מנחות קה

מנחות קה

תְּחִלָּה.

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

״מִן הַצֹּאן״ – יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.

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: “And 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” (Leviticus 1:10).

״מִן הָעוֹף״ – יָבִיא תּוֹרִים, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.

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: “And if his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of doves or of pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14).

אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה – יָבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: תּוֹר אוֹ בֶּן יוֹנָה, וְלָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

אֶלָּא מַאי מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת? דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי.

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.

וְהָא תָּנָא הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵיזֶהוּ מִנְחָה מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי? זוֹ שֶׁפָּתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.

The Gemara challenges: But isn’t 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.

פְּשִׁיטָא, מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת קָאָמַר, סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.

The Gemara challenges: If so, the explanation of the baraita is unnecessary; isn’t 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.

״מִנְחָה״, ״מִין הַמִּנְחָה״ [וְכוּ׳]. בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״ מַהוּ?

§ 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?

כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִינֵי״, תַּרְתֵּי קָאָמַר, וּמַאי ״מִנְחָה״? (דְּכוּלַּהּ) מְנָחוֹת נָמֵי ״מִנְחָה״ מִיקַּרְיָין, דִּכְתִיב ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה״.

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: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7).

אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״, חֲדָא מִנְחָה קָאָמַר, וּמַאי ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מִמִּינֵי מִנְחָה חֲדָא מִנְחָה עֲלַי״.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״מִנְחָה״ ״מִין מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אַחַת, הָא ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״ – שְׁתַּיִם.

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.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״מְנָחוֹת״, ״מִין מְנָחוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם, הָא ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״ – חֲדָא. אֶלָּא, מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״מִין מְנָחוֹת עָלַי״ – יָבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד, הָא ״מִמִּינֵי מִנְחָה״ – חֲדָא.

The Gemara suggests another resolution to Rav Pappa’s 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.

דִּלְמָא: הָא ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״ – מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין.

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.

וְהָא לָא תָּנֵי הָכִי, ״מִין מְנָחוֹת עָלַי״ – מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד, ״מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת עָלַי״ – מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין, הָא ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״ – חֲדָא.

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.

דִּלְמָא הָא מַנִּי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, וּמַאי ״מִינֵי מִנְחָה״? מִנְחָה דְּאִית בַּהּ תְּרֵי מִינֵי.

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.

אֲבָל רַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי, מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין – לֹא יָבִיא, מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין.

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.

״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חֲמִשְׁתָּן. מַאן תַּנָּא?

§ 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?

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא.

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.

אִי נָמֵי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת עֶשֶׂר, אִיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקַהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה מְנָחוֹת.

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.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.

Abaye rejected Rabbi Yirmeya’s 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.

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לַמׇּחֳרָת מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ וְלוּגּוֹ

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

עִמּוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר: אִם מְצוֹרָע הוּא – זֶהוּ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְזֶה לוּגּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו – אָשָׁם זֶה יְהֵא שַׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה.

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.

וְאוֹתוֹ אָשָׁם טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה בַּצָּפוֹן, וּמַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת, וּסְמִיכָה, וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, וְנֶאֱכָל לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה.

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.

וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא מְפָרֵיק מָר בִּשְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים.

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 Zevaḥim, 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.

אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי לְכַתְּחִילָּה – לְתַקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא – דִּיעֲבַד אִין, לְכַתְּחִילָּה לָא.

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.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי שְׁלָמִים, דְּקָא מְמַעֵט בַּאֲכִילָתָן, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל, אֲבָל מְנָחוֹת – אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, הָא קָא מַיְיתֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן, וְלוֹג אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי לוּגִּין!

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’s 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.

שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אִם הֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת, וְלוֹג אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי לוּגִּין – יָצָא.

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.

וּמִיקְמָץ הֵיכִי קָמַץ? דְּמַתְנֵי וְאָמַר: אִי חַלּוֹת לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ, וּרְקִיקִין לְחוֹדַיְיהוּ אֲמַרִי – דְּקָא קָמֵיצְנָא מֵחַלּוֹת לֶיהֱוֵי אַחַלּוֹת, דְּקָא קָמֵיצְנָא מֵרְקִיקִין לֶיהֱוֵי אַרְקִיקִין. אִי מֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין וּמֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת אֲמַרִי – דְּקָא קָמֵיצְנָא מֵחַלּוֹת לֶיהֱוֵי אַמֶּחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין, וּדְקָא קָמֵיצְנָא מֵרְקִיקִין לִיהְווֹ אַמֶּחֱצָה רְקִיקִין וּמֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת.

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.

וְהָא בָּעֵי מִיקְמָץ חַד קוֹמֶץ מֵחַלּוֹת

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