Menachot 105bמנחות ק״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 105b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
105bק״ה ב

עמו ואומר אם מצורע הוא זהו אשמו וזה לוגו ואם לאו אשם זה יהא שלמי נדבה

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.

ואותו אשם טעון שחיטה בצפון ומתן בהונות וסמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק ונאכל לזכרי כהונה ליום ולילה

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.

ואף על גב דקא מפריק מר בשחיטת קדשים

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.

אימר דאמר רבי שמעון מייתי ומתני לכתחילה לתקוני גברא אבל בעלמא דיעבד אין לכתחילה לא

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.

הני מילי גבי שלמים דקא ממעט באכילתן דהוו להו קדשים לבית הפסול אבל מנחות אפילו לכתחילה

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.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי רבי שמעון דאמר מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין יביא הא קא מייתי עשרון אחד משני עשרון ולוג אחד משני לוגין

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.

שמעינן ליה לר' שמעון דאמר אם הביא עשרון אחד משני עשרונות ולוג אחד משני לוגין יצא

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.

ומיקמץ היכי קמץ דמתני ואמר אי חלות לחודייהו ורקיקין לחודייהו אמרי דקא קמיצנא מחלות ליהוי אחלות דקא קמיצנא מרקיקין ליהוי ארקיקין אי מחצה רקיקין ומחצה חלות אמרי דקא קמיצנא מחלות ליהוי אמחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין ודקא קמיצנא מרקיקין ליהוו אמחצה רקיקין ומחצה חלות

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.

והא בעי מיקמץ חד קומץ מחלות

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