מנחות 106 — parallel

106:1

and the wafers [mixed together]. whereas here he takes the handful from the cakes for the wafers and from the wafers for the cakes! — We have heard R. Simeon say that if when taking the handful there came into his hand only one of the two kinds he has fulfilled his obligation. But what [is to be done] with the residue of the oil; for if he had originally specified [a meal-offering] the half in cakes and the half in wafers, the residue of the oil would be put into the cakes, but if he had originally specified [a meal-offering of] wafers the residue of the oil would be consumed by the priests? — The opinion of R. Simeon son of Judah is followed. For R. Simeon son of Judah said in the name of R. Simeon. He anoints them in the form of the Greek letter Chi, and the residue of the oil is consumed by the priests. R. Kahana said to R. Ashi, But should not the doubt include also the meal-offering offered with the drink-offerings; for Raba has said, A man may offer every day the meal-offerings of the drink-offerings [which accompany animal-offerings]? — The doubt includes only that meal-offering (mnemonic: individual, by itself, frankincense, log, handful) which is brought by an individual but not that which is brought by the community. The doubt includes only that which is brought by itself but not that which is brought to accompany the animal-offering. The doubt includes only that which requires frankincense but not that which does not require frankincense. The doubt includes only that which requires but one log of oil but not that which requires three logs. The doubt includes only that from which the handful is taken but not that from which the handful is not taken. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED A MEAL-OFFERING [OF A CERTAIN NUMBER] OF TENTHS’. Our Rabbis taught: [If a man said,] ‘I specified a meal-offering of [a certain number of] tenths and I determined them for one vessel, but I do not know what number I specified’, he must bring a meal-offering of sixty tenths. This is the opinion of the Sages. But Rabbi says, He must bring meal-offerings of [every number of] tenths from one to sixty, that is, one thousand eight hundred and thirty [tenths]. [If he said,] ‘I specified [a certain number of tenths of a certain kind] but I do not know what kind I specified or what number I specified’, he must bring the five kinds of meal-offering each consisting of sixty tenths, that is, three hundred tenths. This is the opinion of the Sages. But Rabbi says, He must bring the five kinds of meal-offering, and of each kind every number of tenths from one to sixty, that is, nine thousand one hundred and fifty [tenths]. What is the issue between them? — R. Hisda said, They differ as to whether or not it is permitted to bring unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary; Rabbi holds that it is forbidden to bring unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary, while the Sages hold that it is permitted. Raba said. All hold that it is forbidden to bring unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary, but they differ as to whether or not it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill-offering; the Sages holding that it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill-offering, while Rabbi holds that it is forbidden. Abaye said to Rabba, According to the Sages who hold that it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill- offering, should not two handfuls be taken therefrom? — [He replied.] First one handful is taken and then another. But he would be taking the handful from the offering of obligation for the freewill-offering and from the freewill-offering for the offering of obligation! — He leaves it to the mind of the priest and says, ‘What the priest's hand takes up the first time shall be [the handful] for the offering of obligation, and what it takes up the second time shall be for the freewill-offering.’ But how are [the handfuls] to be burnt? If he burns the handful of the freewill-offering first, then how may he thereafter burn the handful of the offering of obligation; perhaps the entire meal-offering was his offering of obligation, consequently the remainder [of the meal-offering] has diminished [between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof]. and a Master has stated that if the remainder had diminished between the taking of the handful and the burning thereof the handful may not be burnt on behalf of it? And if he burns the handful of the offering of obligation first, then how may he thereafter burn the handful of the freewill-offering;

—

106:2

perhaps the entire meal-offering was his offering of obligation, and any offering a portion of which had been put on the fire of the altar is subject to the prohibition ye shall not burn? — R. Judah son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi replied, It is burnt as wood, in accordance with a ruling of R. Eliezer. For it was taught: R. Eliezer says, [It is written,] They shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar; thus ‘for a sweet savour you may not bring it up, but you may bring it up as wood. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Perhaps all hold that it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill-offering, but they differ over R. Eliezer's ruling: the Sages accepting R. Eliezer's ruling while Rabbi does not accept R. Eliezer's ruling! — He replied. If one could say that according to Rabbi it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill-offering, and that Rabbi does not accept R. Eliezer's ruling, then he could bring sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, bring the two into contact, and take the handful from each. Raba said, All hold that it is permitted to mix the offering of obligation with the freewill-offering, moreover all accept R. Eliezer's ruling, but they differ on the same principles as those which underlie the dispute between R. Eliezer b. Jacob and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: Even a meal-offering of sixty tenths required sixty logs [of oil]. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says. Even a meal-offering of sixty tenths required but one log [of oil], for it is written, For a meal-offering even a log of oil. The Sages hold the same view as the Rabbis who say that sixty logs are required for sixty tenths, one log for each tenth, while Rabbi holds the same view as R. Eliezer b. Jacob who says that only one log is required. and therefore we do not know whether to regard [the sixty tenths] as one meal-offering for which one log is sufficient or as two meal-offerings for which two logs are necessary. R. Ashi said, They differ in the case of [one who vowed to bring] a small animal and brought a large one. The Sages hold that [one who vowed to bring] a small animal and brought a large one has fulfilled his obligation. while Rabbi holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they have already differed in this matter, for we have learnt: [If he said] ‘a small animal’ and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; but Rabbi says, He has not fulfilled his obligation! — Both disputes were necessary For if the dispute had only been stated here, I should have said that only here do the Sages say [that by bringing a larger offering he has fulfilled his obligation] since in either case only one handful [is offered], but in the other case, since there are more sacrificial portions [in a larger animal]. I might say that they agree with Rabbi [that he has not thereby fulfilled his obligation]. And if the dispute had only been stated there, I should have said that only there does Rabbi say [that he has not fulfilled his obligation, since there are more sacrificial portions], but in this case I might say that he agrees with the Sages; therefore [both disputes] were necessary. (Mnemonic: Wood, Gold, Wine, Burnt-offering, Thank-offering, Ox.) MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER [PIECES OF] WOOD’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN TWO LOGS. IF ‘FRANKINCENSE’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A HANDFUL. THE HANDFUL IS SPECIFIED IN FIVE CASES: IF A MAN SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING FRANKINCENSE’. HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A HANDFUL. IF HE OFFERED A MEAL-OFFERING HE MUST BRING A HANDFUL OF FRANKINCENSE WITH IT. IF A MAN OFFERED UP THE HANDFUL OUTSIDE [THE TEMPLE COURT] HE IS LIABLE. THE TWO DISHES [OF FRANKINCENSE] REQUIRE TWO HANDFULS. [IF A MAN SAID.] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER GOLD’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A GOLDEN DENAR; IF SILVER’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A SILVER DENAR; IF ‘COPPER’. HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN [THE VALUE OF] A SILVER MA'AH. [IF HE SAID.] ‘I SPECIFIED [HOW MUCH I WOULD BRING] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I SPECIFIED’. HE MUST BRING SO MUCH UNTIL HE SAYS. ‘I CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND TO GIVE SO MUCH!’ GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Offering: this signifies that one may offer wood as a freewill-offering. And how much must it be? Two logs. For so it is written, And we cast lots for the offering of wood. Rabbi says, The wood-offering is included under the term ‘offering’. and therefore requires salt and also requires to be brought near [the altar]. Raba said, According to Rabbi's view the handful must be taken from the wood-offering. R. Papa said, According to Rabbi's view the wood-offering requires other wood. IF ‘FRANKINCENSE’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A HANDFUL. How do we know this? — Because it is written, And he shall take up therefrom his handful of the fine flour of the meal-offering and of the oil thereof, and all the frankincense. The frankincense is thus compared with the taking up of the meal-offering: as the taking up of the meal-offering was a handful so the frankincense must consist of a handful. Our Rabbis taught: [If a man said,] ‘I take upon myself [to bring an offering] for the altar’, he must bring frankincense, for nothing is offered entirely upon the altar but frankincense. [If he said,] ‘I specified an offering for the altar but I do not know what it was I specified’, he must bring of everything that is offered entirely upon the altar. Is there nothing else? But what about the burnt-offering? — There is the skin thereof which belongs to the priests. And what about the burnt-offering of a bird? — There are

—