meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Menachot/English/merged.txt"}
text: Mishnah Menachot
  משנה מנחות
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  Mishnah Menachot
  
  
  
  
  
  All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy. A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid. How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah. And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.
  As for both a sinner’s minhah and any other minhah if [one of the following] removed the handful: a non-priest; or [a priest] that was an onen; or one who immersed himself during the day; or was not wearing the priestly vestments, or whose atonement was lacking; or who had not washed his hands and feet; or that was uncircumcised; or unclean; or was sitting, or standing upon vessels or upon a beast or upon another's feet, it is invalid. If [a priest] removed the handful with his left hand it is invalid. Ben Batera says: he may put [the handful] back and take it out again with the right hand. If on taking the handful there came into his hand a small stone or a grain of salt or a drop of frankincense it is invalid, for they have said: if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid. What is meant by “too much? If he took an overflowing handful. And ‘too little’? If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers only. How should he do it? He should stretch out his fingers on to the palm of his hand.
  If he put in too much of its oil or too little of its oil or too little of its frankincense, it is invalid. One who takes a fistful from the minhah [intending]: To eat the remainder outside [the Temple] or an olive’s worth outside; To burn the fistful or an olive’s worth of the fistful outside; To burn its frankincense outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One who takes a fistful from the minhah intending]: To eat the remainder the next day or an olive’s worth the next day; To burn the fistful the next day or an olive’s worth of the fistful the next day; To burn its frankincense the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. This is the general rule: anyone who removes the fistful, or puts it into a vessel, or carries it to the altar, or burns it, [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the minhah] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful in silence, and put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it, [intending to eat it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time, and put it in a vessel, and carried it and burned it in silence, or if one took out the fistful, or put it in a vessel, or carried it, or burned it [intending to eat the minhah] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law.
  How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] outside the designated place, [and] put it in a vessel, carried it to the altar, and burned [with the intention of eating it] after its designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [intending to eat it] after its designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned it [intending to eat it] outside its designated place, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat it] outside its designated time. If one took out the fistful of a sinner’s minhah or the minhah of jealousy for the sake of something else, and received, carried it to the altar, and burned [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one took out the fistful [from them, intending to eat] after their designated time, [and] received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else, or if one took out the fistful, received, carried it to the altar, and burned for the sake of something else;Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the lawBut the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intended] to eat as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day, [or] as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] half as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet.[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.
  
  
  
  If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah.
  If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for karet for it. But the sages say, both are piggul and he is liable for karet for both of them. If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the showbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten.
  The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not.
  The animal-offering can render the libations piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering piggul. Thus, if he slaughtered an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are piggul but the animal-offering is not.
  If he had an intention which makes piggul [with regard to the remainder of the minhah] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: there is no karet unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s minhah or a minhah of jealousy, that if he had an intention which makes piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is piggul and he is liable for karet for it, since the handful is the entire mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the showbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is piggul and he is liable for karet for it; But the sages say: it is not piggul, unless he had an intention that makes piggul during the service of the whole of the mattir. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.
  
  
  
  If he took the handful from the minhah intending to eat [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to eat or to burn [outside its proper place or after its proper time] a thing that it is not usual to burn, the offering is valid. But Rabbi Eliezer says it is invalid. If he intended to eat less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to eat, or to burn   less than an olive's worth of a thing that it is usual to burn, the offering is valid. If he intended to eat a half of an olive's worth and to burn a half of an olive’s worth, the offering is valid, for eating and burning cannot be reckoned together.
  If he did not pour in [the oil], or if he did not mix it, or if he did not break up [the minhah] into pieces, or if he did not salt it, or wave it, or if he did not draw it near, or if he broke it up into large pieces, or if he did not anoint it [with oil], it is valid. If the handful of one minhah was mixed with the handful of another, or with a priest’s minhah, or with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest, or with the minhah offered with the libations, it is valid. Rabbi Judah says: if [it was mixed] with the minhah of the anointed [high] priest or with the minhah offered with libations, it is invalid, for since the consistency of the one is thick and the consistency of the other is thin, each absorbs from the other.
  Two minhahs from which the handfuls had not yet been taken out were mixed together: If it is still possible to take the handful from each separately, they are valid; If not, they are invalid. If the handful [of a minhah] was mixed with a minhah from which the handful had not yet been taken, he must not burn it. If he did burn it, then the minhah from which the handful had been taken fulfills the owner's obligation while the other from which the handful had not been taken does not fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful was mixed with the remainder of the minhah or with the remainder of another  minhah, it must not be burned; If he did burn it does fulfill the owner's obligation. If the handful had become unclean and yet he offered it, the head plate renders it acceptable, But if it went out [of the Temple Court] and was afterwards he offered it, the headplate does not render it acceptable. For the headplate renders acceptable only an offering which was unclean but not that which was taken out.
  If the remainder of the minhah became unclean or was burnt or lost: According to the rule of Rabbi Eliezer it is valid [to burn the fistful], But according to the rule of Rabbi Joshua it is invalid. If [he did] not [put the fistful] into a ministering vessel it is invalid; But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If he burnt the handful twice, it is valid.
  Regarding the handful: the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the tenth [of flour for the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the wine [libation which accompanies the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the oil [which is mixed in with the minhah] the [absence of the] smallest part invalidates the whole. Regarding the flour and the oil, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the handful and the frankincense, the [absence of] one invalidates the other.
  Regarding the two goats of Yom Hakippurim, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two lambs of Shavuot, the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two loaves [that accompany the lambs] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two rows [of the showbread] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the two dishes [of frankincense] the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the rows and the dishes the [absence of] one invalidates the other. Regarding the: two kinds [of cakes] used in the offering of the nazirite, the three kinds used for the red cow, the four kinds [of cakes] used in the todah, the four kinds [of species] used for the lulav, and the four kinds used for the [purification of the] leper, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings [of the blood] of the red cow the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven sprinklings between the staves of the ark, and of those towards the veil and upon the golden altar, the [absence of] one invalidates the others.
  Regarding the seven branches of the menorah, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the seven lamps on it, the [absence of] one invalidates the others. Regarding the two portions of Scripture in the mezuzah, the [absence of] one invalidates the other; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four portions of Scripture in the tefillin, the [absence of] one invalidates the others; indeed even one letter can invalidate the whole. Regarding the four fringes, the [absence of] one invalidates the others, since the four together form one mitzvah. Rabbi Ishmael says: the four are four separate mitzvot.
  
  
  
  The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest.
  The [absence of either the] bullocks or the rams or the lambs does not invalidate the others. Rabbi Shimon says: if they had [money enough to buy] many bullocks but not [enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings.
  The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the   bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible.
  The [absence of the] daily offerings (tamidin) does not invalidate the additional offerings (musafin), neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening.
  The high priest’s griddle-cakes cannot be brought in [two separate] halves. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. If a [high] priest offered half in the morning and then died and they appointed another priest in his place, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house, neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, and offer one half and leaving the other half goes to waste. It turns out that two halves are offered and two halves go to waste. If they did not appoint another priest in his place, at whose expense was it offered? Rabbi Shimon says, at the expense of the community; But Rabbi Judah says: at the expense of his heirs, And a whole [tenth] was offered.
  
  
  
  All minhahs must be offered unleavened, with the exception of the leavened cakes of the todah and the two loaves [of Shavuot] which are offered leavened. Rabbi Meir says: the leaven must be taken from [the minhahs] themselves and with this they are leavened. Rabbi Judah says: that is not the best way, rather [first of all] he brings leaven and puts into the measuring vessel and then he fills the measuring vessel up [with flour]. But they said to him: even so [it is not satisfactory], for it would be sometimes too little and sometimes too much.
  All minhahs must be kneaded with lukewarm water and must be watched lest they become leavened. If one allowed the remainder to become leavened he has transgressed a negative commandment, for it is written, “No minhah which you shall bring to the Lord shall be made leavened” (Leviticus 2:11). One is liable for the kneading, and for rolling and for baking.
  Some [minhahs] require oil and frankincense, some require oil but not frankincense, some frankincense but not oil, and some neither oil nor frankincense. These require oil and frankincense: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer. The minhah offered with the drink-offerings requires oil but not frankincense. The showbread requires frankincense but not oil. The two loaves, the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy require neither oil nor frankincense.
  One is liable for the oil on its own and for the frankincense on its own. If he put in oil, he has rendered it invalid, but if frankincense, he can remove it. If he put oil on the remainder, he has not transgressed a negative commandment. If he put one vessel above the other vessel, he has not rendered it invalid.
  Some [minhahs] require bringing near but not waving, some require bringing near and also waving, some require waving but not bringing near, and some require neither bringing near nor waving. These require bringing near but not waving: the minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the cakes and the wafers, the minhah of the priests, the minhah of the anointed high priest, the minhah of a gentile, the minhah of women, and the minhah of the omer. Rabbi Shimon says: the minhah of the priests and the minhah of the anointed high priest do not require bringing near, since no handful is taken out of them, and where no handful is taken out bringing near is not necessary.
  These require waving but not bringing near: The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering, The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others; The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27). The waving was performed on the east side [of the altar] and the bringing near on the west side. The ceremony of waving comes before that of bringing near. The minhah of the omer and the minhah of jealousy require bringing near and waving. The showbread and the minhah with the libations require neither bringing near nor waving.
  Rabbi Shimon says, there are three kinds [of sacrifices] which require three commandments; two [of the three] apply to each kind, but none of them require a third. And these are they: the shelamim of the individual, the shelamim of the community   and the asham of the leper. The shelamim of the individual requires the laying on of hands for the living animal and waving after it is slaughtered, but it does not require waving while alive. The shelamim of the community requires waving while alive and also after it is slaughtered, but it does not require the laying on of hands. The asham of the leper requires the laying on of hands and also waving while alive, but it does not require waving after it is slaughtered.
  One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah] prepared on a griddle,” he must not bring one prepared in a pan; If [he says, I take upon myself to offer a minhah prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring one prepared on a griddle. What is the difference between a griddle [mahabat] and a pan [marheshet]?  The pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says: a pan is deep and what is prepared is spongy; a griddle is flat and what is prepared on it is hard.
  [If a man said,] “I take upon myself [to offer a minhah baked] in an oven,” he must not bring what is baked in a stove or on tiles or in the cauldrons of the Arabs. Rabbi Judah says: he may bring what is baked in a stove. [If he said,] “I take upon myself [to offer] a baked minhah,” he may not bring half in loaves and half in wafers. Rabbi Shimon permits it for it is one kind.
  
  
  
  From the following menahot the handful must be taken and the remainder is for the priests: The minhah of fine flour, that prepared on a griddle, that prepared in a pan, the loaves and the wafers, the minhah of a Gentile, the minhah of women, the minhah of the omer, the sinners’ minhah, and the minhah of jealousy. Rabbi Shimon says: a sinners’ minhah brought by priests the handful is taken, and the handful is offered by itself and so also the remainder is offered by itself.
  The minhah of the priests, The minhah of the anointed high priest, And the minhah that is offered with the libations are [wholly] for the altar and the priests have no share in them; with these the altar is more privileged than the priests. The two loaves and the showbread are eaten by the priests and the altar has no share in them; with these the priests are more privileged than the altar.
  All menahot that are prepared in a vessel require three applications of oil: pouring, mixing and putting oil in the vessel, before they are completed. The [baked] cakes were mixed [with oil], the words of Rabbi [Judah Ha-Nasi]. But the sages say: the fine flour [was mixed with oil]. The loaves were mixed and the wafers anointed. How did he anoint them? In the form of a “chi.” And the rest of the oil was eaten by the priests.
  All menahot prepared in a vessel must be broken into pieces. The minhah of an Israelite was folded into two and the two were folded into four, and it was severed [at each bend]. The minhah of priests was folded into two and the two were folded into four, but it was not severed. The minhah of the anointed high priest was not folded. Rabbi Shimon says: neither the minhah of the priests nor the minhah of the anointed high priest was broken in pieces, since the handful was not taken from them, and whenever the handful is not taken [from a minhah] it is not to be broken in pieces. The pieces were the size of an olive.
  All menahot must be rubbed three hundred times and beaten five hundred times. The rubbing and the beating apply is performed with the grains of wheat. Rabbi Yose says: also to the dough. All menahot consist of ten cakes each, except the showbread and the griddle-cakes of the high priest, which consist of twelve cakes each, the words of Rabbi Judah. But Rabbi Meir says: they all consist of twelve cakes each, except the loaves of the todah and of the nazirite-offering, which consist of ten cakes each.
  The omer consisted of one tenth [of an ephah of flour] taken from three se'ahs. The two loaves consisted of two tenths taken from three se'ahs. And the showbread consisted of twenty-four tenths taken from twenty-four se'ahs.
  The omer was sifted through thirteen sieves, the two loaves through twelve, and the showbread through eleven. Rabbi Shimon says: there was no prescribed number for them, rather they brought fine flour and sifted it as much as was necessary, as it is said, “You shall take fine flour and bake it” (Leviticus 24:5) [you should not bake it] until it is sifted as much as is necessary.
  
  
  
  The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. “Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; “And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. “Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. “And fifteen for the matzot”  there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav.
  The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: “One:” that he may not take what is broken. “Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner.
  One who slaughtered the todah within [the Temple court] while its bread was outside the wall, the bread has not been sanctified. If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven, even if all except one had become crusted, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered the todah [intending to eat it] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish: Rabbi Eliezer says: the bread is sanctified. But the sages say: it is not sanctified. If he slaughtered it under another name, and so, too, if the ram of the consecration-offering or the two lambs offered at Shavuot were slaughtered under another name, the bread is not sanctified.
  If a [minhah that is accompanied by] the libations had already been sanctified in a vessel when the animal-offering was found to be invalid: If there is another animal-offering, they may be offered with it; But if not, they are left to become invalid by remaining overnight. The offspring of a todah, its substitute, and the animal which was set apart in the place of the todah which was set apart and was lost, do not require the [accompanying] bread, as it says, “And he shall offer [them] with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (todah)” (Leviticus 7:1; the todah requires the accompanying bread, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the accompanying bread.
  One who says: “Behold I take upon myself [to bring] a todah”, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin. [If he said:] “A todah from hullin and its bread from tithe,” he must bring the bread from hullin. [If he said:] “A todah from tithe and bread from hullin,” he may bring. [If he said:] “A todah, it and its bread from tithe,” he may bring. But he must not bring from grain of second tithe, rather from second tithe money.
  From where [is it derived] that if one says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” he can bring it only from hullin? As it is said, “And you shall sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:. But is not the pesah sacrifice brought only from the lambs and from the goats? Why then is it written, “from the flock or the herd”? It is to compare whatever is brought from the flock and the herd with the pesah: just as the pesah is obligatory and offered only from what is hullin, so everything that is obligatory may be offered only from what is hullin. Therefore if a man says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” or “I take upon myself [to offer] a shelamim,” since [in these cases] these are obligatory they may be offered only from what is hullin. The libations in every case may be offered only from what is hullin.
  
  
  
  All the sacrifices communal or individual may be offered from [produce grown] in the Land [of Israel] or outside the Land, from new [produce] or from the old, except for the omer and the two loaves, which must be offered only from new produce and from [produce grown] in the land. All [offerings] must be offered from the choicest produce. And which is the choicest? That from Michmas and Zanoha are “alpha” for the quality of their fine flour; second to them is Hafaraim in the valley. The [produce of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it from these places.
  One may not bring [grain for menahot] from the produce of a manured field or from an irrigated field or from a field stocked with trees. But if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. How was it prepared? In the first year it was plowed and in the second year it was sown seventy days before Pesah, thus it would produce fine flour in abundance. How was it tested? The temple-treasurer used to thrust his hand into it; if some dust came up in [his hand] it was invalid, until it was sifted [more]. If it had become magotty it is invalid.
  Tekoa is “alpha” first its oil. Abba Saul says: Second to it is Regev, on the other side of the Jordan. The [oil of the] whole land was valid, but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from olive-trees   planted in a field sown with seeds, but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring anpakinon, and if one did bring it, it is invalid. One may not bring it from olive-berries which had been soaked in water or preserved or stewed; and if one did bring it, it is invalid.
  There are three [periods of gathering in the] olives and each crop gives three kinds of oil. The first crop of olives is when the olives are picked from the top of the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The second crop is when the olives at roof-level are picked from the tree; they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot. The third crop is when the last olives of the tree are packed inside the house until they become overripe; they are then taken up and dried on the roof they are pounded and put into the basket. Rabbi Judah says: around the basket. This gives the first oil. They are then pressed with the beam Rabbi Judah says: with stones. This gives the second oil. They are then ground and pressed again. This gives the third oil. The first [oil] is fit for the candlestick and the others for menahot.
  The first oil of the first crop, there is none better than it. The second oil of the first crop and the first oil of the second crop are equal. The third oil of the first crop, the second oil of the second crop and the first oil of the third crop are equal. The third oil of the second crop and the second oil of the third crop are equal. As to the third oil of the third crop, there is none worse than it. It would have been logical by the following argument that menahot should also require the purest olive oil: if the candlestick, whose [oil] is not for eating, requires pure olive oil, how much more should menahot, whose oil is for eating, require pure olive oil!  But the text states, “Pure olive oil of beaten olives for lighting” (Exodus 27:20), but not “pure olive oil of beaten olives for menahot.”
  From where did they bring the wine? Keruhim and Attulim rank are alpha their wine. Second to them are Bet Rimmah and Bet Lavan on the mountain and Kefar Signa in the valley. [Wine of the] whole land was valid but they used to bring it only from these places. One may not bring it from a manured field or from an irrigated field or from vines planted in a field sown with seeds; but if one did bring it [from these] it was valid. One may not bring wine from sun-dried grapes, but if one did bring it, it was valid. One may not bring old wine, the words of Rabbi. But the sages permit it. One may not bring sweet wine or smoked wine or cooked wine, and if one did bring it, it was invalid. One may not bring wine from grapes suspended [on reeds], but only from the vines growing close to the ground and from well-cultivated vineyards.
  They did not put [the wine] in large casks but in small barrels. And one did not fill the barrels to the brim so that its scent might spread. One may not take the wine at the mouth of the barrel because of the scum, nor that at the bottom because of the lees; but one should take it only from the third or the middle of the barrel. How was it tested?  The temple-treasurer used to sit nearby with his stick in his hand; when the froth burst forth he would knock with his stick. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: wine on which there is a scum is invalid, for it is written, “They shall be for you without blemish, and their minhah,” and “They shall be for you without blemish, and their libations” (Numbers 28:19-20,.
  
  
  
  There were two dry-measures in the Temple: the tenth and the half-tenth. Rabbi Meir says: a tenth, [another] tenth, and a half-tenth. For what purpose did the tenth measure serve? By it they used to measure all the menahot. One did not measure with a three-tenths measure [the minhah] for a bull or with a two-tenths measure [the minhah] for a ram, rather, one measured them by all by tenths. For what purpose did the half-tenth measure serve? By it one used to measure the griddlecakes of the high priest [which was offered] half in the morning and the half towards evening.
  There were seven liquid measuring vessels in the Temple: the hin, the half-hin, the third-hin, the quarter-hin, the log, the half-log, and the quarter-log. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says: there were markings in the hin measure [indicating] thus far for a bull, thus far for a ram, and thus far for a lamb. Rabbi Shimon says: there was no hin measure at all, for what purpose could the hin serve? But there was an additional measure of one and a half logs by which one used to measure [the oil] for the minhah of the high priest, a log and a half in the morning and a log and a half towards evening.
  For what purpose did the quarter-log serve? [To measure] a quarter-log of water for the one with skin disease and a quarter-log of oil for the Nazirite. For what purpose did the half-log serve? [To measure] a half-log of water for the sotah and a half-log of oil for the todah. With the log one measured [the oil] for all the menahot. Even a minhah of sixty tenths required sixty logs [of oil]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: even a minhah of sixty tenths required only one log [of oil], for it is written, “For a minhah, and for a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). Six [logs] were required for a bull, four for a ram, and three for a lamb; Three logs and a half for the menorah, a half-log for each lamp.
  One may mix the drink-offerings of bulls with the drink-offerings of rams, or the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of other lambs, or those of an individual offering with those of a communal offering, or those of [an offering offered] today with those of [an offering offered] yesterday; But one may not mix the drink-offerings of lambs with the drink-offerings of bulls or of rams. If they mixed these on their own, and they mixed these on their own, and then they were mixed, they are valid. But if before each was mixed by itself [they were mixed together], they are invalid. Although the minhah of the lamb that was offered with the omer was doubled, its drink-offerings were not doubled.
  All the measures in the Temple were heaped except [that used for] the high priest's [minhah] which included in itself the heaped amount. The overflow of the liquid-measures was holy, but the overflow of the dry-measures was not holy. Rabbi Akiva says: the liquid-measuring vessels were holy, therefore their overflow was holy too; the dry-measuring vessels were not holy, therefore their overflow was not holy. Rabbi Yose says: it is not for that reason, but because liquids are stirred up and dry-stuffs are not.
  All the offerings of the congregation and of the individual require libations except the first-born animal, the cattle tithe of cattle, the pesah, the hatat and the asham; But the hatat and the asham of the one with skin disease do require libations.
  None of the communal offerings require the laying on of hands except the bull that is offered for [the transgression by the congregation] of any of the commandments, and the scapegoat. Rabbi Shimon says: also the he-goat offered for [the sin] of idol worship. All the offerings of an individual require the laying on of hands except the first-born, the cattle tithe, and the pesah. And an heir may lay his hands [on his father’s offering], and he may bring the libations for it, and can substitute [another animal for it].
  All lay hands on the offering except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind man, a gentile, a slave, an agent, or a woman. The laying on of hands is outside the commandment. [One must lay] the hands: On the head of the animal, Both hands In the place where one lays on the hands there the animal must be slaughtered; And the slaughtering must immediately follow the laying on of hands.
  Laying on of hands is [in certain respects] more stringent than waving and waving is [in other respects] more stringent than laying on of hands. For one may perform the waving on behalf of all the others, but one may not perform the laying on of hands on behalf of all the others. Waving is more stringent, for waving takes place for offerings of the individual and for offerings of the community, for living animals and for slaughtered animals, and for things that have life and for things that do not have life; but it is not so with laying on of the hands.
  
  
  
  Rabbi Ishmael says: On Shabbat the omer was taken out of three seahs [of barley] and on a weekday out of five. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was taken out of three seahs. Rabbi Hanina the vice-high priest says: on Shabbat it was reaped by one man with one sickle into one basket, and on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles. But the sages say: whether on Shabbat or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets and with three sickles.
  The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from [what grows] near by. If [the crop] near Jerusalem was not yet ripe, it could be brought from any place. It once happened that the omer was brought from Gagot Zerifin and the two loaves from the plain of En Soker.
  How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?”  And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?”   And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival.
  They reaped it, put it into the baskets, and brought it to the Temple courtyard; Then they would parch it with fire in order to fulfill the mitzvah that it should be parched [with fire], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they beat it with reeds or stems of plants that the grains should not be crushed, and then they put it into a pipe that was perforated so that the fire might take hold of all of it. They spread it out in the Temple courtyard so that the wind might blow over it. Then they put it into a gristmill and took out of it a tenth [of an ephah of flour] which was sifted through thirteen sieves. What was left over was redeemed and might be eaten by any one; It was liable for hallah but exempt from tithes. Rabbi Akiba made it liable both to hallah and to tithes. He then came to the tenth, put in its oil and its frankincense, poured in the oil, mixed it, waved it, brought it near [to the altar], took from it the handful and burnt it; and the remainder was eaten by the priests.
  After the omer was offered they used to go out and find the market of Jerusalem already full of flour and parched grain [of the new produce]; This was without the approval of the rabbis, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: it was with the approval of the rabbis. After the omer was offered the new grain was permitted immediately, but for those that lived far off it was permitted only after midday. After the Temple was destroyed Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that it should be forbidden throughout the day of the waving. Rabbi Judah said: is it not so forbidden by the law of the Torah, for it is said, “Until this very day?” Why was it permitted for those that lived far away from midday? Because they know that the court would not be negligent with it.
  The omer permits [the new grain] throughout the land, and the two loaves permit it in the Temple. One may not offer minhahs, first-fruits, or minhahs that accompany animal offerings, before the omer. And if one did so, it is invalid. Nor may one offer these before the two loaves. But if one did so it was valid.
  Wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye are subject to hallah. And they are reckoned together. They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new grain before the omer. And they may not be harvested before Pesah. If they had taken root before the omer, the omer permits them; And if not, they are forbidden until the next year's omer.
  [Before the omer] one may reap [grain] in irrigated fields in the valley, but one may not stack it. The people of Jericho used to reap [before the omer] with the approval of the sages, and used to stack it without the approval of the sages, but the sages did not protest. One may reap the unripe grain for cattle feed. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? If one had begun to reap it before it had reached a third of its growth. Rabbi Shimon says: one may reap it and feed [his cattle with it] even after it has reached a third of its growth.
  One may reap on account of the saplings or in order to make a house for mourners or in order not to interrupt the bet hamidrash. One may not bind them in bundles but one may leave them in small heaps. The mitzvah of the omer is that it should be brought from the standing grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from the sheaves. The mitvah is that it should be brought from moist (fresh) grain. If this cannot be found he may bring it from dry grain. The mitzvah is that it should be reaped at night. If it was reaped at day it is valid. And it overrides the Shabbat.
  
  
  
  The two loaves [of Shavuot] were kneaded each on its own and baked each on its own. The [cakes of the] showbread were kneaded each on its own and baked two at a time. They were prepared in a mould, and when they were taken out from the oven they were again put in a mould lest they become damaged.
  Both the two loaves and the showbread their kneading and their shaping were performed outside [the Temple Court], and their baking was inside. And they do not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah says: all of these were performed inside [the Temple Court]. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always accustom himself to say, “The two loaves and the showbread were valid whether made in the Temple Court or in Bet Pagi.”
  The high priest’s griddle cakes: their kneading, their shaping, and their baking were performed within [the Temple Court], And they override the Shabbat. The grinding [of the grain for it] and the sifting did not override the Shabbat. Rabbi Akiva said a general rule: any work that can be done on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat, but that which cannot be done on the eve of Shabbat does override Shabbat.
  All menahot require a vessel [for works that are performed] within, but do not require a vessel [for those works that are performed] outside. How so? The two loaves were seven handbreadths long and four wide and their horns were four fingerbreadths. The [cakes of the] showbread were ten handbreadths long and five wide and their horns were seven fingerbreadths. Rabbi Judah says: lest you err [remember but the words] “zadad yahaz.” Ben Zoma says: “And you shall set upon the table showbread (lehem panim) before me continually:” panim signifies that it should have faces.
  The table was ten handbreadths long and five wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two and a half handbreadths were turned up at either side so that its length filled the entire breadth of the table, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: the table was twelve handbreadths long and six wide; the showbread was ten handbreadths long and five wide. Each cake was placed lengthwise across the breadth of the table, and two handbreadths were turned up at either side; and there was a space of two handbreadths between [the two sets] so that the wind could blow between them. Abba Shaul says: there they used to put the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread. They said to him:  Has it not already been said, “And you shall put pure frankincense upon [al] each row” (Leviticus 24:7)? He replied, But has it not also been said, “And next unto [al] him shall be the tribe of Manasseh” (Numbers 2:20)?
  There were there four golden props [at the corners of] the table, each split at the top, which supported the cakes, two for the one row and two for the other row. And there were twenty-eight rods, each [shaped] like the half of a hollow reed, fourteen for the one row and fourteen for the other row. Neither the placing of the rods nor their removal overrode the Shabbat, but [a priest] used to enter on the day before Shabbat, pull out the rods, and place them parallel with the length of the table. Every article that stood in the Temple was placed with its length parallel with the length of the House.
  There were two tables inside the sanctuary, at the entrance of the Temple, the one of marble and the other of gold. On the table of marble they laid the showbread when it was brought in, and on the table of gold they laid the showbread when it was brought out, since we raise [the status] of what is holy and we don’t lower it down. And within [the sanctuary] there was a table of gold on which the showbread lay continually. Four priests entered: two bearing the two rows [of the showbread] in their hands and two bearing the two dishes [of frankincense] in their hands; And four went in before them, two to take away the two rows [of the showbread] and two to take away the two dishes [of frankincense]. Those who brought them in stood at the north side facing the south, and those who took them away stood at the south side facing the north. These withdrew [the old] and the others laid down [the new], the handbreadth of the one being by the side of the handbreadth of the other, as it is said, “Before me continually” (Exodus 25:30). Rabbi Yose says: even if these [first] took away [the old] and the others laid down [the new later on], this too fulfills the requirement of continually. They went out and laid [the old bread] on the table of gold that was in the sanctuary [at its entrance]. They then burned the dishes [of frankincense] and the loaves were distributed among the priests. If Yom Kippur fell on a Shabbat the cakes were distributed in the evening. If it fell on a Friday the he-goat of Yom Kippur was eaten in the evening. The Babylonian [priests] used to eat it raw for they were not fastidious.
  If he arranged the showbread on Shabbat and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat, and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on Shabbat and burned the dishes of frankincense on the day after Shabbat, it is not valid, and one is not liable over it for piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. If he arranged the bread and the dishes [of frankincense] on the day after Shabbat and burned the dishes [of frankincense] on the [next] Shabbat, it is not valid. What should he do? He should leave it until the following Shabbat, for even if it remains many days on the table there is nothing to this.
  The two loaves were eaten never earlier than on the second day and never later than on the third day. How so? [Normally] they were baked on the day before the festival and eaten on the festival, that is, on the second day. If the festival fell on the day after Shabbat, they would be eaten on the third day. The showbread was eaten never earlier than on the ninth day and never later than on the eleventh day. How so? [Normally] it was baked on the day before Shabbat and eaten on Shabbat [of the following week], that is on the ninth day. If a festival fell on the day before Shabbat, it would be eaten on the tenth day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah [fell before Shabbat], it would then be eaten on the eleventh day. [Baking] overrides neither Shabbat nor the festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy [high priest]: it overrides the festival but not the fast day (Yom Kippur).
  
  
  
  If menahot and libation-offerings became unclean before they were sanctified in a vessel, they may be redeemed. If [they became unclean] after they were sanctified in a vessel, they may not be redeemed. Bird-offerings, the wood, the frankincense, and the ministering vessels, may not be redeemed, for the rule of redemption applies only to [offerings of] beasts.
  If one said, “I take upon myself [to bring a minhah prepared] on a griddle”, and he brought one prepared in a pan, or “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought one prepared on a griddle, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. [But if he said, “I take upon myself] to bring this [flour] as a minhah prepared on a griddle”, and he brought it prepared in a pan; or as “a minhah prepared in a pan”, and he brought it prepared on a griddle, it is invalid. If one said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or [he said] “in two vessels,” and he brought them in one vessel, what he has brought he has brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation. But [if he said, “I take upon myself to bring] these [two tenths] in one vessel”, and he brought them in two vessels, or “in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, they are invalid. If he said, “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in one vessel” and he brought them in two vessels, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in one vessel”, if he brought them in one vessel, they are valid, but if he still offered them in two vessels, they are invalid. If he said “I take upon myself to bring two tenths in two vessels”, and he brought them in one vessel, and when they said to him, “You vowed to bring them in two vessels”, if he offered them in two vessels they are valid; but if he still kept them in one vessel, they are considered as two menahot which have been mixed.
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah of barley,” he must bring one of wheat. “Of coarse flour,” he must bring it of fine flour. “Without oil and without frankincense,” he must bring it with oil and frankincense. “Half a tenth,” he must bring a whole tenth. “A tenth and a half,” he must bring two. Rabbi Shimon declares him exempt, because he did not make his offering in the manner in which people usually make their offerings.
  A man may offer a minhah consisting of sixty tenths and bring them in one vessel. If one said, “I take upon myself to offer sixty-one tenths,” he must bring sixty in one vessel and the one in another vessel, since the congregation brings on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot] when it falls on Shabbat sixty-one tenths [as a minhah], it is enough for an individual that [his minhah] should be one tenth less than that of the congregation. Rabbi Shimon said: but some of these [sixty-one tenths] are for the bullocks and some for the lambs, and they may not be mixed one with the other! Rather sixty tenths mingles [in one vessel]. They said to him: can sixty be mingled [in one vessel] and not sixty-one? He answered, so it is with all the measures prescribed by the sages: a man may immerse himself in forty seahs of water, but he may not immerse himself in forty seahs less one kortob. One may not offer one [log], two, or five [logs], but one may offer three, four, six, or anything above six.
  One may offer wine but not oil, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But Rabbi Tarfon says: one may also offer oil. Rabbi Tarfon said: just as we find that wine is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering, so oil which is offered as an obligation may be offered as a freewill-offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say so of wine it is because it is offered by itself even when offered as an obligation, can you say the same of oil which is not offered by itself when offered as an obligation? Two [men] may not jointly offer one tenth [of flour for a minhah]; but they may jointly offer an olah or a shelamim, and bird sacrifices even a single bird.
  
  
  
  [One who says], “I take upon myself to bring a tenth,” he must bring one [tenth]. “Tenths,” he must bring two [tenths]. [If he said,] “I specified [a certain number of tenths] but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths [If he said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah,” he may bring whichever kind he chooses. Rabbi Judah says: he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for that is the distinctive [one] among the menahot.
  [If he said] “A minhah” or “a kind of minhah,” he may bring one [of any kind]. [If he said]  “Menahot” or “A kind from menahot,” he must bring two [of any one kind]. [If he said,] “I specified [a certain kind], but I do not know what kind I specified,” he must bring the five kinds. [If he said,] “I specified a minhah of [a certain number of] tenths but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths. But Rabbi says, he must bring menahot [of every number] of tenths from one to sixty.
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring [pieces of] wood,” he must bring not less than two logs. “Frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. There are five cases of [not less than] a handful: One who says, “I take upon myself to bring frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. One who voluntarily offered a minhah must bring a handful of frankincense with it. One who offered up the handful outside [the Temp] is liable. The two dishes [of frankincense] require two handfuls.
  “I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. “Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. “Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. [If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!”
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring wine,” he must bring not less than three logs. “Oil,” he must bring not less than one log; Rabbi says: not less than three logs. [If one said,] “I specified [how much I would offer] but I do not know how much I specified,” he must bring that quantity which is the most that is brought on any one day.
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. [If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon.
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer a todah or a shelamim,” he must bring a lamb. [If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer. [If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer, a ram and a ewe, a he-goat and a she-goat, a he-kid and a she-kid, a he-lamb and a ewe-lamb.
  [If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. [If he said, “I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh,” and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. [If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.
  [If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price. [If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it. [If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price. [If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it. One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, the larger one is holy. If he had three, the middle one is holy. [If he said,] “I specified one but I do not know which it was I specified,” or [if he said,] “My father told me [that he had specified one] but I do not know which it is,” the largest one among them must be holy.
  [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.
  It is said of the olah of cattle, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 1:9);   and of the olah of birds, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the  minhah, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs one’s heart to heaven. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that one’s intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what today’s mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple.