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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the halakhot discussed in the upcoming mishnayot: Wood, gold, wine, burnt offering, thanks offering, bull.

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate pieces of wood as fuel for the altar, must donate no fewer than two logs. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, must bring no less than a handful.

The mishna states tangentially: There are five halakhot pertaining to handfuls. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering of frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. One who pledges to bring a meal offering must bring with it a handful of frankincense. One who intentionally offers up a handful of a meal offering outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. The two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread are required to have two handfuls of frankincense.

One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate gold to the Temple treasury, must give no less than a gold dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate silver to the Temple treasury, must give no less than the value of a silver dinar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate copper to the Temple maintenance, must give no less than the value of a silver ma’a. One who says: I specified the amount of gold, silver, or copper, but I do not know what I specified, must bring the maximum amount of gold, silver, or copper, until it reaches an amount where he says: I am certain that I did not intend to donate that much.

GEMARA: With regard to one who pledges to donate wood, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word “korban” teaches that one can voluntarily give wood as an offering for the altar. And how much wood must one bring if he does not specify an amount? Two logs. And the support for the fact that wood can be brought as a voluntary offering is as the verse states: “And we cast lots for the wood offering” (Nehemiah 10:35). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This voluntary donation of wood is an offering like a meal offering, and therefore it requires salt and requires bringing to the corner of the altar, like a meal offering.

Rava says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, wood donated in this manner requires the removal of a handful; just as in the case of a meal offering, a portion of the wood must be removed and sacrificed separately. And Rav Pappa says that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since it is an offering for the altar, the wood that is brought as an offering needs to be placed on other wood to burn, like any other offering that is burned on wood on the altar.

The mishna teaches: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring frankincense, may not bring less than a handful. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall take up from it his handful, of the fine flour of the meal offering, and of its oil, and all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering, and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 6:8). The Torah juxtaposes the frankincense with the taking up of a handful of the meal offering. This indicates that just as the taking up from a meal offering is referring to a handful, so too, the minimum size of a frankincense offering is also a handful.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita which discusses vows to bring frankincense that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring to the altar, and does not specify what he will bring, must bring frankincense, as you have nothing that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense. One who says: I specified what I intended to bring to the altar, but I do not know what I specified, must bring one of everything that is sacrificed on the altar.

The Gemara asks: And is there nothing else that is entirely sacrificed on the altar other than frankincense? But isn’t there a burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar? The Gemara answers that there is its hide, which is given to the priests and not burned on the altar.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there a bird burnt offering, which is entirely burned on the altar, including its skin? The Gemara answers: There are