We begin our exploration of the third line of the Talmud Bavli, focusing on the bringing of a meal offering (mincha) under a stipulation. According to Rabbi Shimon, one may bring a meal offering consisting of five loaves (halot) and five wafers (rekikin), even though the Torah typically requires ten. The standard requirement is to bring ten, either all loaves or all wafers. Rabbi Shimon, however, permits a combination. The discussion here centers on a case where not only is one bringing a mixed offering of five loaves and five wafers, but it is also brought as a stipulation because the exact original vow is uncertain. It could have been ten loaves, ten wafers, or some other combination. Therefore, we assume that whatever is mandatory is fulfilled, and any excess becomes a voluntary offering (nedavah).
The discussion then turns to the requirement of oil (shemen). Ten wafers require one log of oil, and ten loaves also require one log of oil. The Gemara asks why there would be leftover oil in such a case. The normal law is that if one brings ten wafers with one log of oil, the oil is used to anoint the wafers. What happens to any leftover oil? The Gemara explains that if the offering was a mixed one (five loaves and five wafers), the leftover oil is returned and mixed with the loaves. However, if the vow was for all wafers, the leftover oil is given to the priests (kohanim) to eat. This means that the laws regarding the oil differ based on the nature of the original vow. If it was all wafers, the leftover oil goes to the kohanim. If it was a mixed offering, the leftover oil is returned to the meal offering itself.
Given our case of an uncertain vow, what should be done with the leftover oil? We face a dilemma, a doubt (safek). If it was all wafers, the oil goes to the kohanim. If it was a mixed offering, it goes back into the meal offering. What is the resolution? The Gemara states that Rabbi Shimon holds that even in the case of a mixed offering, one takes the oil and makes a "chi" shape on the wafers (a Greek letter shape for anointing), and then the leftover oil is given to the kohanim. This implies that there is no difference in the disposition of leftover oil, whether the offering was all wafers or a mixed one; it always goes to the kohanim. Thus, the initial problem of leftover oil is resolved.
The discussion then shifts to a new doubt, a "sixth doubt." A person can bring various types of meal offerings. We know that an animal offering is accompanied by wine, flour, and oil. However, a person can also donate a standalone meal offering (minchat nesachim), which is a different type of meal offering. The amount of flour for such an offering is based on the measure (shi'ur) that would normally accompany an animal offering, but it is brought independently. This is considered a sixth type of meal offering, in addition to the standard types like the baked offerings from the oven (ma'afei tanur). The Mishnah asks why the person might have been donating one of these types of meal offerings. The Gemara clarifies that when a person has a doubt, we must analyze what that doubt could logically encompass. Once the Gemara's logic is understood, it becomes clear that certain types of meal offerings could not have been part of the doubt.
The Gemara's reasoning is as follows: The person is certain that their doubt only concerns meal offerings brought by an individual (yachid), not meal offerings brought by the community (tzibur). Offerings like the baked offerings (minchat machavat and minchat marheshet) are never brought by the community. However, the meal offering of libations (minchat nesachim) can accompany a communal burnt offering (korban olah). Therefore, the doubt could not have been about a meal offering that could be brought by the community.
Furthermore, the doubt is only about a meal offering that comes alone, not one whose flour quantity is based on an animal offering (even if it's brought alone, its measure derives from a korban). The standard baked meal offerings are brought alone.
Thirdly, the person is certain their doubt concerns a meal offering that comes with frankincense (levonah). The meal offering of libations does not come with frankincense, so it could not have been the subject of the doubt.
Fourthly, the doubt is only about a meal offering that comes with one log of oil. The meal offering of libations minimally comes with three logs of oil, as the minimum animal offering it accompanies requires three logs. Thus, the doubt could not have been about a meal offering requiring three logs of oil.
Finally, the doubt is only about a meal offering that requires the ritual taking of a handful (kimtzah). The meal offering of libations does not involve a kimtzah; the entire offering is placed on the altar. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that the person certainly did not have the meal offering of libations in mind. Once these options are eliminated, it is clear that Minchat Nesachim is not one of the possibilities, and therefore, one does not need to attempt to bring it.
Returning to the original case of the stipulated meal offering, the Tanna Kamma (the first opinion in the Mishnah) says to bring sixty tenths of an ephah (isronim) in one vessel. Sixty is the maximum number of isronim that can be brought in a single offering. This implies that one can mix a mandatory offering (chovah) and a voluntary offering (nedavah) in the same vessel. Rabbi Shimon, however, says that one must bring sixty vessels, with one isaron in the first, two in the second, and so on, up to sixty. This is because he believes one cannot mix a mandatory offering with a voluntary offering. Thus, one of these vessels will contain the true mandatory offering, and the rest will be voluntary offerings. This totals 1830 isronim (the sum of 1 to 60).
The Gemara then presents a case where the person designated an offering but now does not even know which type of meal offering it was, nor how many isronim. This creates two doubts. The Sages (Hachamim) say to bring five vessels, each containing sixty isronim, totaling 300 isronim. Rabbi Yosef, however, says to bring five vessels, each containing one to sixty isronim, totaling 9150 isronim (1830 multiplied by 5), because according to Rabbi Shimon's approach, each of the five possible meal offerings must be accounted for by the full range of possibilities.
The Gemara then delves into the analysis of the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yosef. One interpretation suggests the dispute revolves around whether one is permitted to bring non-sacred items (chulin) into the Temple courtyard (Azarah). According to this view, the Sages stipulate that if the person's vow was, for example, for forty isronim, then forty of the sixty isronim in the single vessel would be the mandatory offering, and the remaining twenty would be non-sacred. Since the Sages hold that one is allowed to bring non-sacred items into the Azarah, there is no problem in putting it all in one vessel. Everyone agrees that mandatory offerings and voluntary offerings cannot be mixed. However, the Sages permit mixing non-sacred items with a mandatory offering in the same vessel. Rabbi Yosef, on the other hand, holds that one cannot bring non-sacred items into the Azarah. Therefore, his only option is to bring sixty separate vessels. One will be the mandatory offering, and the other fifty-nine will be voluntary offerings, which are permitted in the Azarah. He cannot mix mandatory and voluntary offerings, and he cannot bring non-sacred items into the Azarah, so separate vessels are necessary.
A different interpretation of the dispute is offered. This view suggests that everyone agrees one can bring non-sacred items into the Azarah. The dispute then centers on the process of taking the handful (kimtzah). If one brings sixty isronim in one vessel, and forty are mandatory and twenty are non-sacred, how does one perform the kimtzah? One cannot take a kimtzah from non-sacred items. Furthermore, the kimtzah would be incomplete, as part of it would come from non-sacred items. The Gemara answers that the kimtzah is taken with the intention (kavanah) of the priest (kohen) that only the consecrated portion is included in the kimtzah. The kohen's intention separates the sacred from the non-sacred.
Another opinion, cited by Rav Yisrael, states that one cannot bring all the isronim in one vessel and stipulate. Instead, one must bring sixty isronim in sixty vessels (one isaron per vessel). The stipulation would then be: "If my vow was for forty isronim, then forty of these vessels are mandatory, and the other twenty are voluntary." This is because the vessel itself consecrates the meal offering (kli mekadesh et ha'mincha). If the offering was forty isronim, one cannot bring it in forty vessels if each vessel contains only one isaron, as the vessel dictates the offering's identity. Therefore, one must bring every possible option, hence the sixty separate vessels.
A second approach to understanding the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yosef is presented by Rav Amar. He suggests that the entire dispute revolves around whether one can mix a mandatory offering and a voluntary offering. The Sages hold that one can mix them, hence they allow all sixty isronim in one vessel. Rabbi Yosef, however, holds that one cannot mix them, necessitating separate vessels. The Gemara raises an objection: if they are mixed in one vessel, one would need two kimtzot – one for the mandatory offering and one for the voluntary offering. The Gemara answers that the kohen can mentally separate the two with his intention. The first kimtzah is for the mandatory offering, and the second is for the voluntary offering.
However, a further problem arises: how are these two kimtzot brought on the altar (Mizbeach)? If one brings the voluntary offering's kimtzah first, there's a problem. What if all sixty isronim were mandatory? Then the first kimtzah was for the mandatory offering. If a second kimtzah is then taken, the remaining portion of the meal offering (shirayim) would be lacking, and a kimtzah cannot be offered on incomplete shirayim. Conversely, if one brings the mandatory offering's kimtzah first, and the entire offering was mandatory, then the second kimtzah (intended for a voluntary offering) would actually be from the shirayim of a mandatory offering, which is forbidden to be offered on the Mizbeach. Therefore, no matter which kimtzah is brought first, a problem arises.
Rabbi Yehudah Bar Rebbe Shimon, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, offers a solution: the second kimtzah, if it turns out to be from the shirayim of a mandatory offering, can be brought on the altar as wood (etzim), meaning as fuel, not as an offering. This stipulation resolves the issue. If the second kimtzah is truly from a voluntary offering, it is offered as such. If it turns out to be from the shirayim of a mandatory offering, it is offered as fuel, thus not violating the prohibition against offering shirayim on the altar as an offering.
This introduces a third interpretation of the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Yosef. Perhaps everyone agrees that one can mix mandatory and voluntary offerings. The entire dispute then hinges on whether they agree with Rabbi Eliezer's solution of offering the second kimtzah as wood. The Sages, who allow all sixty isronim in one vessel, would agree with Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yosef, however, would not agree with Rabbi Eliezer, and therefore, without this solution, he cannot mix them and must use separate vessels.
The Gemara then raises an objection to Rabbi Yosef's position. If he could mix them, and the issue was merely the kimtzah, why not bring sixty-one vessels? Sixty vessels for the potential mandatory offering, and one additional vessel for a voluntary offering, and then touch them together to make them one offering, taking a kimtzah from both? The fact that Rabbi Yosef does not suggest this option implies that he must hold that one cannot mix mandatory and voluntary offerings in the same vessel, which is why he requires separate vessels for each isaron.
A final interpretation of the dispute focuses on the amount of oil required. When bringing a sixty-isaron meal offering, how much oil is needed? The Rabbanan (Sages) say that it's one log of oil per isaron, so sixty logs for sixty isronim. Rabbi Eliezer, however, says it's one log for the entire meal offering, regardless of its size. Based on this, the Sages, who require sixty logs for sixty isronim, can put it all in one vessel with sixty logs of oil, as each isaron takes its own log. Rabbi Yosef, who holds like Rabbi Eliezer that a meal offering gets only one log, faces a problem. If he puts sixty isronim in one vessel, and it's considered one meal offering, it would only get one log. But if it's a mandatory offering of one isaron and fifty-nine voluntary isronim, he would need two logs (one for the mandatory, one for the voluntary). How can he put two logs if it might be one meal offering requiring only one log, or sixty isronim requiring sixty logs? This uncertainty leads him to require separate vessels.
Finally, Rav Asher offers yet another interpretation: the dispute is whether one who vowed to bring a small meal offering (mincha ketanah) has fulfilled their obligation by bringing a large meal offering (mincha gedolah). The Rabbanan hold that bringing a large offering fulfills the vow for a small one. Rabbi Yosef holds that it does not. Therefore, if one vowed for one isaron, the Sages say bringing sixty isronim fulfills it. Rabbi Yosef says no, you cannot fulfill a small vow with a large offering; you must bring them separately. This same dispute is found regarding animal offerings (korbanot), where a vow for a small ox (shor katan) can be fulfilled with a large ox (shor gadol) according to the Sages, but not according to Rabbi Yosef. The Gemara explains that this specific dispute is necessary for both cases because the reasoning differs. In meal offerings, the kimtzah (handful) is the same whether the offering is large or small, so the Sages might be lenient. However, with animal offerings, a larger animal involves more sacrificial parts (emurim) on the altar, which might make Rabbi Yosef more stringent. Conversely, Rabbi Yosef might be lenient in meal offerings where the kimtzah is constant, but stringent in animal offerings where the emurim change. Therefore, the dispute must be explicitly stated in both contexts to clarify their positions.