Talmud - Menachot 106a מנחות ק״ו א׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Alternatively, if the priest will burn the handful that fulfills the obligation first, how can he burn the handful of the gift offering?

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 106a explores mixed loaf-and-wafer meal offerings, the handful removal ritual, and how leftover oil is allocated among priests.