מנחות קד

מנחות קד

וההוא גברא על פלטר סמיך

Rabbi Beivai concludes: And that man, i.e., I, relies on a baker. Therefore, my mind is not sufficiently settled to answer the question properly.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב יוסף רבי יהודה מוריינא דבי נשיאה הוה ואורי ליה כשמעתיה

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this question? Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic decisor of the house of the Nasi, and he instructed them according to his tradition that the blood of an animal carcass is impure.

דתנן רבי יהודה אומר ששה דברים מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל דם נבילות בית שמאי מטהרין ובית הלל מטמאין אמר רבי יוסי בר’ יהודה אף כשטמאו בית הלל לא טמאו אלא ברביעית הואיל ויכול לקרוש ולעמוד על כזית:

As we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. They include the blood of a carcass, which Beit Shammai deem ritually pure, as in their opinion only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; and Beit Hillel deem it ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed it impure, they deemed it impure only when it is in the quantity of at least a quarter-log, since that amount, were it to congeal, could constitute an olive-bulk, which is the minimum amount of the flesh of a carcass that is deemed impure.

מתני׳ אין מתנדבין לוג שנים וחמשה אבל מתנדבין שלשה וארבעה וששה ומששה ולמעלה:

MISHNA: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. But one pledges a libation of three log, which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, or four log, which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, or six log, which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. And one may pledge a libation of six log and beyond, as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו יש קבע לנסכים או אין קבע לנסכים

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is there a fixed amount for libations, in that when one vows to bring a certain number of log of wine they are not offered separately, or is there no fixed amount for libations, and it is permitted to divide them and offer them in smaller amounts?

היכי דמי כגון דאייתי חמשה אי אמרת אין קבע לנסכים משיך ומקריב ארבעה מינייהו דחזי לאיל ואידך הוי נדבה ואי אמרת יש קבע לנסכים עד דממלי להו לא קרבי

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? It is a case where he brought five log of wine. If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then he removes and offers four of them, as those are suitable for the libations of a ram, and the other log, which is not of sufficient volume, is allocated for communal gift offerings. Either it itself is offered, or it is redeemed and the money is used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar, i.e., for times when the altar is idle. But if you say that there is a fixed amount for libations and the wine may not be divided and offered separately, then it is not offered itself or redeemed with money and offered until he adds to the existing measurement such that the total number of log may be offered as an independent libation.

מאי אמר אביי תא שמע ששה לנדבה ואמרינן כנגד מי כנגד מותר חטאת ומותר אשמות ומותר אשם נזיר ומותר אשם מצורע ומותר קינין ומותר מנחת חוטא

What is the halakha? Abaye said: Come and hear the answer from a mishna (Shekalim 6:5): There were six collection horns for communal gift offerings, and we say: For what were they designated? They were designated for funds left over from the purchase of sin offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of guilt offerings, for funds left over from the purchase of a guilt offering of a nazirite, for funds left over from the purchase of the guilt offering of a leper, for funds left over from the purchase of pairs of birds, and for funds left over from the purchase of the meal offering of a sinner.

ואם איתא ליתקין שופר אחרינא כנגד מותר נסכים

And if it is so that there is no fixed amount for libations, and if one vowed to bring five log then four are offered as a ram’s libation and the fifth can be redeemed and its money used for a communal gift offering, then let them institute an additional collection horn in the Temple for funds left over from the purchase of libations.

הנך לנדבת צבור אזלי הני שכיחי אפשר דמצטרפי דמר ודמר בהדי הדדי וקרבי

The Gemara responds: These six horns are dedicated to funds that go to communal gift offerings, and these log of wine left over from libations are common, so there is no need to store them, since it is possible that the libation of this person will be combined with the libation of another person together in order to reach the desired amount, and then it is offered immediately. Therefore, no additional horn was necessary for the money from the redemption of libations.

אמר רבא תא שמע (במדבר טו, יג) אזרח מלמד שמתנדבין נסכים וכמה שלשת לוגין

Rava said: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are home born shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive halakhot. The term “home born” teaches that one may pledge libations even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. And how much is the minimum volume that is offered? Three log, which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah, i.e., the libation that is offered with a lamb.

ומנין שאם רצה להוסיף יוסיף תלמוד לומר יהיה יכול יפחות תלמוד לאמר ככה

And from where is it derived that if one desires to add to this amount he may add? The verse states with regard to libations associated with the additional offerings for the New Moon: “And their libations: Half a hin of wine shall be for the bull, and one-third of a hin for the ram, and one-quarter of a hin for the lamb” (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are others, and derive that independent libations may also be brought. Can one decrease the amount of wine in a libation to less than three log? The verse states: “All that are home born shall do these things, in this manner” (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three log of wine.

מאי יוסיף אילימא ארבעה וששה מאי שנא שלשה דחזו לכבש ארבעה וששה נמי חזו לאיל ופר אלא לאו חמשה ושמע מינה אין קבע לנסכים שמע מינה

The Gemara clarifies: What does the baraita mean when it says that one may add to the minimum of three log for an independent libation? If we say it means that it is permitted to offer four or six log, then what is different about three log that it was specified? It is because it is suitable for the libations of a lamb. If so, then four or six log are also suitable, as four log is offered as the libation for a ram and six log is offered as the libation for a bull. Rather, in saying that one may add, isn’t the baraita referring to five log of wine, despite the fact that it is not a measurement used with any of the offerings? And learn from this baraita that there is no fixed amount for libations. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the baraita that this is so.

אמר רב אשי והא אנן לא תנן הכי אין מתנדבין לוג שנים וחמשה קתני חמשה דומיא דשנים מה שנים דלא חזו כלל אף חמשה נמי דלא חזו כלל

Rav Ashi said: But didn’t we learn this in the mishna: One does not pledge a libation of one log, two log, or five log of wine? Rav Ashi continues: In phrasing the mishna in this manner, the tanna teaches that the status of five log is similar to the status of two log: Just as two log are not suitable at all to be offered independently, so too, five log are also not suitable at all to offer, as there are no libations of this size. This demonstrates that there is a fixed amount to libations, and one may not divide them into two.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This, two log, is as it is, and that, five log, is as it is, and there is no reason to compare them. Four of the five log are offered, with the fifth allocated for a communal gift offering.

אמר אביי אם תמצא לומר אין קבע לנסכים הא אין קבע לנסכים אם תמצא לומר יש קבע לנסכים עד עשרה פשיטא לי אחד עשר

Abaye said: If you say that there is no fixed amount for libations, then there is no fixed amount for libations, and no further discussion is necessary. If you say that there is a fixed amount for libations, then the halakha of up to ten log of wine is obvious to me. One log, two log, or five log may not be brought, since these amounts are not offered as standard libations, but three, four, or six log are brought, as their amount is equivalent to those of standard libations. Between six and ten log may also be brought, since these amounts can be composed of a combination of the various wine libations. With regard to eleven log,

מיבעיא לי מאי גברא לשני פרים קא מכוין ועד דממלי להו לא קרבי או דלמא לשני אילים וכבש אחד קמכווין תרי מחד מינא וחד מחד מינא אמרינן או לא מאי תיקו:

I ask, what is the halakha? Does the man who vowed to bring eleven log intend to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering of two bulls, i.e., twelve log, and until he accumulates that amount, the libation is not brought? Or perhaps he intends to bring an amount equal to that associated with two rams and one lamb, i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. Do we say that he intended to bring two libations associated with one type, i.e., a ram, and one libation associated with another type, i.e., a lamb, or not? What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ מתנדבין יין ואין מתנדבין שמן דברי רבי עקיבא רבי טרפון אומר מתנדבין שמן

MISHNA: One may pledge to bring independent libations of wine, but one may not pledge oil alone; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may pledge oil as well.

אמר רבי טרפון מה מצינו ביין שהוא בא חובה ובא נדבה אף שמן שהוא בא חובה בא נדבה אמר לו רבי עקיבא לא אם אמרת ביין שכן קרב עם חובתו בפני עצמו תאמר בשמן שאינו קרב עם חובתו בפני עצמו

Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering independent of any offering, so too, we find that oil comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that this is true with regard to wine, as it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself, shall you also say that this is also the case with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself but only mixed with the flour?

אין שנים מתנדבין עשרון אחד אבל מתנדבין עולה ושלמים ועוף אפילו פרידה אחת:

The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: Two people do not pledge a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah as partners, but they may pledge a burnt offering and a peace offering. And they may pledge to bring even an individual bird, not only a pair.

גמ׳ אמר רבא מדברי שניהם נלמוד מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום

GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn that a person may pledge a meal offering like those brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings every day.

פשיטא מהו דתימא מנחת נדבה גלי בה רחמנא הני חמשה מנחות אין טפי לא קא משמע לן הני מילי בסתמא אבל היכא דפריש פריש:

The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, lest you say that the Merciful One revealed the nature of a voluntary meal offering (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only those five meal offerings detailed there are indeed brought as voluntary offerings, but any additional types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are not. Rava therefore teaches us that these matters in the Torah apply only where his pledge of a meal offering was unspecified, but where he specified that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then he has specified, and the vow takes effect.

אין שנים מתנדבין: מאי טעמא אילימא משום דכתיב (ויקרא ב, א) תקריב עולה נמי הא כתיב (ויקרא א, ב) יקריב

§ The mishna stated that two people do not pledge a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to a burnt offering as well, it is written in the singular: “When any man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.

אלא עולה מאי טעמא דכתיב (במדבר כט, לט) לעולותיכם מנחה נמי הא כתיב (במדבר כט, לט) למנחותיכם אלא משום דכתיב בה (ויקרא ב, א) נפש

Rather, what is the reason that a burnt offering is brought by two people? The reason is that it is written in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside your burnt offerings [le’oloteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: “Your meal offerings [leminḥoteikhem].” Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.

תניא נמי הכי רבי אומר (ויקרא כב, יח) אשר יקריב קרבנו לכל נדריהם ולכל נדבותם אשר יקריבו לה’ הכל באין בשותפות לא סילק הכתוב אלא מנחה שנאמר נפש

This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that any offering can be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering from this principle, as it is stated: “And when an individual brings a meal offering.”

אמר ר’ יצחק מפני מה נשתנית מנחה שנאמר בה נפש אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא מי דרכו להביא מנחה עני מעלה אני עליו כאילו הקריב נפשו לפני

The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term “an individual [nefesh]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his soul [nafsho] in front of Me.

אמר ר’ יצחק מה נשתנית מנחה שנאמר בה חמשה מיני טיגון הללו משל למלך בשר ודם שעשה לו אוהבו סעודה ויודע בו שהוא עני אמר לו עשה לי מן חמשה מיני טיגון כדי שאהנה ממך:

§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason that the meal offering is differentiated from other offerings in that the Torah stated these five types of preparations with oil with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but the king knows that the friend is poor. The king said to him: Make for me foods from five types of fried dishes, so that I may benefit from you.

הדרן עלך פרק המנחות והנסכים

מתני׳ הרי עלי עשרון יביא אחד עשרונות יביא שנים פירשתי ואיני יודע מה פירשתי יביא ששים עשרון

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of one-tenth. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah, he must bring two-tenths, as that is the minimum plural amount. If he says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know which number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths, as that is the maximum amount of a meal offering. The flour beyond the amount that he actually specified is rendered a voluntary meal offering.

הרי עלי מנחה יביא איזו שירצה רבי יהודה אומר יביא מנחת הסולת שהיא מיוחדת שבמנחות

If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, he may bring whichever meal offering that he wishes, i.e., the fine-flour meal offering, the shallow-pan or deep-pan meal offering, or the meal offering baked in an oven in the form of loaves or wafers. Rabbi Yehuda says: He must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings.

מנחה או מין המנחה יביא אחת מנחות או מין מנחות יביא שתים פירשתי ואיני יודע איזה מהן פירשתי יביא חמשתן

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. If he 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. If he says: I specified a meal offering but I do not know which meal offering I specified, he must bring all five types of meal offerings.

פירשתי מנחה של עשרונים ואיני יודע כמה פירשתי יביא ששים עשרון רבי אומר יביא מנחות של עשרונות מאחד ועד ששים:

If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not know how many tenths I specified, he must bring a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: His obligation is satisfied only when he brings meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs. He fulfills his vow with one of the meal offerings, and the rest are rendered voluntary meal offerings.

גמ׳ פשיטא עשרונות יביא שתים איצטריכא ליה הא נמי פשיטא מיעוט עשרונות שתים איצטריכא ליה:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following halakha, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah he must bring two-tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that the minimum amount that the word tenths is used in reference to is two-tenths.

פירשתי ואיני יודע מה פירשתי יביא ששים עשרון: מאן תנא

§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know what number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this?

אמר חזקיה דלא כרבי דאי רבי האמר יביא מנחות של עשרונות מאחד ועד ששים

Ḥizkiyya said: This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. As if it was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn’t he say that such a person must bring meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one-tenth of an ephah to sixty-tenths?

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבי באומר פירשתי עשרונות אבל לא קבעתים בכלי דמייתי שיתין עשרונות בשיתין מאני:

And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: You may even say that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one where the person says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I did not establish that they must be brought in one vessel. In such a case all agree that he must bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in sixty vessels, a tenth in each vessel.

הרי עלי מנחה יביא איזהו שירצה [וכו’]: תנא הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב תחלה

§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, the first tanna holds he may bring whichever meal offering he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, since in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) the verse opens with the fine-flour meal offering first, mentioning it before the other meal offerings.

אלא מעתה האומר הרי עלי עולה יביא בן בקר הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal, must bring a young bull as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it