## Menachot Daf 105a

###### Menachot 105a:1
[Menachot 105a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:1)

תְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**first,** in the passage discussing burnt offerings (see Leviticus 1:3).


###### Menachot 105a:2
[Menachot 105a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Menachot 105a:3
[Menachot 105a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Menachot 105a:4
[Menachot 105a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 105a:5
[Menachot 105a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:5)

אֶלָּא מַאי מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת? דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:6
[Menachot 105a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:7
[Menachot 105a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:7)

פְּשִׁיטָא, מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת קָאָמַר, סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:8
[Menachot 105a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:8)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*?


###### Menachot 105a:9
[Menachot 105a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Menachot 105a:10
[Menachot 105a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 105a:11
[Menachot 105a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 105a:12
[Menachot 105a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:13
[Menachot 105a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 105a:14
[Menachot 105a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 105a:15
[Menachot 105a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 105a:16
[Menachot 105a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:16)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:17
[Menachot 105a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 105a:18
[Menachot 105a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*?


###### Menachot 105a:19
[Menachot 105a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 105a:20
[Menachot 105a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:20)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 105a:21
[Menachot 105a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:21)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 105a:22
[Menachot 105a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/105a:22)

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, לַמׇּחֳרָת מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ וְלוּגּוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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