And after she has ritually immersed for her purification and the sun has set, she may eat consecrated foods. And she need not be concerned that perhaps the priest was lazy and neglected to sacrifice her offering, which would cause her to lack atonement and be prohibited from eating sacrificial food. And the priest need not be concerned that perhaps one of the women who placed funds in this horn has died, which would mean that the funds for sin-offerings left to die are mixed with the rest of the coins. Since this ruling is undisputed, it is evidently accepted by all the Sages, including Rabbi Yehuda. If so, how can it be claimed that Rabbi Yehuda said there were no horns for obligatory pairs of birds due to the concern that one of the women who placed money there had died? The Gemara answers: When we say this opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, we are referring to a case where it is known that one of the women had died, which means that the funds she gave have the status of a sin-offering whose owner had certainly died. In this case the coins definitely cannot be used for an offering, and they invalidate the other coins with which they are mingled in the horn. To avoid this scenario, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds. The Gemara asks: But even if we say that there is a concern that the horn contains invalidated coins, the following remedy can be applied: Let us select four zuz, the value of one pair of birds (see Keritot 1:7), and declare that these are the invalidated coins, and throw them into the river so that they will be destroyed, and the remainder will be permitted. If so, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, there should be no problem with a horn for pairs of birds. The Gemara answers: This is not an effective solution according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because we generally say: Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the principle of retroactive designation. According to Rabbi Yehuda, a doubtful state of affairs cannot be clarified retroactively. Consequently, one cannot resolve this problem by setting aside four zuz, and he maintains that there was no horn for obligatory pairs of birds.

§ It was taught in the mishna that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate wood, he must donate no fewer than two logs. The Gemara addresses a similar case: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Bun, said that Rabbi Ba bar Memel raised a dilemma: What is the ruling if one said: It is incumbent upon me to donate a log of wood? Does he bring only one log? Rabbi Elazar said: The Mishna says so; i.e., a mishna provides a solution to our dilemma. We learned that the two logs added each day to the arrangement on the altar, before the daily morning offering and before the daily afternoon offering, were not considered one offering, as this log was an offering to itself and that log was an offering to itself. Since each log was a separate offering, evidently one may donate even a single log. Where was this ruling taught? As we learned in a mishna there, with regard to the order of the daily afternoon offering: Two priests ascended to the altar, and in their hands were two logs of wood for the arrangement, each holding one log in his hand. This statement indicates that each log was a separate offering, as each was held by a different priest. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that even an individual can pledge wood for the arrangement? From the verse: "And when any one brings a meal-offering to the Lord" (Leviticus 2:1). The word offering comes to include the wood, which is also referred to as an offering in the verse: "And we cast lots, the priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood-offering" (Nehemiah 10:35). Furthermore, the phrase "any one" teaches that even an individual can pledge wood.

As the Gemara is discussing the donation of logs for the arrangement, it mentions their measurements. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The thickness of this wood was a cubit of the expanded cubits, and their length was measured by the shortened cubits. Rabbi Ḥoni said in the name of Rabbi Ammi: The measurement of their thickness was as on a scale [turtanei], i.e., it was exactly one cubit. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak explained why a shortened cubit was used for the measurement of the wood and said: As the area of the arrangement on the bronze altar built by Moses was only one cubit by one cubit, therefore, the length of the log was only a shortened cubit, as it would otherwise protrude from the arrangement. And it was likewise taught in a baraita: The breadth of the base of the altar made by Moses was a cubit, the surrounding ledge was a cubit, the rim a cubit, the corners a cubit, and the breadth of the place of the arrangement was likewise a cubit.

§ It was taught in the mishna that if one pledges frankincense without specifying an amount, he must donate no less than a handful. The Gemara cites the verbal analogy that is the source for this halakha. It is stated here: "And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial-part" (Leviticus 24:7). And it is stated there, with regard to the meal-offering of a sinner: "And the priest shall take his handful of it as its memorial-part" (Leviticus 5:12). The Gemara interprets the verbal analogy: Just as the term "memorial-part" that is stated below must be a handful, so too, the term "memorial-part" that is stated here, with regard to the frankincense brought with the shewbread, must be a handful. This shows that when an unspecified amount of frankincense is pledged as an independent free-will offering, the obligation is to bring a handful. The Gemara asks: If so, one can derive the opposite conclusion from the same verbal analogy: Just as the memorial-part that is stated below, by the shewbread, must be two handfuls, one for each arrangement of bread, so too the term memorial-part stated here, with regard to the free-will offering of frankincense, should be a measure of two handfuls. Rabbi Ila said in response: Didn't we derive the measurement of a handful of frankincense only from the meal-offering of a sinner? Just as there, in the case of the meal-offering of a sinner, an incomplete handful is invalid, so too, here, with regard to frankincense of the shewbread, an incomplete handful should be invalid. It is possible to invalidate the frankincense of the shewbread only if each handful is considered an independent mitzva. If the two handfuls together were considered one mitzva, they would remain valid even if one of them were incomplete, as they contain a total amount greater than a handful. This proves that each handful is an independent mitzva, which means that if one of them is incomplete, the second does not complete it and it is invalidated. From here it can be inferred that every measurement of the frankincense, including a free-will offering of frankincense, requires a handful. Rabbi Yosei said: From the statement of Rabbi Ila, that the measurement of a handful of frankincense for a free-will offering is derived from the handful that came with the shewbread, which is measured according to the handful of the largest of the priests, it can be said that one who donates incense brings it according to the measure of the handful of a priest who has the largest hands, not the handful of the one who brings it. Rabbi Ḥizkiya said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya: One who donates incense can approximate the handful of any priest, and even use the handful of the owners.

The mishna taught that one who pledges gold without specifying the amount must donate no less than a dinar of gold. Rabbi Elazar said: And this is the case if he mentioned a form by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a gold coin. However, if he did not mention a form, but merely said: It is incumbent upon me to bring gold, he may bring even a small hook of any size.

The mishna states that there were six collection horns for communal free-will offerings, in which the remainder of the funds for sin-offerings and burnt-offerings were placed, for the purchase of free-will offerings. Ḥizkiya said: There six horns correspond to the six extended patrilineal families of priests who served each week in the Temple. There was one collection horn for each family, to prevent quarrels among the priests. Bar Pedaya said: The six horns correspond to the six types of animals from which burnt-offerings can be brought: Bulls, calves, goats, rams, kids, and lambs. Each collection horn was for the funds designated for a particular type of animal. Shmuel said: They correspond to the six obligatory offerings whose leftover funds were used for the purchase of burnt-offerings: (1) Pairs of birds offered in the purification ritual of a zav, pairs of birds of a zava; (2) pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth; (3) sin-offerings; (4) guilt-offerings; (5) meal-offerings of a sinner; and (6) the tenth part of an ephah brought each day by the High Priest as a meal-offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the free-will offerings are plentiful, i.e., much money was donated for this purpose, there was a concern that if too many coins were placed in one horn, only the uppermost coins would be taken and the bottom ones would deteriorate. Therefore they instituted many horns, so that each horn contained fewer coins and the funds would be preserved properly. The Gemara discusses the midrash of Jehoiada the High Priest mentioned in the mishna. It is written: "And when they had made an end, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, from which they made vessels for the house of the Lord, even vessels used in the Temple service" (II Chronicles 24:14). In explanation of this verse, Rabbi Shimon bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Jehoiada made two chests for two different types of voluntary donations, one for maintaining the Temple and the other for free-will offerings.