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;ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ