Study Menachot folio 106B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But perhaps the vow was to bring 60-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
R' Yehuda, son of R' 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 R' Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that R' Eliezer says: The verse states: “No meal offering that
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 R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree with regard to the statement of R' Eliezer that it is permitted to burn on the alta
Rav Ashi said to him: This cannot be the dispute, as if it enters your mind that according to R' 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 R' Eliezer, R' Yehuda HaNasi would not require 60 separate
Rava said that there is an alternative explanation of the dispute between the Rabbis and R' 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 R' Eliezer. And here they disagree with regar