Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 23, 2018 | 讟状讜 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 105

The gemara continues to bring another case not mentioned in the mishna – if one said types (plural) or mincha聽(singular) – how many would one need to bring? The gemara聽discusses whether the mishna聽can fit in with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion who holds that in addition to the 5 types mentioned in the Torah, one can also bring a combination of 2 of the types (the loaves and wafers)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讞诇讛

first, in the passage discussing burnt offerings (see Leviticus 1:3).

诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

Similarly, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering from the flock, must bring a lamb as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it first in the passage discussing burnt offerings of the flock, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock, whether of the lambs, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10).

诪谉 讛注讜祝 讬讘讬讗 转讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

Similarly, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering from a type of bird, must bring doves as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it first in the passage discussing burnt offerings of birds, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves or of pigeons鈥 (Leviticus 1:14).

讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讜专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

If so, why did we learn in a mishna (107a): One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring a lamb, which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may bring either a dove or pigeon as a bird burnt offering. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬

The Gemara provides a new interpretation: Rather, what does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he says that the fine-flour meal offering is the most notable of the meal offerings? He means that it has no modifier. Only a fine-flour offering is referred to simply as a meal offering, with no other qualification.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讝讜 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering since the verse opens with it first? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Which meal offering is the most notable of the meal offerings, as it has no modifier? It is this, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, with which the verse opens first. The reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering is not because the verse opens with it, but because it has no modifier.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 拽讗诪专 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, the explanation of the baraita is unnecessary; isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the fine-flour meal offering, as he says so explicitly? The Gemara answers: The baraita explains that the reference to the meal offering with which the passage opens merely serves as a mnemonic, so one should not forget which type of meal offering Rabbi Yehuda is referring to.

诪谞讞讛 诪讬谉 讛诪谞讞讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. This is because he stated his intent in the singular. But if he says in the plural: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: Meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, using a combination of singular and plural forms, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬谞讬 转专转讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讗讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻讜诇讛 诪谞讞讜转 谞诪讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讬拽专讬讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Perhaps it should be reasoned that since he said: Types, in the plural, apparently he was saying that he intends to bring two meal offerings. And if so, what is the reason he used the singular word: Meal offering? He used it because the entire category of meal offerings is also referred to as: Meal offering, in the singular, as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7).

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讞讛 拽讗诪专 讜诪讗讬 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讞讛 注诇讬

Or perhaps it should be reasoned that since he said: Meal offering, in the singular, apparently he was saying that he intends to bring only one meal offering. And if so, what did he mean by using the plural phrase: Types of a meal offering? This is what he was saying: Of the various types of a meal offering, it is incumbent upon me to bring one.

转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讞讛 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讞转 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 砖转讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that his intent is to bring two meal offerings, from that which is stated in the mishna: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one. This indicates that if he said: Types of a meal offering, he must bring two.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪谞讞讜转 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this proof. Say the latter clause: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two. This indicates that if he says: Types of a meal offering, he must bring only one. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the potential inferences are contradictory.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗 诪诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗

The Gemara suggests another resolution to Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings of one type. This indicates that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring of the various types of a meal offering, he is required to bring only one.

讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara rejects this inference: Perhaps the correct inference from the baraita is that this indicates that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, he must bring two meal offerings, of two different types.

讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗

The Gemara challenges the rejection. But this is not taught in the baraita, as the full baraita reads as follows: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings of one type. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of meal offerings, he must bring two meal offerings, of two different types. This indicates that if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, he brings only one.

讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讞讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 转专讬 诪讬谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is not in accordance with all opinions; rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said with regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering baked in an oven that if he wants to bring half of the meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers, he may bring it in that manner. And accordingly, what is the meaning of the phrase: Types of a meal offering? It means a meal offering that has two types of baked dough. Therefore, bringing one such meal offering is sufficient.

讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉

But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that if one wishes to bring half of the meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers, he may not bring it in this manner, as they hold that all of the baked items in a meal offering must be of the same type, he consequently must bring two meal offerings of two different types.

驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 讞诪砖转谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know what meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said: This halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since he said that if one wants to bring half of his baked meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers he may bring it in that manner, why does one have to bring only five meal offerings to cover all possible vows that he may have made? He should be required to bring several meal offerings baked in an oven to cover all the possible combinations of loaves and wafers.

讗讬 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讘讗讜转 注砖专 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讛 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 诪谞讞讜转

Therefore, even if the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that all meal offerings are brought as ten items, as opposed to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that all meal offerings are brought as twelve items, there is cause for uncertainty, which renders fourteen different meal offerings necessary. In addition to the shallow-pan meal offering, the deep-pan meal offering, and the fine-flour meal offering, there are another eleven combinations of baked meal offering that he may have intended. He may have intended to bring ten loaves, or ten wafers, or one loaf and nine wafers, two loaves and eight wafers, three loaves and seven wafers, and so forth.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬

Abaye rejected Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation and said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. We have heard that Rabbi Shimon said: One who is uncertain whether he is obligated to bring a certain offering may bring the offering and stipulate that if he is obligated to bring an offering, this is his offering, and if he is not obligated, it is a voluntary offering. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, one can bring the five types of meal offerings, with his baked meal offering including ten loaves and ten wafers, and stipulate that whichever items were included in his vow serve as fulfillment of his obligation, and all the others are voluntary offerings.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞专转 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讜讙讜

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nazir 6:1): How should one whose status as a leper is uncertain bring his guilt offering and log of oil on the eighth day of his purification? Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day, after his seven days of purification, he brings his guilt offering and his log of oil

注诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讝讛讜 讗砖诪讜 讜讝讛 诇讜讙讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗砖诐 讝讛 讬讛讗 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛

with it and says the following stipulation: If this offering is one of a leper, i.e., if I am a leper, this is his guilt offering and that is his log of oil. And if I am not a leper, this animal that I brought for a guilt offering shall be a gift peace offering, because their sacrificial rites are equivalent.

讜讗讜转讜 讗砖诐 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讜住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

And that uncertain guilt offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard, as does a guilt offering; and placement of the blood on the right thumb, and right big toe, and right ear of the leper, as described in Leviticus 14:14; and it requires placing hands on the head of the animal, and the accompanying wine libations, and waving of the breast and thigh, as does a peace offering. And it is eaten by males of the priesthood for one day and the following night like a guilt offering, and not for two days and the intervening night like a peace offering.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪驻专讬拽 诪专 讘砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara relates to the problem that arises from this stipulation, as treating an offering as two different types of offerings due to a stipulation can cause a situation where an offering is unduly disqualified. In the case of an offering that is sacrificed as both a peace offering and a guilt offering, if its meat is not eaten by dawn of the following day, it is disqualified, even though it might be a peace offering, which can be eaten for another day. The Gemara comments: And even though a Sage resolves this issue in the tractate of: The slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, in a manner that would not enable a stipulation to be made in this case (see 76b), there is a distinction between the case discussed there and the case discussed here.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗

The resolution given there was: Say that Rabbi Shimon said that in a case of uncertainty one may bring an offering and stipulate with regard to its type ab initio only for the remedy of a man, e.g., in order to purify a person from his uncertain status as a leper, as there is no other way for him to purify himself. But in general, after the fact, after uncertainty arose with regard to the status of a certain offering it is indeed permitted to sacrifice the offering in a manner that may reduce the amount of time allotted for eating it, but one may not consecrate such an offering ab initio.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诪谞讞讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara explains why here it would nevertheless be permitted to make the stipulation ab initio: Nevertheless, this statement that one may stipulate with regard to an offering only after the fact applies only to a peace offering, as sacrificing it as a guilt offering reduces its allotted time for eating, which may bring sacrificial meat to the status of disqualification. But stipulation with regard to meal offerings when one does not remember which type he vowed to bring is permitted even ab initio, as this does not reduce its allotted time for eating. Therefore, the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 注砖专讜谉 讜诇讜讙 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: How can you explain that the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that if one wants to bring half of his baked meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers he may bring it in that manner, as one can bring a meal offering of ten loaves and ten wafers and stipulate that some of them are brought in order to fulfill his obligation and the rest are a voluntary offering? This cannot be, as the twenty loaves and wafers constitute a total of two-tenths of an ephah in volume, and must therefore be sanctified in two separate service vessels. This causes a situation where one brings one-tenth of an ephah, which constitutes one meal offering as fulfillment of the individual鈥檚 obligation, from two separate tenths of an ephah. And similarly, the two meal offerings require two log of oil, each of which is sanctified in a separate vessel, and it turns out that each meal offering includes one log of oil from two separate log.

砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 讜诇讜讙 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讬爪讗

Abaye answered: This is not difficult, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon said that if one brought one-tenth of an ephah as a meal offering from two separate tenths, and similarly, if one brought one log of oil from two separate log, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讜诪讬拽诪抓 讛讬讻讬 拽诪抓 讚诪转谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讞诇讜转 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪讞诇讜转 诇讬讛讜讬 讗讞诇讜转 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讗专拽讬拽讬谉 讗讬 诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讗诪专讬 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪讞诇讜转 诇讬讛讜讬 讗诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讬讛讜讜 讗诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转

The Gemara asks: But how does one remove a handful from this meal offering, which consists of both loaves and wafers? The Gemara answers that he stipulates and says: If I specified in my vow that I would bring loaves only, or similarly if I said that I would bring wafers only, let the handful that I remove from the loaves be for the loaves, and let the handful that I remove from the wafers be for the wafers. If I said in my vow that I would bring a meal offering that is half wafers and half loaves, let the handful that I remove from the loaves be for half the loaves and half the wafers, and let the handful that I remove from the wafers be for half the wafers and half the loaves.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬拽诪抓 讞讚 拽讜诪抓 诪讞诇讜转

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: But if the vow was to bring a meal offering that is half loaves and half wafers, it requires removing one handful from the loaves

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 105

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 105

转讞诇讛

first, in the passage discussing burnt offerings (see Leviticus 1:3).

诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

Similarly, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering from the flock, must bring a lamb as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it first in the passage discussing burnt offerings of the flock, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock, whether of the lambs, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10).

诪谉 讛注讜祝 讬讘讬讗 转讜专讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

Similarly, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering from a type of bird, must bring doves as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it first in the passage discussing burnt offerings of birds, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves or of pigeons鈥 (Leviticus 1:14).

讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讬讘讬讗 讻讘砖 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 转讜专 讗讜 讘谉 讬讜谞讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

If so, why did we learn in a mishna (107a): One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, must bring a lamb, which is the least expensive land animal sacrificed as an offering. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: He may bring either a dove or pigeon as a bird burnt offering. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬

The Gemara provides a new interpretation: Rather, what does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he says that the fine-flour meal offering is the most notable of the meal offerings? He means that it has no modifier. Only a fine-flour offering is referred to simply as a meal offering, with no other qualification.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛 拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 诪谞讞讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讘诪谞讞讜转 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖诐 诇讜讜讬 讝讜 砖驻转讞 讘讜 讛讻转讜讘 转讞诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering since the verse opens with it first? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Which meal offering is the most notable of the meal offerings, as it has no modifier? It is this, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, with which the verse opens first. The reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one must bring a fine-flour meal offering is not because the verse opens with it, but because it has no modifier.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪谞讞转 讛住讜诇转 拽讗诪专 住讬诪谞讗 讘注诇诪讗

The Gemara challenges: If so, the explanation of the baraita is unnecessary; isn鈥檛 it obvious that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the fine-flour meal offering, as he says so explicitly? The Gemara answers: The baraita explains that the reference to the meal offering with which the passage opens merely serves as a mnemonic, so one should not forget which type of meal offering Rabbi Yehuda is referring to.

诪谞讞讛 诪讬谉 讛诪谞讞讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讘注讬 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. This is because he stated his intent in the singular. But if he says in the plural: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: Meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings. Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, using a combination of singular and plural forms, what is the halakha?

讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬谞讬 转专转讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讗讬 诪谞讞讛 讚讻讜诇讛 诪谞讞讜转 谞诪讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讬拽专讬讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讛诪谞讞讛

The Gemara explains the dilemma: Perhaps it should be reasoned that since he said: Types, in the plural, apparently he was saying that he intends to bring two meal offerings. And if so, what is the reason he used the singular word: Meal offering? He used it because the entire category of meal offerings is also referred to as: Meal offering, in the singular, as it is written in the verse: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7).

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讞讛 拽讗诪专 讜诪讗讬 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 诪谞讞讛 注诇讬

Or perhaps it should be reasoned that since he said: Meal offering, in the singular, apparently he was saying that he intends to bring only one meal offering. And if so, what did he mean by using the plural phrase: Types of a meal offering? This is what he was saying: Of the various types of a meal offering, it is incumbent upon me to bring one.

转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讞讛 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讛 讬讘讬讗 讗讞转 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 砖转讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that his intent is to bring two meal offerings, from that which is stated in the mishna: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one. This indicates that if he said: Types of a meal offering, he must bring two.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 诪谞讞讜转 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬诐 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this proof. Say the latter clause: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two. This indicates that if he says: Types of a meal offering, he must bring only one. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna, as the potential inferences are contradictory.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讛讗 诪诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗

The Gemara suggests another resolution to Rav Pappa鈥檚 dilemma: Come and hear that which is taught in a baraita: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings of one type. This indicates that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring of the various types of a meal offering, he is required to bring only one.

讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉

The Gemara rejects this inference: Perhaps the correct inference from the baraita is that this indicates that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, he must bring two meal offerings, of two different types.

讜讛讗 诇讗 转谞讬 讛讻讬 诪讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讜转 注诇讬 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讛讗 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 讞讚讗

The Gemara challenges the rejection. But this is not taught in the baraita, as the full baraita reads as follows: If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings of a certain type, he must bring two meal offerings of one type. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of meal offerings, he must bring two meal offerings, of two different types. This indicates that if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring types of a meal offering, he brings only one.

讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讜诪讗讬 诪讬谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谞讞讛 讚讗讬转 讘讛 转专讬 诪讬谞讬

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps the baraita is not in accordance with all opinions; rather, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said with regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering baked in an oven that if he wants to bring half of the meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers, he may bring it in that manner. And accordingly, what is the meaning of the phrase: Types of a meal offering? It means a meal offering that has two types of baked dough. Therefore, bringing one such meal offering is sufficient.

讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉

But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that if one wishes to bring half of the meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers, he may not bring it in this manner, as they hold that all of the baked items in a meal offering must be of the same type, he consequently must bring two meal offerings of two different types.

驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 驻讬专砖转讬 讬讘讬讗 讞诪砖转谉 诪讗谉 转谞讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know what meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗

Rabbi Yirmeya said: This halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As, if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since he said that if one wants to bring half of his baked meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers he may bring it in that manner, why does one have to bring only five meal offerings to cover all possible vows that he may have made? He should be required to bring several meal offerings baked in an oven to cover all the possible combinations of loaves and wafers.

讗讬 谞诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讘讗讜转 注砖专 讗讬讻讗 诇住驻讜拽讛 讘讗专讘注 注砖专讛 诪谞讞讜转

Therefore, even if the tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that all meal offerings are brought as ten items, as opposed to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that all meal offerings are brought as twelve items, there is cause for uncertainty, which renders fourteen different meal offerings necessary. In addition to the shallow-pan meal offering, the deep-pan meal offering, and the fine-flour meal offering, there are another eleven combinations of baked meal offering that he may have intended. He may have intended to bring ten loaves, or ten wafers, or one loaf and nine wafers, two loaves and eight wafers, three loaves and seven wafers, and so forth.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬

Abaye rejected Rabbi Yirmeya鈥檚 explanation and said: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. We have heard that Rabbi Shimon said: One who is uncertain whether he is obligated to bring a certain offering may bring the offering and stipulate that if he is obligated to bring an offering, this is his offering, and if he is not obligated, it is a voluntary offering. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, one can bring the five types of meal offerings, with his baked meal offering including ten loaves and ten wafers, and stipulate that whichever items were included in his vow serve as fulfillment of his obligation, and all the others are voluntary offerings.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞专转 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讜讙讜

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nazir 6:1): How should one whose status as a leper is uncertain bring his guilt offering and log of oil on the eighth day of his purification? Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day, after his seven days of purification, he brings his guilt offering and his log of oil

注诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讝讛讜 讗砖诪讜 讜讝讛 诇讜讙讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗砖诐 讝讛 讬讛讗 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛

with it and says the following stipulation: If this offering is one of a leper, i.e., if I am a leper, this is his guilt offering and that is his log of oil. And if I am not a leper, this animal that I brought for a guilt offering shall be a gift peace offering, because their sacrificial rites are equivalent.

讜讗讜转讜 讗砖诐 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讜住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛

And that uncertain guilt offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard, as does a guilt offering; and placement of the blood on the right thumb, and right big toe, and right ear of the leper, as described in Leviticus 14:14; and it requires placing hands on the head of the animal, and the accompanying wine libations, and waving of the breast and thigh, as does a peace offering. And it is eaten by males of the priesthood for one day and the following night like a guilt offering, and not for two days and the intervening night like a peace offering.

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讗 诪驻专讬拽 诪专 讘砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara relates to the problem that arises from this stipulation, as treating an offering as two different types of offerings due to a stipulation can cause a situation where an offering is unduly disqualified. In the case of an offering that is sacrificed as both a peace offering and a guilt offering, if its meat is not eaten by dawn of the following day, it is disqualified, even though it might be a peace offering, which can be eaten for another day. The Gemara comments: And even though a Sage resolves this issue in the tractate of: The slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, in a manner that would not enable a stipulation to be made in this case (see 76b), there is a distinction between the case discussed there and the case discussed here.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗

The resolution given there was: Say that Rabbi Shimon said that in a case of uncertainty one may bring an offering and stipulate with regard to its type ab initio only for the remedy of a man, e.g., in order to purify a person from his uncertain status as a leper, as there is no other way for him to purify himself. But in general, after the fact, after uncertainty arose with regard to the status of a certain offering it is indeed permitted to sacrifice the offering in a manner that may reduce the amount of time allotted for eating it, but one may not consecrate such an offering ab initio.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇 讗讘诇 诪谞讞讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞讬诇讛

The Gemara explains why here it would nevertheless be permitted to make the stipulation ab initio: Nevertheless, this statement that one may stipulate with regard to an offering only after the fact applies only to a peace offering, as sacrificing it as a guilt offering reduces its allotted time for eating, which may bring sacrificial meat to the status of disqualification. But stipulation with regard to meal offerings when one does not remember which type he vowed to bring is permitted even ab initio, as this does not reduce its allotted time for eating. Therefore, the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 注砖专讜谉 讜诇讜讙 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: How can you explain that the mishna could be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that if one wants to bring half of his baked meal offering as loaves and half of it as wafers he may bring it in that manner, as one can bring a meal offering of ten loaves and ten wafers and stipulate that some of them are brought in order to fulfill his obligation and the rest are a voluntary offering? This cannot be, as the twenty loaves and wafers constitute a total of two-tenths of an ephah in volume, and must therefore be sanctified in two separate service vessels. This causes a situation where one brings one-tenth of an ephah, which constitutes one meal offering as fulfillment of the individual鈥檚 obligation, from two separate tenths of an ephah. And similarly, the two meal offerings require two log of oil, each of which is sanctified in a separate vessel, and it turns out that each meal offering includes one log of oil from two separate log.

砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 讜诇讜讙 讗讞讚 诪砖谞讬 诇讜讙讬谉 讬爪讗

Abaye answered: This is not difficult, as we have heard that Rabbi Shimon said that if one brought one-tenth of an ephah as a meal offering from two separate tenths, and similarly, if one brought one log of oil from two separate log, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讜诪讬拽诪抓 讛讬讻讬 拽诪抓 讚诪转谞讬 讜讗诪专 讗讬 讞诇讜转 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讜专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讞讜讚讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪讞诇讜转 诇讬讛讜讬 讗讞诇讜转 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讗专拽讬拽讬谉 讗讬 诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讗诪专讬 讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪讞诇讜转 诇讬讛讜讬 讗诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转 讜诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜讚拽讗 拽诪讬爪谞讗 诪专拽讬拽讬谉 诇讬讛讜讜 讗诪讞爪讛 专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讞诇讜转

The Gemara asks: But how does one remove a handful from this meal offering, which consists of both loaves and wafers? The Gemara answers that he stipulates and says: If I specified in my vow that I would bring loaves only, or similarly if I said that I would bring wafers only, let the handful that I remove from the loaves be for the loaves, and let the handful that I remove from the wafers be for the wafers. If I said in my vow that I would bring a meal offering that is half wafers and half loaves, let the handful that I remove from the loaves be for half the loaves and half the wafers, and let the handful that I remove from the wafers be for half the wafers and half the loaves.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 诪讬拽诪抓 讞讚 拽讜诪抓 诪讞诇讜转

The Gemara challenges this suggestion: But if the vow was to bring a meal offering that is half loaves and half wafers, it requires removing one handful from the loaves

Scroll To Top