חולין 23:2 — Soncino English Talmud

who holds that he must bring [for it libations as for a ram] and account for the possibilities. The question therefore is: must he account only for the possibility of it being either a ram or a lamb but not of it being a distinct species. or must he also account for the possibility of it being a distinct species and declare that if it is a distinct species all the libations shall be regarded as a freewill-offering? The question remains undecided. R. Zera put the following question: What is the law if a man said: ‘Behold, I undertake to bring [ten] cakes of a Thankoffering either leavened or unleavened’, and he brought siur? According to whose definition of siur does the question arise? If [he brought] that siur as defined by R. Meir, and [the question is asked] according to R. Judah's ruling about it, then it is undoubtedly unleavened! And if [he brought that siur] as defined by R. Judah and [the question is asked] according to R. Meir's ruling about it, then it is clearly leavened! Again if [he brought that siur] as defined by R. Meir and [the question is asked] according to R. Meir's ruling about it, then it is evidently leavened, since one is liable to stripes [for eating it on the Passover]! Indeed, the question arises on R. Judah's definition [of siur] and according to R. Judah's ruling about it; thus, is it a condition of doubt, then in our case he at all events fulfils his obligation; or is it a distinct state, then he does not fulfil his obligation? But has not R. Huna said that if a man said: ‘Behold, I undertake to offer the cakes of a Thank-offering’, he must bring a Thank-offering as well as the cakes? Now in our case, since there is imposed upon this person the duty of bringing a Thank-offering as well as the cakes, he does not know whether he must regard these [cakes of siur] as leavened and so bring for the rest unleavened cakes, or as Unleavened and so bring leavened cakes [among the others]! — The question could only arise where a man said: ‘Behold, I undertake to bring [ten] cakes, [either leavened or unleavened] in order to release So-and-so from this obligation in his Thank-offering’. Even so, that other person does not know whether to regard these [cakes of siur] as leavened and bring the unleavened himself, or to regard these as unleavened and bring the leavened himself! — The question only arises in the case where he did not say. ‘In order to release’, and the point is this: Has this person fulfilled his obligation or not? — The question remains undecided. MISHNAH. [THE METHOD OF KILLING] WHICH RENDERS THE RED COW VALID RENDERS THE HEIFER INVALID, AND THE METHOD WHICH RENDERS THE HEIFER VALID RENDERS THE RED COW INVALID. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The Red Cow is rendered valid by slaughtering and invalid by breaking its neck; the Heifer is rendered valid by breaking its neck and invalid by slaughtering. It follows, therefore, that [the method of killing] which renders the Red Cow valid renders the Heifer invalid, and the method which renders the Heifer valid renders the Red Cow invalid. But should not the Red Cow be rendered valid by breaking its neck by the following a fortiori argument? Thus, if the Heifer which is not rendered valid by slaughtering is nevertheless rendered valid by breaking its neck, the Red Cow which is rendered valid by slaughtering should surely be rendered valid by breaking its neck!^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘and stipulates’. By declaring: (a) if it is a ram then the quantity of libations offered is correct; (b) if it is a lamb then such amount as is required for a lamb shall be taken from this quantity, and the remainder shall be treated as a freewill libation offering. A third possibility would have to be accounted for if one were to take into consideration the possibility of it being a distinct species, in which case the declaration would be in addition to the two possibilities already stated; (c) if it is a distinct species and therefore no libations are necessary, then the whole of the libations offered shall be treated as a freewill-offering.
^ᵇnote:Consequently in the circumstances of R. Zera's case the person will have discharged his obligation.
^ᶜnote:With the result that in R. Zera's case the person will not have discharged his obligation.
^ᵈnote:V. Lev. VII, 12 and 13, where it is prescribed that with a thank-offering one had to bring four kinds of cakes, viz., unleavened cakes mingled with oil, unleavened cakes smeared with oil, unleavened cakes of fine flour saturated in oil and leavened cakes. At present it is assumed that the man's obligation was merely to bring ten cakes, and by bringing cakes made from siur (v. next note), the question arises whether or not he has fulfilled his obligation.
^ᵉnote:V. Pes. 48b. In the matter of siur there are two disputes between R. Meir and R. Judah. (a) As to the definition of siur: R. Meir says. It is dough the surface of which has already become pale (which indicates that fermentation has already begun); R. Judah says. It is dough the surface of which has become wrinkled (which is some time after it has turned pale). (b) As to the law of siur: R. Meir says that whosoever eats siur (as defined by him) on the Passover is liable to stripes; R. Judah says that whosoever eats siur (as defined by him) on the Passover is not liable to any punishment. Moreover, siur as defined by R. Judah is regarded by R. Meir as leavened, and whosoever eats of it on the Passover is liable to the punishment of Kareth; and on the other hand, siur, as defined by R. Meir is regarded by R. Judah as unleavened, and one may eat it on the Passover:
^ᶠnote:For it is either leavened or unleavened.
^ᵍnote:I.e., a definite stage in the process of fermentation, at which time the dough is neither leavened or unleavened.
^ʰnote:The difficulty that is raised by R. Huna's statement is this. The original assumption that this man's obligation ended with the bringing of the cakes cannot stand, for according to the law as stated by R. Huna he must bring all the forty cakes that accompany the thank-offering as well as the thank-offering itself. Consequently this man is in a dilemma, for even if it were accepted that siur is a condition of doubt, his position is no better, since he does not know what other cakes he must now bring.
^ⁱnote:In this case the man has no other obligation than to bring ten cakes and therefore he would be fulfilling his obligation if it were held that siur was a condition of doubt.
^ʲnote:The purpose of this man's promise is to release that other person from part of his obligation; but since the other cannot avail himself of these cakes, for he does not know what other cakes he must bring, this man's purpose has not been achieved and consequently his obligation has not been discharged.
^ᵏnote:Here the man undertakes to add ten cakes to his friend's thank-offering. The other person is in no way affected by this promise, for he must bring the full complement of cakes with his thank-offering, and the only Point that has to be considered is whether this man has fulfilled his own obligation by bringing these cakes of siur or not.
^ˡnote:V. Num. XIX.
^ᵐnote:V. Deut. XXI.