Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : But perhaps the vow was to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, in which case the entire meal offering is necessary to fulfill the obligation. Consequently, only one handful may be removed, and all the rest is considered the remainder. And there is a principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of: You may not make as an offering (see Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, such as the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal offering, has been sacrificed, one who sacrifices any other part of it that is not designated for sacrifice has violated a prohibition. In this case, the second handful is considered part of the remainder of the meal offering, and burning it is prohibited.
וְדִלְמָא כּוּלַּהּ חוֹבָה הִיא, וְכֹל שֶׁהוּא מִמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים הֲרֵי הוּא בְּ״בַל תַּקְטִירוּ״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: The priest does not burn the oil as an offering but burns it for the sake of wood, i.e., not as a sacrificial rite, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring unto the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke from it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances for the sake of wood, not as an offering.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: דְּמַסֵּיק לְהוּ לְשׁוּם עֵצִים, וּכְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשׁוּם עֵצִים.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: But perhaps everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering that fulfills an obligation together with a gift offering, and here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer that it is permitted to burn on the altar as fuel even items that are prohibited from being burned as offerings. As the Rabbis accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and therefore they allow one to bring one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah, since the handful removed from it may be burned, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וְהָכָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבָּנַן אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְרַבִּי לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot be the dispute, as if it enters your mind that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and he does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not require sixty separate vessels. Instead, one could bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and one additional tenth in one other vessel, from which the handful of the gift offering would be removed. And he could touch them, i.e., place them so they touch each other, so that they are considered as one, and the priest could then remove a handful from that tenth for the gift, and remove another handful from the vessel with sixty-tenths to fulfill the obligation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְרַבִּי מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵית לֵיהּ, אֶפְשָׁר דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין בְּחַד מָנָא, וְחַד בְּחַד מָנָא, וּמַגַּע לְהוּ, וְקָמֵיץ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said that there is an alternative explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Everyone agrees that it is permitted to mix an offering brought as an obligation together with a gift offering, and everyone accepts the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. And here they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מוּתָּר לְעָרֵב חוֹבָה בִּנְדָבָה, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָכָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבָּנַן קָא מִיפַּלְגִי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : As we learned in a mishna (88a): Each tenth of an ephah of flour requires one log of oil. Accordingly, even if one brings a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, one adds to it sixty log of oil. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Each meal offering, irrespective of its volume, even a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah of flour, requires only its single log of oil, as it is stated with regard to the offering brought by a poor leper on the day of his purification: “And a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a meal offering, and a log of oil” (Leviticus 14:21). The juxtaposition of “a meal offering” with “a log of oil” teaches a principle that pertains to all meal offerings, that each offering requires only one log of oil.
דִּתְנַן: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן נוֹתֵן לָהּ שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמִנְחָה וְלֹג שָׁמֶן״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava explains: The Rabbis in the mishna hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and who said: A meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah requires sixty log of oil. Therefore, in a case of uncertainty, it is possible to bring sixty-tenths of an ephah, and each and every measurement of one-tenth takes one log.
רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי [כְּרַבָּנַן], דְּאָמְרִי: שִׁשִּׁים לוֹג, וְכֹל חַד וְחַד עִשָּׂרוֹן – לוּגָּה קָא שָׁקֵיל.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who said that a meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah has only its one log of oil. And therefore, when one is uncertain about his vow and brings sixty-tenths, he cannot bring them with one log of oil, as we do not know whether the entire sixty-tenths is one meal offering, so that one log suffices for it, or whether they are two meal offerings, one that is obligatory and one that is a gift, which require two log of oil. For this reason, there is no way of resolving the uncertainty except by bringing sixty separate meal offerings, with one log of oil for each.
וְרַבִּי סָבַר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא לוּגָּהּ, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי חֲדָא מִנְחָה הִיא – דְּסַגִּי לַהּ בְּחַד לוֹג, אִי שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת נִינְהוּ – דְּבָעֵינַן שְׁנֵי לוּגִּין.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Ashi said that there is alternative explanation of the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: They disagree with regard to the halakha of one who is obligated to bring a small offering and instead brings a large offering. The Rabbis hold that if one is obligated to bring a small offering and brings a large one instead he has fulfilled his obligation, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in such a case he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, in the case of the uncertainty in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that by bringing one meal offering of sixty-tenths of an ephah one does not fulfill his obligation if he vowed to bring a smaller offering.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: בְּקָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל קָמִיפַּלְגִי. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, וְרַבִּי סָבַר: לֹא יָצָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: But didn’t they already disagree about this topic once? As we learned in a mishna (107b) that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull, and he brought a large bull instead, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.
וְהָא אִיפְּלִגוּ בַּהּ חֲדָא זִמְנָא, דִּתְנַן: קָטָן וְהֵבִיא גָּדוֹל – יָצָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָצָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the dispute to be mentioned with regard to both cases, as had their dispute been stated only with regard to this case of one who vows to bring a small meal offering and brings a large one instead, there would be room to reason that it is only in this case that the Rabbis say that he has fulfilled his obligation, because both this small meal offering and that large meal offering are identical with regard to the portion of the offering that is sacrificed on the altar; in both cases it is a handful. But there, in the case of one who vows to bring a small bull but brings a large one, since the sacrificial portions are greater, i.e., larger, there is room to say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that he has not fulfilled his obligation.
צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא – בְּהָא קָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי קוֹמֶץ הוּא; אֲבָל הָתָם, דְּקָא נְפִישִׁי אֵימוּרִין – אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And had their dispute been stated only in that case of one who vows to bring a small bull and brings a big one, there would be room to reason that only in that case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the person has not fulfilled his obligation, because the sacrificial portions are larger. But in this case of bringing a large meal offering instead of a small one, there is room to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.
וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָהִיא – בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי, אֲבָל בְּהָא אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן; צְרִיכָא.