מנחות 104 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And I have to rely upon the bread dealer. How does the matter stand? — R. Joseph answered, R. Judah was the Master [in regard to all matters of religious law] in the house of the Nasi, and it was he that gave the above decision, and it was in accordance with the law that he reported. For we have learnt: R. Judah reports six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai pronounce the blood of a carcass clean; but Beth Hillel pronounce it unclean. R. Jose son of R. Judah said, Even when Beth Hillel pronounced it unclean they said so only in respect of a quarter-log of blood, since it can congeal and amount to an olive's bulk. MISHNAH. ONE MAY NOT OFFER ONE [LOG], TWO, OR FIVE [LOGS], BUT ONE MAY OFFER THREE, FOUR, SIX, OR ANYTHING ABOVE SIX. GEMARA. The question was asked: Is the wine of the drinkofferings indivisible or not? In what circumstances [does the question arise]? Where, e.g., a man brought five [logs of wine]. If you say that the wine of the drink-offerings is not indivisible, then four logs can be drawn off and offered, since that is the proper quantity for a ram, and the remaining log would be for a freewill-offering; but if you say that it is indivisible, then these five logs may not be offered until the quantity is made up. How is it then? Abaye said, Come and hear: There were six [money chests] for freewill-offerings. And to the question, What did they represent? the reply was given, They represented the surplus of the sin-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the leper, the surplus of the bird-offerings, and the surplus of the sinner's meal-offering. Now if it were so, then another money chest should have been prepared for the surplus of the drink-offerings? — Those served only for freewill-offerings of the community, whereas these were quite frequent, and therefore the surplus of the drink-offerings of one man could be joined to that of another and could in this way be offered. Raba said, Come and hear: Home-born: this teaches us that a man may offer wine for a drink-offering. How much [must he bring]? Three logs. Whence do we know that if he desired to bring more he may do so? Because the text states, Shall be. We might suppose that he may bring less, the text therefore states, After this manner. Now what is meant by ‘bring more’? Shall I say [it means the bringing of] four or six logs? But why are three logs admitted? [Surely] because that quantity is proper for a lamb! Then similarly four and six logs are proper for a ram and a bullock respectively? Hence it must mean [the bringing of] five logs, thus proving that the wine for the drink-offerings is not indivisible. This indeed proves it. R. Ashi said, But we have not learnt so [in our Mishnah]! [For it states]: ONE MAY NOT OFFER ONE [LOG], TWO, OR FIVE [LOGS], BUT ONE MAY OFFER THREE, FOUR, SIX, OR ANYTHING ABOVE SIX. Now here five is stated alongside with two, therefore as two can under no circumstances be admitted for drink-offerings, so five cannot be admitted at all? — This does not necessarily follow; each follows its own rule. Abaye said, If you are able to prove that the wine of the drink-offerings is not indivisible, then it is not indivisible. But if you prove that it is indivisible, then I am clear as to the law with regard to any number of logs up to ten, but about eleven^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘that man’. R. Bibi was in straitened circumstances and had difficulties in obtaining a living, consequently his mind was not at ease to concentrate on the question raised.
^ᵇnote:Is a quarter-log of blood of a carcass unclean or not?
^ᶜnote:Sc. Rabbi, in whose house the above incident about the mule occurred. Chronologically it is very difficult to accept that R. Judah b. Ila'i held a position in the household of R. Judah the prince (or Rabbi). V. however Tosaf. s.v. tbhhrun.
^ᵈnote:To measure the blood so as to ascertain whether there was a quarter-log or not.
^ᵉnote:‘Ed. V, 1; Shab. 77a.
^ᶠnote:This is exceptional, for generally the school of Hillel follow the more lenient ruling.
^ᵍnote:Which is the minimum quantity of carcass ( vkhcb ) that conveys uncleanness.
^ʰnote:Of wine as a drink-offering. One may offer only such quantities as conform with the quantities prescribed for one or several of the specific animal-offerings, and these are: six logs for each bullock, four for each ram, and three for each lamb. Nowhere is such a quantity as one log, or two, or five prescribed.
^ⁱnote:Corresponding to the wine-offering of a lamb, a ram, and a bullock respectively.
^ʲnote:Thus seven logs could be applied for the drink-offerings of one ram and one lamb, eight for two rams, nine for one bullock and one lamb, and so on.
^ᵏnote:Where a certain quantity of wine is offered, is it to be regarded as one whole so that it must be offered together as one drink-offering, or may it be divided up and some taken for one offering and the remainder applied in any manner available for it?
^ˡnote:The remaining log would either be sold and the money obtained put into the chest of freewill-offerings or it would be added to two more logs and used as the drink-offering of the daily offering.
^ᵐnote:I.e., he must bring another log so as to make up six logs, the quantity prescribed for a bullock.
^ⁿnote:V. Shek. VI, 5, and infra 107b.
^ᵒnote:I.e., if a certain sum of money had been set apart for an animal-offering and the price fell, the surplus money was put into a money chest and eventually was expended on burnt-offerings for the community. The offerings enumerated were each in some aspect different from the others, hence the surplus of each was kept in a separate chest.
^ᵖnote:That the wine of the drink-offerings was not indivisible, and therefore in the case in question four logs, the quantity prescribed for a ram, could be drawn off and offered, and the remaining log would be for a freewill-offering.
^ᵠnote:The surplus in each of the six cases enumerated.
^ʳnote:For the surplus money cannot be used for its original purpose.
^ˢnote:The surplus of the drink-offerings.
^ᵗnote:For drink-offerings were offered at all times, even unaccompanied by an animal-sacrifice; accordingly the surplus of several offerings of wine could be combined and offered. There was therefore no need for a special chest in which to collect the surplus of each drink-offering.
^ᵘnote:Num. XV, 13; with reference to the drink-offerings.
^ᵛnote:Even though it is unaccompanied by an animal-offering.
^ʷnote:Ibid. XXVIII, 14: Half a hin of wine shall be for a bullock. The expression ‘shall be’ is superfluous and therefore serves to include a larger quantity than that prescribed. The reference might also be to Num. XV, 15.
^ˣnote:Ibid. 13.
^ʸnote:And surely no verse is required to include these quantities.
^ᶻnote:And this quantity is expressly included by the verse. As to the procedure, four logs, the quantity prescribed for a ram, would be offered and the fifth would be a surplus.
^ᵃᵃnote:Two logs, admittedly, cannot under any circumstances be offered, but five may be offered in the manner already described, namely, four logs, being the drink-offering of a ram, are offered, and the remaining log is kept for a freewill-offering. Our Mishnah disallows the offering of five logs only in the first instance, for it is not proper to bring at the outset such a quantity as must inevitably lead to a surplus.
^ᵃᵇnote:Therefore any quantity above two logs may be offered.
^ᵃᶜnote:Thus offerings of one, two, or five logs may not be brought, but any other quantity, up to and including ten, may. V. supra p. 638, n. 13.

²I am in doubt. How am I to regard it? Shall I say that the man intended to offer the drink-offerings of two bullocks, and therefore these may not be offered until this quantity has been made up? Or [shall I rather say that] ‘he intended to bring the drink-offerings of two rams and one lamb? [In other words, the question is:] Do we say that he meant to bring the drink-offerings corresponding to two quantities of one kind and one of the other or not? The question remains unsolved. MISHNAH. ONE MAY OFFER WINE BUT NOT OIL. THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. BUT R. TARFON SAYS, ONE MAY ALSO OFFER OIL. R. TARFON SAID, AS WE FIND THAT WINE WHICH IS OFFERED AS AN OBLIGATION MAY BE OFFERED AS A FREEWILL-OFFERING, SO OIL WHICH IS OFFERED AS AN OBLIGATION MAY BE OFFERED AS A FREEWILL-OFFERING. R. AKIBA SAID TO HIM, NO, IF YOU SAY SO OF WINE IT IS BECAUSE IT IS OFFERED BY ITSELF EVEN WHEN OFFERED AS AN OBLIGATION; CAN YOU SAY THE SAME OF OIL WHICH IS NOT OFFERED BY ITSELF WHEN OFFERED AS AN OBLIGATION? TWO [MEN] MAY NOT JOINTLY OFFER ONE TENTH; BUT THEY MAY JOINTLY OFFER A BURNT-OFFERING OR A PEACE-OFFERING, AND OF BIRDS EVEN A SINGLE BIRD. GEMARA. Raba said, From the opinions of both we may infer that a man may offer every day the meal-offerings of the drink-offerings. But is not this obvious? [No,] for I might have thought that in regard to the freewill meal-offering the Divine Law has specified but five kinds of meal-offerings and no more; we are therefore taught that that is so only where [the kind of the meal-offering] was not expressed, but where it was expressly stated then it was so stated. TWO [MEN] MAY NOT JOINTLY OFFER [ONE TENTH]. What is the reason? Shall I say because there is written, Bringeth? But with the burnt-offering too there is written, Bringeth! But you will say that the reason this is so with the burnt-offering is that there is written, Your burnt-offerings; then with the meal-offering too there is written, And your meal-offerings! — The reason is that there is written in connection with [the meal-offering] the word ‘soul’. And so too it was taught in a Baraitha: Rabbi says, It is written, [Whosoever he be of the house of Israel] that bringeth his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their freewill-offerings, which they bring unto the Lord: thus every offering may be brought jointly, and the verse excluded only the meal-offering in connection with which the expression ‘soul’ is used. R. Isaac said, Why is the meal-offering distinguished in that the expression ‘soul’ is used therewith? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘Who is it that usually brings a meal-offering? It is the poor man. I account it as though he had offered his own soul to Me’. R. Isaac said, Why is the meal-offering distinguished in that five kinds of oil dishes are stated in connection with it? This can be likened to the case of a human king for whom his friend had prepared a feast. As the king knew that [his friend] was poor, he said to him, ‘prepare it for me in five kinds of dishes so that I will derive pleasure from you’. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID], ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A TENTH’, HE MUST BRING ONE [TENTH]; IF ‘TENTHS’, HE MUST BRING TWO [TENTHS]. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TENTHS] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT NUMBER I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING SIXTY TENTHS [IF HE SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING’, HE MAY BRING WHICHEVER KIND HE CHOOSES. R. JUDAH SAYS, HE MUST BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR, FOR THAT IS THE PRINCIPAL MEAL-OFFERING. [IF HE SAID] A MEAL-OFFERING’ OR ‘A KIND OF MEAL-OFFERING’, HE MUST BRING ONE [OF ANY KIND]; IF ‘MEAL-OFFERINGS’ OR A KIND OF MEAL-OFFERINGS’, HE MUST BRING TWO [OF ANY ONE KIND]; [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [A CERTAIN KIND], BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT KIND I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING THE FIVE KINDS [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED A MEAL-OFFERING OF [A CERTAIN NUMBER OF] TENTHS BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT NUMBER I SPECIFIED, HE MUST BRING SIXTY TENTHS. BUT RABBI SAYS, HE MUST BRING MEAL-OFFERINGS [OF EVERY NUMBER] OF TENTHS FROM ONE TO SIXTY. GEMARA. This is obvious! — It was necessary to state the next clause: IF ‘TENTHS’, HE MUST BRING TWO [TENTHS]. But this too is obvious, for the minimum of ‘tenths’ is two! — It was necessary to state the following clause: [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TENTHS] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT NUMBER I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING SIXTY TENTHS. Whose view is taught here? Said Hezekiah: It is not that of Rabbi, for Rabbi has said, HE MUST BRING MEAL-OFFERINGS [OF EVERY NUMBER] OF TENTHS FROM ONE TO SIXTY. R. Johanan said, You may even say that it sets forth the view of Rabbi, but [we must assume that] the man said, ‘I specified [a certain number of] tenths but I had not determined them for one vessel’, in which case he must bring sixty tenths in sixty vessels. [IF HE SAID.] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING’, HE MAY BRING WHICHEVER KIND HE CHOOSES, etc. A Tanna taught: It is because Holy Writ stated it first. In that case, if a man said, ‘I take upon myself to bring a burnt-offering’. he should have to bring a bullock, since Holy Writ stated that^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ

^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., twelve logs.
^ᵃᵉnote:For the quantity is odd and unusual. V. Tosaf. 104a s.v. sg
^ᵃᶠnote:By itself, without it being accompanied by a meal-offering of flour and oil. As for the manner in which wine was offered, v. Zeb. 91b.
^ᵃᵍnote:A handful of the oil was taken and burnt upon the altar and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
^ᵃʰnote:Viz., as the drink-offering which accompanied most animal-offerings.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. the exposition from the term ‘home-born’ supra p. 640.
^ᵃʲnote:For the wine of the drink-offering was not mixed with anything, whereas the oil was mingled with the fine flour.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., the meal-offering of fine flour mingled with oil and the offering of wine, which accompany most animal-offerings, may be brought at any time as an entire and separate offering even without an animal-offering. The dispute between R. Akiba and R. Tarfon refers only to the offering of oil by itself, but certainly not to the offering of oil which is part of the meal-offering of the drink-offerings.
^ᵃˡnote:In Lev. II, the following five kinds of meal-offerings are described: (i) the meal-offering of fine flour, (ii) the meal-offering prepared on a griddle, (iii) the meal-offering prepared in a pan, (iv) the meal-offering baked in the oven and made into cakes, and (v) that baked in the oven and made into wafers.
^ᵃᵐnote:Thus where a man pledged himself to bring a meal-offering without specifying the kind he was to bring he is bound to bring one of the five kinds described in the Torah.
^ᵃⁿnote:That he is offering the meal-offering of the drink-offerings.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. II, 1. The verb used is in the singular, signifying that the offering shall be brought by an individual and not by two persons jointly.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid. I, 3.
^ᵃᵠnote:That it may be brought jointly.
^ᵃʳnote:Num. XXIX, 39. Here the plural pronominal suffix is used.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. II, 1. Heb. apb. The term usually found with sacrifices is ost or aht, man.
^ᵃᵗnote:Ibid. XXII, 18.
^ᵃᵘnote:Each of the five kinds of meal-offerings, v. supra p. 642, n. 2, is prepared with oil.
^ᵃᵛnote:Sc. the little that you possess.
^ᵃʷnote:For this is the maximum size of the meal-offering of an individual; and therefore even if that which he promised was less it matters nought, for when bringing this quantity he should stipulate that what is over and above the amount he promised shall be reckoned as a freewill meal-offering.
^ᵃˣnote:Of the five kinds of meal-offerings described in Lev. II. V. supra p. 642, n. 2.
^ᵃʸnote:To be brought in one vessel.
^ᵃᶻnote:Since he had specified a certain number of tenths to be brought in one vessel it would not meet the case, according to Rabbi, were he to bring the maximum quantity, namely sixty tenths, in one vessel, for Rabbi is of the opinion that once a certain number of tenths have been determined for one vessel that vessel may contain neither more nor less than the number specified. Accordingly the only possible solution is to bring sixty meal-offerings, each containing a different number of tenths; in this way he will certainly have brought the meal-offering he specified.
^ᵇᵃnote:The first clause of the Mishnah.
^ᵇᵇnote:This is the correct interpretation of the text, following MS.M. and Z.K. In cur. edd. the clause: [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED etc.’ is erroneously placed — as a fresh quotation from our Mishnah introducing a new passage.
^ᵇᶜnote:Bringing one tenth in each vessel. For the only doubt here is as to the number of tenths, since he left the matter open whether he would bring them in one or more vessels; whereas in the last clause of our Mishnah the doubt is as to the correct number of tenths to be brought in one vessel.
^ᵇᵈnote:For this reason is the meal-offering of fine flour described by R. Judah as the principal meal-offering.
^ᵇᵉnote:Which is contrary to the law, v. infra.