1 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]ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳ
2 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, its blood must be applied upon the thumb and the great toe, it requires the laying on of hands, and drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh, and it may be eaten by the males of the priesthood during that day and the following night [until midnight]. And although the Master in [the Tractate] ‘The Slaughtering of Consecrated Animals’ 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, but in all the other cases 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, and so consecrated food is rendered invalid [before its time]; but in the case of meal-offerings 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! — [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. But how does he take out the handful? — 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; 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 cakesˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠ