Menachot — Daf 105b

עמו ואומר אם מצורע הוא זהו אשמו וזה לוגו ואם לאו אשם זה יהא שלמי נדבה

ואותו אשם טעון שחיטה בצפון ומתן בהונות וסמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק ונאכל לזכרי כהונה ליום ולילה

ואף על גב דקא מפריק מר בשחיטת קדשים

אימר דאמר רבי שמעון מייתי ומתני לכתחילה לתקוני גברא אבל בעלמא דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא

הני מילי גבי שלמים דקא ממעט באכילתן דהוו להו קדשים לבית הפסול אבל מנחות אפילו לכתחילה

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי רבי שמעון דאמר מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין יביא הא קא מייתי עשרון אחד משני עשרון ולוג אחד משני לוגין

שמעינן ליה לר' שמעון דאמר אם הביא עשרון אחד משני עשרונות ולוג אחד משני לוגין יצא

ומיקמץ היכי קמץ דמתני ואמר אי חלות לחודייהו ורקיקין לחודייהו אמרי דקא קמיצנא מחלות ליהוי אחלות דקא קמיצנא מרקיקין ליהוי ארקיקין אי מחצה רקיקין ומחצה חלות אמרי דקא קמיצנא מחלות ליהוי אמחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין ודקא קמיצנא מרקיקין ליהוו אמחצה רקיקין ומחצה חלות

והא בעי מיקמץ חד קומץ מחלות

with it and says. ‘If I was a leper, then this is my guilt-offering and this the log of oil for it; but if not, let this be a freewill peace-offering’. And that guilt-offering must be slaughtered on the north side,1 its blood must be applied upon the thumb and the great toe,2 it requires the laying on of hands,3 and drink-offerings,3 and the waving of the breast and the thigh,3 and it may be eaten by the males of the priesthood during that day and the following night [until midnight].4 And5 although the Master in [the Tractate] ‘The Slaughtering of Consecrated Animals’6 has explained that ‘R. Simeon permitted a man to bring an offering and make conditions about it in the first instance only where there was no other possible way of making the man fit,7 but in all the other cases8 he permitted it only where it had actually been done but not in the first instance’, that distinction applies only to peace-offerings, since [the effect of the conditions expressed is] to reduce the time allowed for the eating,9 and so consecrated food is rendered invalid [before its time]; but in the case of meal-offerings10 he would permit it even in the first instance. R. Papa said to Abaye, But according to R. Simeon who said that he may bring it the half in cakes and the half in wafers, he is then bringing one tenth out of two tenths and one log out of two logs!11 — [He replied,] We have heard R. Simeon express the view that if a man brought one tenth out of two tenths and one log out of two logs he has fulfilled his obligation.12 But how does he take out the handful?13 — He [takes one handful from the cakes and another from the wafers and] makes the following conditions and says. ‘If I had specified [a meal-offering] of cakes only or of wafers only, then the handful I have taken from the cakes should serve the cakes and the handful I took from the wafers should serve the wafers;14 but if I had specified [originally a meal-offering] the half in cakes and the half in wafers, then the handful I have taken from the cakes should serve half for the cakes and half for the wafers, and the handful I have taken from the wafers should also serve half for the wafers and half for the cakes’. But surely he must take one handful from the cakes must be observed with this offering, as it is not known which it is. eaten during two days and one night. Where therefore a guilt-offering was confused with peace-offerings and each animal is taken and offered according to the restrictions of the two kinds of offerings, the flesh thereof would only be eaten during the shorter period and what was left over would be burnt perhaps unnecessarily. obligation would be, fulfilled only by combining the required number of cakes from the meal-offering of ten cakes with the required number of wafers from the meal-offering of ten wafers; and as each meal-offering consisted of one tenth of flour and one log of oil, he would thus be making up one offering from two offerings; and this is not allowed. separate vessels and two logs in separate vessels, and took the half from one and the half from the other, he has thereby fulfilled his obligation. are separate meal-offerings.