מנחות 107 — Soncino English Talmud

¹the crop and the feathers. And what about the drink-offerings? — They flow down into the pits. And what about the meal-offering that is offered with the drink-offerings? — Since there is the ordinary meal-offering which is eaten by the priests. It is therefore not definite. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER GOLD’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A GOLDEN DENAR. Perhaps he meant a bar [of gold]! — R. Eleazar said, [We must suppose that] he said [gold] coin. Perhaps he meant small gold coins! — R. Papa said, Small gold coin is not usually made. IF ‘SILVER’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN A SILVER DENAR. Perhaps he meant a bar [of silver]! — R. Eleazar said, [We must suppose that] he said [silver] coin. Then perhaps he meant small silver coin! — R. Shesheth said, It must be that in this place small silver coin was not current. IF ‘COPPER’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN THE VALUE OF A SILVER MA'AH. It was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, He must bring not less than a small copper hook. What is it fit for? — Abaye said, With it one could trim the wicks and cleanse the lamps. Of iron it was taught: Others say, He must bring not less than a ‘scarecrow’. And how much is that? — R. Joseph said, One cubit square. Some report it thus: He must bring not less than one cubit square. What is it fit for? — R. Joseph said, For a scarecrow. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER WINE’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN THREE LOG. IF ‘OIL’, HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN ONE LOG; BUT RABBI SAYS, NOT LESS THAN THREE LOGS. [IF HE SAID,] I SPECIFIED [HOW MUCH I WOULD OFFER] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT QUANTITY I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING THAT QUANTITY WHICH IS THE MOST THAT IS BROUGHT ON ANY ONE DAY. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Home-born: this teaches us that a man may offer wine as a freewill-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. IF ‘OIL’. HE MUST BRING NOT LESS THAN ONE LOG; BUT RABBI SAYS, NOT LESS THAN THREE LOGS. On what principle do they differ? — The scholars suggested to R. Papa. They differ as to whether we say, ‘Deduce from it and again from it’. Or ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’. The Rabbis are of the opinion that we say, ‘Deduce from it and again from it’. Thus [‘deduce from it’]: as one may offer a meal-offering as a freewill-offering, so one may offer oil; and ‘again from it’: as the meal-offering needs but one log [of oil], so the offering of oil needs but one log. Rabbi, however, is of the opinion that we say, ‘Deduce from it and establish it in its own place’. Thus: as one may offer a meal-offering as a freewill-offering, so one may offer oil as a freewill-offering; and ‘establish it in its own place’: it shall be like the drink-offerings [of wine]: as the drink-offerings [of wine] require three logs, so the offering of oil requires three logs. Thereupon R. Papa said to them, If Rabbi derived it from the meal-offering [he would certainly have said that the minimum quantity was one log], for all are of the opinion that we say ‘Deduce from it and again from it’. The fact is, however, that Rabbi derived it from the expression ‘Home-born’. R. Huna son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa. How can you say so? Behold it has been taught: Offering: this teaches us that a man may offer oil as a freewilloffering. And how much [must he bring]? Three logs. Now whom have you heard say, Three logs. It is only Rabbi; and yet he derives it from the expression ‘offering’! — He replied, If it was taught, it was taught. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [HOW MUCH I WOULD OFFER] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT QUANTITY I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING THAT QUANTITY WHICH IS THE MOST THAT IS BROUGHT ON ANY ONE DAY. A Tanna taught: Like the first day of the Feast [of Tabernacles] when it falls on a Sabbath. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER A BURNT-OFFERING, HE MUST BRING A LAMB. R. ELEAZAR B. AZARIAH SAID, [HE MAY BRING] A TURTLE-DOVE OR A YOUNG PIGEON. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED A BEAST OF THE HERD BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING A BULL AND A BULL CALF. [IF HE SAID, ‘I SPECIFIED] A BEAST OF THE CATTLE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING A BULL, A BULL CALF, A RAM, A HE-GOAT, A HE-KID. AND A HE-LAMB. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED [SOME KIND] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:For notes v. supra p. 443. nn. 6 and 7.
^ᵇnote:To say that the meal-offering is an offering entirely for the altar.
^ᶜnote:In the Temple.
^ᵈnote:Lit., ‘keeping off the ravens’. An iron sheet studded with spikes that was placed on the Temple roof to prevent birds perching there. V. Mid. IV, 6. According to Aruch: an iron figure placed on the roof to scare the birds away. V. Tosaf. s.v. vhkf.
^ᵉnote:This being the smallest quantity of wine prescribed in the drink-offerings that accompanied the animal-offering. viz., three logs for a lamb.
^ᶠnote:The minimum quantity of oil prescribed for a meal-offering.
^ᵍnote:This being the minimum prescribed in meal-offerings that are offered with the drink-offerings.
^ʰnote:V: Gemara.
^ⁱnote:Num. XV, 13; stated with reference to the drink-offerings.
^ʲnote:Ibid. 15.
^ᵏnote:V. supra p. 368, n. 1.
^ˡnote:The first Tanna of our Mishnah.
^ᵐnote:Ibid. 13. And just as it was deduced from this expression that wine may be offered by itself as a freewill-offering. Rabbi also derives therefrom that oil may similarly be offered as a freewill-offering. Accordingly wine and oil are to be on a par, and as wine requires a minimum of three logs so it is with oil too.
^ⁿnote:That Rabbi derives the rule that oil may be offered as a freewill-offering from the drink-offerings and not from the meal-offering.
^ᵒnote:Lev. II, 1; stated with reference to the freewill meal-offering.
^ᵖnote:‘I admit then that I am wrong.’
^ᵠnote:On this day were offered thirteen bullocks, two rams, and eighteen lambs, v. Num. XXIX, 12ff; and as for each bullock were required six logs of wine and of oil, for each ram four logs; and for each lamb three logs, the total number of logs of wine, and similarly of oil, offered on this day was 140.
^ʳnote:Which must be a male animal.
^ˢnote:This is the least expensive animal that can be offered as a burnt-offering.
^ᵗnote:rec
^ᵘnote:vnvc.

²HE MUST ADD TO THESE A TURTLE-DOVE AND A YOUNG PIGEON. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER A THANK-OFFERING OR A PEACE-OFFERING’, HE MUST BRING A LAMB.[IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED A BEAST OF THE HERD BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING A BULL AND A COW, A BULL CALF AND A HEIFER. [IF HE SAID, I SPECIFIED] A BEAST OF THE CATTLE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING A BULL AND A COW, A BULL CALF AND A HEIFER. A RAM AND A EWE, A HE-GOAT AND A SHE-GOAT, A HE-KID AND A SHE-KID, A HE-LAMB AND A EWE-LAMB. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER AN OX. HE MUST BRING ONE WITH ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS TO THE VALUE OF A MANEH; IF ‘A CALF’, HE MUST BRING ONE WITH ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS TO THE VALUE OF FIVE SELA'S; IF ‘A RAM’, HE MUST BRING ONE WITH ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS TO THE VALUE OF TWO SELA'S; IF ‘A LAMB’, HE MUST BRING ONE WITH ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS TO THE VALUE OF ONE SELA’. IF HE SAID ‘AN OX VALUED AT ONE MANEH’, HE MUST BRING ONE WORTH A MANEH APART FROM ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS; IF A CALF VALUED AT FIVE SELA'S’. HE MUST BRING ONE WORTH FIVE SELA'S APART FROM ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS; IF ‘A RAM VALUED AT TWO SELA'S’, HE MUST BRING ONE WORTH TWO SELA'S APART FROM ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS; AND IF A LAMB VALUED AT ONE SELA’,’ HE MUST BRING ONE WORTH ONE SELA’ APART FROM ITS DRINK-OFFERINGS. [IF HE SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER] AN OX VALUED AT A MANEH’, AND HE BROUGHT TWO TOGETHER WORTH A MANEH, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. EVEN IF ONE WAS WORTH A MANEH LESS ONE DENAR AND THE OTHER ALSO WAS WORTH A MANEH LESS ONE DENAR. [IF HE SAID] ‘A BLACK ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A WHITE ONE, OR A WHITE ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A BLACK ONE, OR ‘A LARGE ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A SMALL ONE, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. [IF HE SAID] ‘A SMALL ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A LARGE ONE, HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION; BUT RABBI SAYS, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. GEMARA. They do not differ, for each rules according to the custom of his place. Our Rabbis taught: [If a man said,] ‘I take upon myself to offer a burnt-offering valued at a sela’ for the altar’, he must bring a lamb, for there is nothing else valued at a sela’ offered upon the altar save a lamb. [If he said,] ‘I specified [an offering valued at a sela’] but I do not know what it was I specified’, he must bring every kind of offering valued at a sela’ that is offered upon the altar. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED A BEAST OF THE HERD BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, HE MUST BRING A BULL AND A BULL CALF. But why? Let him bring a bull, for in any event [that should fulfil his obligation]! — This represents Rabbi's view, who maintains that [if a man offered to bring] a small animal and he brought a large one he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it is Rabbi's view here, then read the following clauses: [IF HE SAID, I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO OFFER] AN OX VALUED AT A MANEH’, AND HE BROUGHT TWO TOGETHER WORTH A MANEH, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. EVEN IF ONE WAS WORTH A MANEH LESS ONE DENAR AND THE OTHER ALSO WAS WORTH A MANEH LESS ONE DENAR. [IF HE SAID] ‘A BLACK ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A WHITE ONE, OR ‘A WHITE ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A BLACK ONE, OR ‘A LARGE ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A SMALL ONE, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. [IF HE SAID] ‘A SMALL ONE’ AND HE BROUGHT A LARGE ONE, HE HAS FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION; BUT RABBI SAYS, HE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. It will then be that the first and last clauses represent Rabbi's view while the middle clauses represent the view of the Rabbis! — That is so, the first and last clauses represent Rabbi's view while the middle clauses represent the view of the Rabbis; and [the Tanna of the Mishnah] wished to tell us that this ruling [in the first part of the Mishnah] is really a matter of dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis. We have learnt elsewhere: There were six [money chests] for freewill-offerings. What did they represent? (Mnemonic: K.N.Z.P.Sh.’A.) — Hezekiah said, They represented the six priestly groups; and the Sages installed [six money chests] so that they should be at peace with each other. R. Johanan said, Because of the abundant offerings [the Sages] installed [six] money chests so that the money became not mouldy. Ze'iri said, They served for the offerings of a bull, a calf, a ram, a lamb, a kid and a goat; this being in accord with Rabbi who said that if a man offered to bring a small animal and he brought a large one he has not fulfilled his obligation. Bar Padda said, They served for the moneys of] bullocks, rams,^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ᵛnote:Which may be either a male or female animal.
^ʷnote:One maneh =25 sela's; one sela’ = 4 denars. The prices mentioned for the various beasts are traditional, though there is a Biblical indication that the ram was to be worth two sela's in Lev. V, 15.
^ˣnote:R. Eleazar b. Azariah and the first Tanna.
^ʸnote:Both agree that the cheapest should be offered, but in the place where the first Tanna lived lambs were cheaper than pigeons, whereas in the town where R. Eleazar b. Azariah lived the reverse was the case.
^ᶻnote:The fact that this man specified the offering and did not merely say ‘an offering valued at a sela’ for the altar’ proves that he believed that others besides a lamb were included in the last expression. He must therefore bring a lamb, a meal-offering, and frankincense, each valued at a sela’.
^ᵃᵃnote:For even if he offered to bring a bull calf, the offering of a bull which is larger would surely fulfil his obligation!
^ᵃᵇnote:According to the Sages the offering of a bull alone in the first clause would suffice.
^ᵃᶜnote:Shek. VI, 5. V. supra 104a.
^ᵃᵈnote:There were in all thirteen money chests (,urpua, horn-shaped chests) in the Temple, seven bearing inscriptions indicating the kind of money that was to be put in them, while six were allocated for money for freewill-offerings. These were offered as burnt-offerings on behalf of the community and the skins fell to the priests.
^ᵃᵉnote:Why were six necessary for the purpose?
^ᵃᶠnote:So Sh. Mek. and Dik. Sof. a.l. These are the characteristic letters of the teachers who propose answers to this question.
^ᵃᵍnote:The priests were divided into twenty-four divisions (,urnan), each division serving in the Temple for one full week every half year. The division was sub-divided into six families or groups (,uct h,c). and each group was in service on one day in the week. On the Sabbath the whole division was called upon to do the service.
^ᵃʰnote:For each priestly group there was a separate money chest for freewill-offering; so that whenever the altar was idle and the occasion thus arose for offering burnt-offerings, the money would be taken from that chest allotted to the group in service on that day, and the skins of the animals offered would be shared among the priests of that group. In this way altercation and strife between the priestly groups would be avoided.
^ᵃⁱnote:Which would be the case if all the money were to be placed in one chest.
^ᵃʲnote:The money for these offerings was put into separate chests. E.g., if a man undertook to offer a bull for a burnt-offering, he would bring a maneh (this being the price of a bull, v. our Mishnah) and put it into the chest that bore the inscription ‘bull’; the priests would then come and take the money from that chest, purchase a bull, and offer it.
^ᵃᵏnote:The need for six chests.
^ᵃˡnote:If a bullock which had been set aside for a sin-offering of the community had been lost and another had been offered in its place, and afterwards it was found, it was left to pasture until it contracted a physical blemish when it was sold. The money so obtained was put into a chest specially set aside for this purpose.
^ᵃᵐnote:The money obtained on selling the ram of the guilt-offering for theft of for sacrilege when it was no longer required for that purpose (as in the circumstances described in the prec. n.) was put into a second chest.