This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna rules that if one vows to bring a mincha (meal offering) but cannot recall which type, they must bring all five standard types. Abaye explains that this ruling can also align with Rabbi Shimon’s position, which recognizes a sixth type consisting of both wafers and loaves; he argues that bringing the wafers and loaves separately covers the possibility of the combined type as well. The Gemara raises several practical difficulties regarding this possibility but resolves them all.
Rav Kahana asks Rav Ashi why the person in the above case would not also need to offer a minchat nesachim (a meal offering brought with libations), given Rava’s view that it can be brought as a voluntary offering. Rav Ashi identifies five distinct differences between a minchat nesachim and other voluntary meal offerings, demonstrating that someone in doubt about their vow would certainly not have been referring to an offering so fundamentally different.
The Rabbis and Rebbi disagree in the Mishna regarding a case where one says, “I vowed to bring a mincha of esronim in one vessel, but I do not remember how many.” The dispute centers on whether they must bring sixty esronim in one bowl or every amount from one to sixty in sixty separate bowls. The Gemara suggests five different explanations for the nature of this debate and analyzes each suggestion.
The Mishna explains the minimum value one must provide when vowing to bring wood, frankincense, gold, silver, or copper to the Temple. The required amount depends on the phrasing used: if one said, “I vow to bring [the item],” they are required to bring the minimum. However, if one said, “I vowed an amount, but I do not remember what amount,” they are required to bring the maximum.
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sara Averick in loving memory of her mother, Leah Shifrin Averick, לאה בת יהודה לייב חייקל וחיה מאשה. “She infused her many descendants with her love for Torah, Israel and the Jewish people.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Elana and Daniel Storch in honor of their youngest daughter Arianne Yael’s engagement to Brett Aiken and for a for a refuah shleima for Ilana Malka bat Aviva Tamar and Leah Maritza bat Raizel. “We are thrilled to share besorot tovot with our Hadran Family. We pray that the chuppah will take place בשעה טובה ומוצלחת and they should be zoche to build a בית נאמן בישראל.
Menachot 106
וּמֵרְקִיקִין, וְקָא קָמֵיץ מֵחַלּוֹת אַרְקִיקִין וּמֵרְקִיקִין אַחַלּוֹת.
and wafers together; and according to this suggestion, he removes a handful from the loaves for the wafers and a handful from the wafers for the loaves.
שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אִם קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ מֵאֶחָד עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם – יָצָא.
The Gemara answers: We have heard that Rabbi Shimon said: If one brought a meal offering that is part loaves and part wafers, and the priest removed a handful, and that which came up in his hand was only from one of the two types, either only loaves or only wafers, he has fulfilled his obligation of removing a handful.
וְהָא אִיכָּא מוֹתַר שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין אָמַר – מוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן מַחְזִירוֹ לַחַלּוֹת, אִי כּוּלְּהוּ רְקִיקִין אָמַר – מוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a problem with the surplus oil? The Gemara (75a) states that if a meal offering is brought half as loaves and half as wafers, the oil is divided equally between them; half is mixed with the loaves and half is applied to the wafers. The surplus oil from the wafers may also be mixed in with the loaves. But if the meal offering is baked entirely as wafers, the oil that remains is given to the priests. Therefore, Abaye’s explanation of the mishna is problematic, because if the person said in his vow that he would bring half loaves and half wafers, one brings back the surplus oil and mixes it in with the loaves. But if he said that the entire offering shall be wafers, the surplus oil should be eaten by the priests.
כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מוֹשְׁחָן כְּמִין כִּי, וּמוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara resolves this problem in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the oil of a meal offering baked half as loaves and half as wafers is applied as follows: One anoints the wafers in the shape of the Greek letter chi, Χ, and the surplus oil is eaten by the priests. Consequently, the surplus oil of a meal offering baked half as loaves and half as wafers is used the same way as that of a meal offering baked entirely as wafers.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אִיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקַהּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
§ Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: If one specifies in his vow which meal offering he will bring, and subsequently forgets, why does he bring only five types of meal offerings? Isn’t there room to be uncertain with regard to another type of meal offering, namely, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany various burnt offerings? This meal offering can also be brought independently as a gift, as Rava said: A person may volunteer a meal offering brought with the libations every day, if he so wishes.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ (סִימָן: ״יָחִיד״, ״בִּגְלַל״, ״לְבוֹנָה״, ״בְּלוֹג״, ״מְקַמְּצָה״) –
The Gemara answers that there is no uncertainty with regard to the possibility that he said that he would bring a meal offering brought with the libations, because it is completely different than the other types of meal offerings. When one is uncertain as to which meal offering he vowed to bring, the uncertainty is only with regard to certain meal offerings. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for these differences: Individual, due to, frankincense, with a log, removes a handful of it.
בָּאָה בִּגְלַל יָחִיד, בָּאָה בִּגְלַל צִיבּוּר – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: The uncertainty with regard to which meal offering one vowed to bring is with regard to a meal offering that is brought exclusively due to the obligation of an individual. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering that is brought due to the obligation of the public, e.g., a meal offering brought with libations, which accompany communal offerings as well as individual ones; he certainly did not vow to bring this type of meal offering.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, בָּאָה בִּגְלַל זֶבַח – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
Furthermore, when one is uncertain it is with regard to a meal offering that is brought due to its own obligation. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering brought with libations due to the requirements of an offering.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain it is with regard to a meal offering that requires that frankincense be brought with it. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering brought with libations, which does not require frankincense.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – בָּאָה בְּלוֹג, בָּאָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain, it is with regard to a type of meal offering that is brought with one log of oil. But one is not uncertain if it is brought with three log of oil or more, which is the halakha with regard to meal offerings brought with libations (see Numbers 15:5–6, 9).
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – טְעוּנָה קְמִיצָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה קְמִיצָה – לָא קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain it is only with regard to a meal offering that requires removal of a handful. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering that does not require removal of a handful, which is the halakha with regard to a meal offering brought with libations.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״.
§ The mishna teaches: If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not remember how many I specified, according to the Rabbis he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi he must bring sixty meal offerings, each with a different number of tenths, from one to sixty.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה, וְקָבַעְתִּי בִּכְלִי אֶחָד שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן אֶלֶף וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים.
The Sages taught in a baraita: If one says: I specified that I would bring a meal offering, and I established that they must be brought in one vessel of tenths of an ephah, but I do not know what number of tenths I specified, he must bring one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring sixty meal offerings of tenths in sixty vessels, each containing an amount from one-tenth until sixty-tenths, which are in total 1,830 tenths of an ephah.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאִי זוֹ מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חָמֵשׁ מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, שֶׁהֵן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא חָמֵשׁ מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן תִּשְׁעָה אֲלָפִים וּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים.
The baraita continues: If one said: I specified a certain type of meal offering with a certain number of tenths of an ephah to be brought in one vessel, but I do not know what I specified, or which type of meal offering I specified, and I do not know how many tenths of an ephah I specified, he must bring the five different types of meal offerings, and each one must contain sixty-tenths of an ephah, which are in total three-hundred-tenths of an ephah. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring five different types of meal offerings, and for each type he must bring sixty meal offerings, each with a different number of tenths, from one until sixty, which are in total 9,150 tenths of an ephah.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּמוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי סָבַר: אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? Rav Ḥisda said: They disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is prohibited to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary to bring sixty meal offerings of each type, as if one merely brings one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah in a single vessel, he may be in violation of this prohibition, as it is possible that he vowed to bring less than that amount, and the surplus amount is non-sacred. And the Rabbis hold that it is permitted to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, even if the meal offering is of a greater volume than necessary, it is inconsequential.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, וְהָכָא בְּמוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
Rava said that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is with regard to a different issue: Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard, and here they disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: אָסוּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה.
The Rabbis hold that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and therefore one may bring sixty-tenths in one vessel and stipulate that the amount beyond his obligation will be a gift offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is prohibited to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and therefore one cannot make such a stipulation; every possible meal offering requires its own vessel. Concerning each vessel, he stipulates that if this one can fulfill his vow, it should count as fulfillment of his vow, and otherwise it should serve as a gift offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, הָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים? דְּקָמֵיץ וַהֲדַר קָמֵיץ.
Abaye said to Rava: According to the Rabbis, who say that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and one vessel with sixty-tenths of an ephah can serve in part to fulfill the obligation and in part as a gift offering, there is a difficulty: Don’t we require the removal of two handfuls, one for the obligatory meal offering and one for the gift offering? Rava answered: According to the Rabbis, it is required that the priest removes a handful and again removes a handful.
וְהָא קָא קָמֵיץ מֵחוֹבָה אַנְּדָבָה וּמִנְּדָבָה אַחוֹבָה!
Abaye said to Rava: But if so, since the tenths that fulfill an obligation and the tenths that are a gift are mixed together in a single vessel, when the priest removes a handful, isn’t he removing a handful from tenths that fulfill an obligation to account for tenths that are a gift offering, and removing a handful from tenths that are a gift offering to account for tenths that fulfill an obligation?
דְּתָלֵי לֵיהּ בְּדַעַת כֹּהֵן, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמָטְיָא יְדָא דְּכֹהֵן הַשְׁתָּא – חוֹבָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף – נְדָבָה.
Rava answered Abaye: This is not difficult, as the one who brings the meal offering renders it dependent on the intent of the priest, as he says: Wherever the priest’s hand reaches now, when he removes the first handful, shall be the location of the tenths that fulfill my obligation, and wherever his hand reaches at the end, when removing the second handful, shall be a gift offering.
וְאַקְטוֹרֵי הֵיכִי מַקְטַר? לַיקְטַר נְדָבָה בְּרֵישָׁא – דְּחוֹבָה הֵיכִי מַקְטַר לַהּ? דִּלְמָא כּוּלַּהּ חוֹבָה הִיא, וְחָסְרוּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם.
Abaye asked Rava: But how does the priest burn the handful upon the altar? If the priest will burn the handful from the gift offering first, how can he then burn the handful of the tenths that fulfill the obligation? Perhaps the entire meal offering is for the obligation, as the vow was to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, and everything apart from the first handful, including the second handful, is the remainder, and by burning part of it the priest causes the remainder to be lacking.
וְאָמַר מָר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה – אֵין מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן!
And the Master said: With regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning of the handful upon the altar, the halakha is that one does not burn the handful on its account, as it is not considered a valid meal offering.
לַיקְטַר חוֹבָה בְּרֵישָׁא – דִּנְדָבָה הֵיכִי מַקְטַר לַהּ?
Alternatively, if the priest will burn the handful that fulfills the obligation first, how can he burn the handful of the gift offering?
וְדִלְמָא כּוּלַּהּ חוֹבָה הִיא, וְכֹל שֶׁהוּא מִמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״בַל תַּקְטִירוּ״.
But perhaps the vow was to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, in which case the entire meal offering is necessary to fulfill the obligation. Consequently, only one handful may be removed, and all the rest is considered the remainder. And there is a principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of: You may not make as an offering (see Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, such as the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal offering, has been sacrificed, one who sacrifices any other part of it that is not designated for sacrifice has violated a prohibition. In this case, the second handful is considered part of the remainder of the meal offering, and burning it is prohibited.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: דְּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים, וּכְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: The priest does not burn the oil as an offering but burns it for the sake of wood, i.e., not as a sacrificial rite, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke from it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances for the sake of wood, not as an offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְרַבִּי לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to burn on the altar as fuel even items that are prohibited from being burned as offerings. As the Rabbis accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and therefore they allow one to bring one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah, since the handful removed from it may be burned, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְרַבִּי מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין בְּחַד מָנָא, וְחַד בְּחַד מָנָא, וּמַגַּע לְהוּ, וְקָמֵיץ.
Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot be the dispute, as if it enters your mind that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and he does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not require sixty separate vessels. Instead, one could bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and one additional tenth in one other vessel, from which the handful of the gift offering would be removed. And he could touch them, i.e., place them so they touch each other, so that they are considered as one, and the priest could then remove a handful from that tenth for the gift, and remove another handful from the vessel with sixty-tenths to fulfill the obligation.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
Rava said that there is an alternative explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And here they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis.
דִּתְנַן: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן נוֹתֵן לָהּ שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שָׁמֶן״.
As we learned in a mishna (88a): Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one log of oil. Accordingly, even if one brings a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, one adds to it sixty log of oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, even a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle that pertains to all meal offerings, that each offering requires only one log of oil.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי [כְּרַבָּנַן], דְּאָמְרִי: שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג, וְכֹל חַד וְחַד עִשָּׂרוֹן – לוּגָּה קָא שָׁקֵיל.
Rava explains: The Rabbis in the mishna hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and who said: A meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah requires sixty log of oil. Therefore, in a case of uncertainty, it is possible to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, and each and every measurement of one-tenth takes one log.
וְרַבִּי סָבַר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי חֲדָא מִנְחָה הִיא – דְּסַגִּי לַהּ בְּחַד לוֹג, אִי שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת נִינְהוּ – דְּבָעֵינַן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין.
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah has only its one log of oil. And therefore, when one is uncertain about his vow and brings sixty-tenths, he cannot bring them with one log of oil, as we do not know whether the entire sixty-tenths is one meal offering, so that one log suffices for it, or whether they are two meal offerings, one that is obligatory and one that is a gift, which require two log of oil. For this reason, there is no way of resolving the uncertainty except by bringing sixty separate meal offerings, with one log of oil for each.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּקָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: לֹא יָצָא.
Rav Ashi said that there is alternative explanation of the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: They disagree with regard to the halakha of one who is obligated to bring a small offering and instead brings a large offering. The Rabbis hold that if one is obligated to bring a small offering and brings a large one instead he has fulfilled his obligation, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in such a case he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, in the case of the uncertainty in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that by bringing one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah one does not fulfill his obligation if he vowed to bring a smaller offering.
וְהָא אִיפְּלִגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִמְנָא, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָצָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree about this topic once? As we learned in a mishna (107b) that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull instead, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי קוֹמֶץ הוּא; אֲבָל הָתָם, דְּקָא נְפִישִׁי אֵימוּרִין – אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the dispute to be mentioned with regard to both cases, as had their dispute been stated only with regard to this case of one who vows to bring a small meal offering and brings a large one instead, there would be room to reason that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that he has fulfilled his obligation, because both this small meal offering and that large meal offering are identical with regard to the portion of the offering that is sacrificed on the altar; in both cases it is a handful. But there, in the case of one who vows to bring a small bull but brings a large one, since the sacrificial portions are greater, i.e., larger, there is room to say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that he has not fulfilled his obligation.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.
And had their dispute been stated only in that case of one who vows to bring a small bull and brings a big one, there would be room to reason that only in that case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the person has not fulfilled his obligation, because the sacrificial portions are larger. But in this case of bringing a large meal offering instead of a small one, there is room to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.
סִימָן: עֵצִים, זָהָב, יַיִן, עוֹלָה, תּוֹדָה, שׁוֹר.
§ The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the halakhot discussed in the upcoming mishnayot: Wood, gold, wine, burnt offering, thanks offering, bull.
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גְזִירִין, לְבוֹנָה – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ.
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate pieces of wood as fuel for the altar, must donate no fewer than two logs. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, must bring no less than a handful.
חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִים הֵם: הָאוֹמֵר ״עָלַי לְבוֹנָה״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ, הַמְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה – יָבִיא עִמָּהּ קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה, הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין טְעוּנִין שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים.
The mishna states tangentially: There are five halakhot pertaining to handfuls. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering of frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. One who pledges to bring a meal offering must bring with it a handful of frankincense. One who intentionally offers up a handful of a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. The two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread are required to have two handfuls of frankincense.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי זָהָב״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב, ״כֶּסֶף״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר כֶּסֶף, ״נְחֹשֶׁת״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִמָּעָה כֶּסֶף. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יְהֵא מֵבִיא עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״לֹא לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוַּונְתִּי״.
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple treasury, must give no less than a gold dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate silver to the Temple treasury, must give no less than the value of a silver dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple maintenance, must give no less than the value of a silver ma’a. One who says: I specified the amount of gold, silver, or copper, but I do not know what I specified, must bring the maximum amount of gold, silver, or copper, until it reaches an amount where he says: I am certain that I did not intend to donate that much.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קׇרְבָּן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין עֵצִים, וְכַמָּה? שְׁנֵי גְּזִירִין. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַגּוֹרָלוֹת הִפַּלְנוּ עַל קֻרְבַּן הָעֵצִים״. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עֵצִים קׇרְבָּן הֵם, טְעוּנִין מֶלַח וּטְעוּנִין הַגָּשָׁה.
GEMARA: With regard to one who pledges to donate wood, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word “korban” teaches that one can voluntarily give wood as an offering for the altar. And how much wood must one bring if he does not specify an amount? Two logs. And the support for the fact that wood can be brought as a voluntary offering is as the verse states: “And we cast lots for the wood offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This voluntary donation of wood is an offering like a meal offering, and therefore it requires salt and requires bringing to the corner of the altar, like a meal offering.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּלְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים טְעוּנִין קְמִיצָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים צְרִיכִין עֵצִים.
Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful; just as in the case of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and sacrificed separately. And Rav Pappa says that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since it is an offering for the altar, the wood that is brought as an offering needs to be placed on other wood to burn, like any other offering that is burned on wood on the altar.
לְבוֹנָה – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִן הַקּוֹמֶץ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ מִסֹּלֶת הַמִּנְחָה וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבֹנָה״. מַקִּישׁ לְבוֹנָה לַהֲרָמָה דְּמִנְחָה – מָה הֲרָמָה דְּמִנְחָה קוֹמֶץ, אַף לְבוֹנָה נָמֵי קוֹמֶץ.
The mishna teaches: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering, and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:8). The Torah juxtaposes the frankincense with the taking up of a handful of the meal offering. This indicates that just as the taking up from a meal offering is referring to a handful, so too, the minimum size of a frankincense offering is also a handful.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָבִיא לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא לְבוֹנָה. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא מִכׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita which discusses vows to bring frankincense that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring to the altar, and does not specify what he will bring, must bring frankincense, as you have nothing that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense. One who says: I specified what I intended to bring to the altar, but I do not know what I specified, must bring one of everything that is sacrificed on the altar.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלָה! אִיכָּא עוֹרָהּ לְכֹהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense? But isn’t there a burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar? The Gemara answers that there is its hide, which is given to the priests and not burned on the altar.
וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, אִיכָּא
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bird burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar, including its skin? The Gemara answers: There are
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
Raanana, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Menachot 106
וּמֵרְקִיקִין, וְקָא קָמֵיץ מֵחַלּוֹת אַרְקִיקִין וּמֵרְקִיקִין אַחַלּוֹת.
and wafers together; and according to this suggestion, he removes a handful from the loaves for the wafers and a handful from the wafers for the loaves.
שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אִם קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ מֵאֶחָד עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם – יָצָא.
The Gemara answers: We have heard that Rabbi Shimon said: If one brought a meal offering that is part loaves and part wafers, and the priest removed a handful, and that which came up in his hand was only from one of the two types, either only loaves or only wafers, he has fulfilled his obligation of removing a handful.
וְהָא אִיכָּא מוֹתַר שֶׁמֶן, דְּאִי מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין אָמַר – מוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן מַחְזִירוֹ לַחַלּוֹת, אִי כּוּלְּהוּ רְקִיקִין אָמַר – מוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a problem with the surplus oil? The Gemara (75a) states that if a meal offering is brought half as loaves and half as wafers, the oil is divided equally between them; half is mixed with the loaves and half is applied to the wafers. The surplus oil from the wafers may also be mixed in with the loaves. But if the meal offering is baked entirely as wafers, the oil that remains is given to the priests. Therefore, Abaye’s explanation of the mishna is problematic, because if the person said in his vow that he would bring half loaves and half wafers, one brings back the surplus oil and mixes it in with the loaves. But if he said that the entire offering shall be wafers, the surplus oil should be eaten by the priests.
כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מוֹשְׁחָן כְּמִין כִּי, וּמוֹתַר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara resolves this problem in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that the oil of a meal offering baked half as loaves and half as wafers is applied as follows: One anoints the wafers in the shape of the Greek letter chi, Χ, and the surplus oil is eaten by the priests. Consequently, the surplus oil of a meal offering baked half as loaves and half as wafers is used the same way as that of a meal offering baked entirely as wafers.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָא אִיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקַהּ בְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
§ Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: If one specifies in his vow which meal offering he will bring, and subsequently forgets, why does he bring only five types of meal offerings? Isn’t there room to be uncertain with regard to another type of meal offering, namely, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany various burnt offerings? This meal offering can also be brought independently as a gift, as Rava said: A person may volunteer a meal offering brought with the libations every day, if he so wishes.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ (סִימָן: ״יָחִיד״, ״בִּגְלַל״, ״לְבוֹנָה״, ״בְּלוֹג״, ״מְקַמְּצָה״) –
The Gemara answers that there is no uncertainty with regard to the possibility that he said that he would bring a meal offering brought with the libations, because it is completely different than the other types of meal offerings. When one is uncertain as to which meal offering he vowed to bring, the uncertainty is only with regard to certain meal offerings. The Gemara presents a mnemonic for these differences: Individual, due to, frankincense, with a log, removes a handful of it.
בָּאָה בִּגְלַל יָחִיד, בָּאָה בִּגְלַל צִיבּוּר – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: The uncertainty with regard to which meal offering one vowed to bring is with regard to a meal offering that is brought exclusively due to the obligation of an individual. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering that is brought due to the obligation of the public, e.g., a meal offering brought with libations, which accompany communal offerings as well as individual ones; he certainly did not vow to bring this type of meal offering.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – בָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, בָּאָה בִּגְלַל זֶבַח – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
Furthermore, when one is uncertain it is with regard to a meal offering that is brought due to its own obligation. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering brought with libations due to the requirements of an offering.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain it is with regard to a meal offering that requires that frankincense be brought with it. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering brought with libations, which does not require frankincense.
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – בָּאָה בְּלוֹג, בָּאָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין – לָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain, it is with regard to a type of meal offering that is brought with one log of oil. But one is not uncertain if it is brought with three log of oil or more, which is the halakha with regard to meal offerings brought with libations (see Numbers 15:5–6, 9).
כִּי קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ – טְעוּנָה קְמִיצָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה קְמִיצָה – לָא קָא מִסְתַּפְּקָא לֵיהּ.
When one is uncertain it is only with regard to a meal offering that requires removal of a handful. But one is not uncertain with regard to a meal offering that does not require removal of a handful, which is the halakha with regard to a meal offering brought with libations.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים״.
§ The mishna teaches: If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not remember how many I specified, according to the Rabbis he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi he must bring sixty meal offerings, each with a different number of tenths, from one to sixty.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה, וְקָבַעְתִּי בִּכְלִי אֶחָד שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן אֶלֶף וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים.
The Sages taught in a baraita: If one says: I specified that I would bring a meal offering, and I established that they must be brought in one vessel of tenths of an ephah, but I do not know what number of tenths I specified, he must bring one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring sixty meal offerings of tenths in sixty vessels, each containing an amount from one-tenth until sixty-tenths, which are in total 1,830 tenths of an ephah.
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאִי זוֹ מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חָמֵשׁ מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, שֶׁהֵן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא חָמֵשׁ מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עֶשְׂרוֹנִים מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן תִּשְׁעָה אֲלָפִים וּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים.
The baraita continues: If one said: I specified a certain type of meal offering with a certain number of tenths of an ephah to be brought in one vessel, but I do not know what I specified, or which type of meal offering I specified, and I do not know how many tenths of an ephah I specified, he must bring the five different types of meal offerings, and each one must contain sixty-tenths of an ephah, which are in total three-hundred-tenths of an ephah. This is the statement of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He must bring five different types of meal offerings, and for each type he must bring sixty meal offerings, each with a different number of tenths, from one until sixty, which are in total 9,150 tenths of an ephah.
בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בְּמוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי סָבַר: אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוּתָּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.
The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? Rav Ḥisda said: They disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is prohibited to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is necessary to bring sixty meal offerings of each type, as if one merely brings one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah in a single vessel, he may be in violation of this prohibition, as it is possible that he vowed to bring less than that amount, and the surplus amount is non-sacred. And the Rabbis hold that it is permitted to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, even if the meal offering is of a greater volume than necessary, it is inconsequential.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אָסוּר לְהַכְנִיס חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, וְהָכָא בְּמוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
Rava said that the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is with regard to a different issue: Everyone agrees that it is prohibited to bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard, and here they disagree with regard to whether it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: אָסוּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה.
The Rabbis hold that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and therefore one may bring sixty-tenths in one vessel and stipulate that the amount beyond his obligation will be a gift offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is prohibited to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and therefore one cannot make such a stipulation; every possible meal offering requires its own vessel. Concerning each vessel, he stipulates that if this one can fulfill his vow, it should count as fulfillment of his vow, and otherwise it should serve as a gift offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא: לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, הָא בָּעֵינַן שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים? דְּקָמֵיץ וַהֲדַר קָמֵיץ.
Abaye said to Rava: According to the Rabbis, who say that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and one vessel with sixty-tenths of an ephah can serve in part to fulfill the obligation and in part as a gift offering, there is a difficulty: Don’t we require the removal of two handfuls, one for the obligatory meal offering and one for the gift offering? Rava answered: According to the Rabbis, it is required that the priest removes a handful and again removes a handful.
וְהָא קָא קָמֵיץ מֵחוֹבָה אַנְּדָבָה וּמִנְּדָבָה אַחוֹבָה!
Abaye said to Rava: But if so, since the tenths that fulfill an obligation and the tenths that are a gift are mixed together in a single vessel, when the priest removes a handful, isn’t he removing a handful from tenths that fulfill an obligation to account for tenths that are a gift offering, and removing a handful from tenths that are a gift offering to account for tenths that fulfill an obligation?
דְּתָלֵי לֵיהּ בְּדַעַת כֹּהֵן, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמָטְיָא יְדָא דְּכֹהֵן הַשְׁתָּא – חוֹבָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף – נְדָבָה.
Rava answered Abaye: This is not difficult, as the one who brings the meal offering renders it dependent on the intent of the priest, as he says: Wherever the priest’s hand reaches now, when he removes the first handful, shall be the location of the tenths that fulfill my obligation, and wherever his hand reaches at the end, when removing the second handful, shall be a gift offering.
וְאַקְטוֹרֵי הֵיכִי מַקְטַר? לַיקְטַר נְדָבָה בְּרֵישָׁא – דְּחוֹבָה הֵיכִי מַקְטַר לַהּ? דִּלְמָא כּוּלַּהּ חוֹבָה הִיא, וְחָסְרוּ לְהוּ שִׁירַיִם.
Abaye asked Rava: But how does the priest burn the handful upon the altar? If the priest will burn the handful from the gift offering first, how can he then burn the handful of the tenths that fulfill the obligation? Perhaps the entire meal offering is for the obligation, as the vow was to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, and everything apart from the first handful, including the second handful, is the remainder, and by burning part of it the priest causes the remainder to be lacking.
וְאָמַר מָר: שִׁירַיִם שֶׁחָסְרוּ בֵּין קְמִיצָה לְהַקְטָרָה – אֵין מַקְטִיר קוֹמֶץ עֲלֵיהֶן!
And the Master said: With regard to the remainder of a meal offering that became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning of the handful upon the altar, the halakha is that one does not burn the handful on its account, as it is not considered a valid meal offering.
לַיקְטַר חוֹבָה בְּרֵישָׁא – דִּנְדָבָה הֵיכִי מַקְטַר לַהּ?
Alternatively, if the priest will burn the handful that fulfills the obligation first, how can he burn the handful of the gift offering?
וְדִלְמָא כּוּלַּהּ חוֹבָה הִיא, וְכֹל שֶׁהוּא מִמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״בַל תַּקְטִירוּ״.
But perhaps the vow was to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, in which case the entire meal offering is necessary to fulfill the obligation. Consequently, only one handful may be removed, and all the rest is considered the remainder. And there is a principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of: You may not make as an offering (see Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, such as the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal offering, has been sacrificed, one who sacrifices any other part of it that is not designated for sacrifice has violated a prohibition. In this case, the second handful is considered part of the remainder of the meal offering, and burning it is prohibited.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: דְּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים, וּכְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים.
Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: The priest does not burn the oil as an offering but burns it for the sake of wood, i.e., not as a sacrificial rite, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke from it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances for the sake of wood, not as an offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְרַבִּי לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to burn on the altar as fuel even items that are prohibited from being burned as offerings. As the Rabbis accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and therefore they allow one to bring one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah, since the handful removed from it may be burned, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְרַבִּי מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין בְּחַד מָנָא, וְחַד בְּחַד מָנָא, וּמַגַּע לְהוּ, וְקָמֵיץ.
Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot be the dispute, as if it enters your mind that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and he does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not require sixty separate vessels. Instead, one could bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and one additional tenth in one other vessel, from which the handful of the gift offering would be removed. And he could touch them, i.e., place them so they touch each other, so that they are considered as one, and the priest could then remove a handful from that tenth for the gift, and remove another handful from the vessel with sixty-tenths to fulfill the obligation.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
Rava said that there is an alternative explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And here they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis.
דִּתְנַן: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן נוֹתֵן לָהּ שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שָׁמֶן״.
As we learned in a mishna (88a): Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one log of oil. Accordingly, even if one brings a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, one adds to it sixty log of oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, even a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle that pertains to all meal offerings, that each offering requires only one log of oil.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי [כְּרַבָּנַן], דְּאָמְרִי: שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג, וְכֹל חַד וְחַד עִשָּׂרוֹן – לוּגָּה קָא שָׁקֵיל.
Rava explains: The Rabbis in the mishna hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and who said: A meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah requires sixty log of oil. Therefore, in a case of uncertainty, it is possible to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, and each and every measurement of one-tenth takes one log.
וְרַבִּי סָבַר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי חֲדָא מִנְחָה הִיא – דְּסַגִּי לַהּ בְּחַד לוֹג, אִי שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת נִינְהוּ – דְּבָעֵינַן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין.
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah has only its one log of oil. And therefore, when one is uncertain about his vow and brings sixty-tenths, he cannot bring them with one log of oil, as we do not know whether the entire sixty-tenths is one meal offering, so that one log suffices for it, or whether they are two meal offerings, one that is obligatory and one that is a gift, which require two log of oil. For this reason, there is no way of resolving the uncertainty except by bringing sixty separate meal offerings, with one log of oil for each.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּקָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: לֹא יָצָא.
Rav Ashi said that there is alternative explanation of the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: They disagree with regard to the halakha of one who is obligated to bring a small offering and instead brings a large offering. The Rabbis hold that if one is obligated to bring a small offering and brings a large one instead he has fulfilled his obligation, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in such a case he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, in the case of the uncertainty in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that by bringing one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah one does not fulfill his obligation if he vowed to bring a smaller offering.
וְהָא אִיפְּלִגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִמְנָא, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָצָא.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree about this topic once? As we learned in a mishna (107b) that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull instead, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי קוֹמֶץ הוּא; אֲבָל הָתָם, דְּקָא נְפִישִׁי אֵימוּרִין – אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the dispute to be mentioned with regard to both cases, as had their dispute been stated only with regard to this case of one who vows to bring a small meal offering and brings a large one instead, there would be room to reason that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that he has fulfilled his obligation, because both this small meal offering and that large meal offering are identical with regard to the portion of the offering that is sacrificed on the altar; in both cases it is a handful. But there, in the case of one who vows to bring a small bull but brings a large one, since the sacrificial portions are greater, i.e., larger, there is room to say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that he has not fulfilled his obligation.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.
And had their dispute been stated only in that case of one who vows to bring a small bull and brings a big one, there would be room to reason that only in that case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the person has not fulfilled his obligation, because the sacrificial portions are larger. But in this case of bringing a large meal offering instead of a small one, there is room to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.
סִימָן: עֵצִים, זָהָב, יַיִן, עוֹלָה, תּוֹדָה, שׁוֹר.
§ The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the halakhot discussed in the upcoming mishnayot: Wood, gold, wine, burnt offering, thanks offering, bull.
מַתְנִי׳ הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גְזִירִין, לְבוֹנָה – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ.
MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate pieces of wood as fuel for the altar, must donate no fewer than two logs. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, must bring no less than a handful.
חֲמִשָּׁה קְמָצִים הֵם: הָאוֹמֵר ״עָלַי לְבוֹנָה״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקּוֹמֶץ, הַמְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה – יָבִיא עִמָּהּ קוֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה, הַמַּעֲלֶה אֶת הַקּוֹמֶץ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין טְעוּנִין שְׁנֵי קְמָצִים.
The mishna states tangentially: There are five halakhot pertaining to handfuls. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering of frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. One who pledges to bring a meal offering must bring with it a handful of frankincense. One who intentionally offers up a handful of a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. The two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread are required to have two handfuls of frankincense.
״הֲרֵי עָלַי זָהָב״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב, ״כֶּסֶף״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר כֶּסֶף, ״נְחֹשֶׁת״ – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִמָּעָה כֶּסֶף. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יְהֵא מֵבִיא עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״לֹא לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוַּונְתִּי״.
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple treasury, must give no less than a gold dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate silver to the Temple treasury, must give no less than the value of a silver dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple maintenance, must give no less than the value of a silver ma’a. One who says: I specified the amount of gold, silver, or copper, but I do not know what I specified, must bring the maximum amount of gold, silver, or copper, until it reaches an amount where he says: I am certain that I did not intend to donate that much.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קׇרְבָּן״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין עֵצִים, וְכַמָּה? שְׁנֵי גְּזִירִין. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַגּוֹרָלוֹת הִפַּלְנוּ עַל קֻרְבַּן הָעֵצִים״. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: עֵצִים קׇרְבָּן הֵם, טְעוּנִין מֶלַח וּטְעוּנִין הַגָּשָׁה.
GEMARA: With regard to one who pledges to donate wood, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word “korban” teaches that one can voluntarily give wood as an offering for the altar. And how much wood must one bring if he does not specify an amount? Two logs. And the support for the fact that wood can be brought as a voluntary offering is as the verse states: “And we cast lots for the wood offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This voluntary donation of wood is an offering like a meal offering, and therefore it requires salt and requires bringing to the corner of the altar, like a meal offering.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּלְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים טְעוּנִין קְמִיצָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי, עֵצִים צְרִיכִין עֵצִים.
Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful; just as in the case of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and sacrificed separately. And Rav Pappa says that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since it is an offering for the altar, the wood that is brought as an offering needs to be placed on other wood to burn, like any other offering that is burned on wood on the altar.
לְבוֹנָה – לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִן הַקּוֹמֶץ. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ מִסֹּלֶת הַמִּנְחָה וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבֹנָה״. מַקִּישׁ לְבוֹנָה לַהֲרָמָה דְּמִנְחָה – מָה הֲרָמָה דְּמִנְחָה קוֹמֶץ, אַף לְבוֹנָה נָמֵי קוֹמֶץ.
The mishna teaches: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering, and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:8). The Torah juxtaposes the frankincense with the taking up of a handful of the meal offering. This indicates that just as the taking up from a meal offering is referring to a handful, so too, the minimum size of a frankincense offering is also a handful.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָבִיא לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא לְבוֹנָה. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא מִכׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁקָּרֵב לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita which discusses vows to bring frankincense that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring to the altar, and does not specify what he will bring, must bring frankincense, as you have nothing that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense. One who says: I specified what I intended to bring to the altar, but I do not know what I specified, must bring one of everything that is sacrificed on the altar.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלָה! אִיכָּא עוֹרָהּ לְכֹהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense? But isn’t there a burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar? The Gemara answers that there is its hide, which is given to the priests and not burned on the altar.
וְהָא אִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, אִיכָּא
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bird burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar, including its skin? The Gemara answers: There are
