Menachot 107: An Unspecified Offering: Many Reasons for Choosing Lamb

A new Mishna teaches us about the protocol when one asserts that s/he will bring a sacrifice without details about specific plans.  The Mishna tells us how to figure out what the person likely meant.  As well, we learn about what to do when one asserts specifics about an obligation to bring a sacrifice but then forgets the assertion.

The Tanna Kamma teaches one should bring a lamb (the least expensive option) if one asserts that s/he will bring a a burnt offering.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya teaches that one could bring a sacrifice from fowl.  

The Gemara teaches that these are complimentary interpretations because "burnt offering" referred to animal sacrifices in the Tanna Kamma's community.  When Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was alive, "burnt offering" referred to bird sacrifices as well.

Rashi understands that the Tanna Kamma defaulted to the least expensive offering in accordance with the principal that a standard statement should refer to the smallest of that category.  The Rambam states the opposite: a standard statement should be interpreted to refer to the largest of that category.  Perhaps the case described in our Mishna was referring to an understanding that a lamb was the automatic meaning of a simple burnt offering.  Or perhaps the Rambam ruled in accordance with the Tosefta.  We also learn the possibility that although the basic law is similar to our Mishna, the Tosefta refers to one who wishes to reach a higher level of obligation.

Today's daf offers us a clear example of rabbis disagreeing with each other and ruling in opposition to each other without offering others a clear path to follow.