. For it has been taught: R. Simeon says. On the following day he brings his guilt-offering and a log [of oil]
—