Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 21, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Menachot 103

If someone vows to bring a meal offering but mentions details that are inaccurate, do we obligate him/her to bring a mincha offering or do we assume that the end contradicts the beginning of the statement and that his/her intention was not to bring a meal offering? The largest quantity of fine flour one can use in one bowl is 60 tenths (of an eifah) – from where is that number derived? IS the blood of a neveila聽(an animal that died without being slaughtered properly)pure or impure?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇讗 砖拽讘注谉 讘砖注转 谞讚专 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗

only when he assigned it at the time of the vow. But if at the time of the vow he simply said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, and at the time of the designation of the fine flour as a meal offering he specified a particular type of meal offering, he is not obligated to bring that type, and if he brought a different type, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

讻讗砖专 谞讚专转 讜诇讗 讻讗砖专 讛驻专砖转

The reason for this is that the Torah states: 鈥淭hat which has emerged from your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: 鈥淎ccording to what you have vowed,鈥 and not: According to what you have designated to fulfill your vow, only matters specified as part of the vow are essential to its content.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讘注谉 讘砖注转 谞讚专 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讻讗砖专 谞讚专转 讜诇讗 讻讗砖专 讛驻专砖转

It was also stated that Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna鈥檌m taught in the mishna that meal offerings are not valid only when he established their type at the time of the vow and subsequently brought a different type of meal offering. But if he mentioned one type of meal offering at the time of the designation of the flour, and then brought it differently, it is not invalid, as the Torah states: 鈥淎ccording to what you have vowed,鈥 and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讟讬诐 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 讘诇讗 砖诪谉 讜讘诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, should bring the meal offering from wheat, as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from flour, should bring the meal offering from fine flour, as it is written: 鈥淗is offering shall be of fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering without oil and without frankincense, he should bring it with oil and frankincense, as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense.

讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬谉

If one vows to bring as a meal offering half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half an ephah, he should bring two tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is the vow to bring a meal offering from barley valid? It is seemingly a case of a vow and its extenuation together. The statement: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, is a valid vow, while the next term: From barley, constitutes a retraction, as the speaker knows that a meal offering may not be brought from barley.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专

岣zkiyya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, attend only to the first statement. As we learned in a mishna (Nazir 9a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from pressed figs, which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He is a full-fledged nazirite, as one attends only to the first statement, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. And Beit Hillel say: The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore he is not a nazirite, as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is referring to one who, upon being informed that such a vow is not effective, says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner to bring barley for a meal offering, I would not have vowed in this manner but rather in that manner, by vowing to bring wheat instead.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诇讗

搂 The Gemara cites another disagreement between 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan about the mishna: 岣zkiyya says that the Sages taught in the mishna only that where he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, he can bring a meal offering from wheat instead, but if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow is not valid.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: Now, 岣zkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, and Beit Shammai鈥檚 ruling is due to the principle that one should attend only to the first statement. If so, what is the difference to me whether he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley or from lentils? In either case, that principle should require him to bring a meal offering from wheat. The Gemara answers: 岣zkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that he retracted his explanation? Rava said: The mishna posed a difficulty for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach this halakha using the example of a meal offering from barley? Let it teach the halakha using the example of a meal offering from lentils, which is a greater novelty.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讟注讬 讛讜讗 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讟注讬 讘注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讟注讬

Rather, learn from it that the reason the vow takes effect is because one may err. With regard to barley, it is reasonable that one may err, since one of the individual meal offerings, the meal offering of a sota, comes from barley. But with regard to lentils, one would not err in thinking that one may bring a meal offering from them. Therefore, one can presume that by saying: Lentils, he intended to negate his initial statement.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诪讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讟注讬 讛讜讗 讘砖注讜专讬谉 讟注讬 讘注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讟注讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to being a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yo岣nan states that his tradition in interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel understand that the reason the meal offering takes effect is because one may reasonably err. One may err with regard to barley being fit for a meal offering, but with regard to lentils, he will not err that they are fit. Why then, does Rabbi Yo岣nan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚讞讝拽讬讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专转 讘讱 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan does in fact hold that when he vows to bring a meal offering from lentils it is not valid. What he said was in response to the statement of 岣zkiyya. Rabbi Yo岣nan is saying to him: What is the reason that you retracted your explanation of the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is because the mishna does not teach using the example of one who vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, which would have been a greater novelty.

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讟注讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan questions this reasoning: Perhaps the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that when one vows to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect and he brings a meal offering from wheat. He brings it because one has reason to say that he in fact intended to vow and then retracted his initial statement, and yet the vow takes effect in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one should attend only to the initial statement and his retraction is disregarded. But even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley, where one has reason to say he made an error, and had he known that a meal offering is not brought from barley, he would not have vowed at all, nevertheless, the vow takes effect and he must bring a meal offering, due to the principle: Attend only to the first statement.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗

The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze鈥檈iri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one鈥檚 statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [min岣], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [min岣t se鈥檕rim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said min岣t se鈥檕rim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rav Na岣an was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze鈥檈iri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: One who vows to bring a meal offering from regular flour, which is not used for a meal offering, should bring the meal offering from fine flour. Is it not referring to a case where he did not say: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, but rather said: It is incumbent upon me to bring regular flour? Apparently, the vow takes effect even if one did not state the term meal offering in an independent form. Rav Na岣an responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.

讘诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rava raised another, similar objection from the continuation of the mishna: With regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering without oil and frankincense, his vow takes effect, and he shall bring it with oil and frankincense. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the word meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Na岣an responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering without oil or frankincense.

讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rava asks again based on the mishna: If one vows to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the term meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Na岣an responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗诪专 讛讜讗

Rava asks: If it is so that in all the cases in the mishna his vow included the term meal offering, say the last clause: If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half of an ephah, he should bring two tenths. Once he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah of flour. Therefore, when he states the words: Half a tenth, he is not saying anything, as he did not say the term meal offering with it, and would not have to bring two tenths. In what case is the ruling in the latter clause relevant?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讜注砖专讜谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚专 讗诪专 注砖专讜谉 诪讬讬转讬 注砖专讜谉 讗讞专讬谞讗

Rav Na岣an answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in the case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth and a tenth. Since he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah for it. When he said: Half a tenth, he is saying nothing, since a meal offering is not brought with that amount of flour. When he then said the word tenth, he therefore brings another tenth, totaling two tenths.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 诪转驻讬住

Rava asks: If so, then when the mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge, why is this his opinion? Once he said the term meal offering, the vow should be valid. Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the conclusion of a person鈥檚 statement is also accepted. Therefore, even when he said the term meal offering at the beginning of the vow, since at the end he also made declarations that do not apply to a voluntary meal offering, the vow does not take effect.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 (讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚) 讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 砖讻谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚

MISHNA: A person may pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and bring all sixty tenths in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty tenths of an ephah, he brings it in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one tenths of an ephah, he brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, as the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings as meal offerings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought.

讚讬讜 诇讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讞讚

It is sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community. When the first day of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of Sukkot, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讗 讗诇讜 诇驻专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讬谞诐 谞讘诇诇讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诇讗 注讚 砖砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬讘诇诇

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren鈥檛 these meal offerings for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other (see 89a)? Rather, the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because up to sixty tenths of fine flour can be mixed with one log of oil.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻谉 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讛讜讗 讟讜讘诇 讜讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讞住专 拽专讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉

The Rabbis said to him: Is it so that sixty tenths of flour can be mixed with a log of oil, but sixty-one tenths cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: All the measures of the Sages are so: For example, in a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se鈥檃 less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

讙诪壮 砖讗讬诇 砖讗讬诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The Sages asked a question above, i.e., in front of, Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: From where is it derived that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths, brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel?

驻转讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 专讗砖 讛诪讚讘专讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诪专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讚讬讜 诇讬讞讬讚 砖讬驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai, the first speaker on every occasion, began his speech and said: Since we find that the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of fine flour are brought, it is therefore sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讗 讗诇讜 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 注讘讛 讜讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 专讻讛 讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 砖讞专讬转 讜讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Aren鈥檛 these meal offerings brought with bulls and those brought with lambs? Don鈥檛 these, the meal offerings brought with the bulls, have a thick mixture, as six log of oil are mixed with three tenths of an ephah of flour, and those, the meal offerings brought with the lambs, have a thin mixture, as three log of oil are mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour? Isn鈥檛 the mixture of these meal offerings, the daily offering and the additional offerings, performed in the morning, and the mixture of those meal offerings, brought with the afternoon daily offering, performed in the afternoon, and isn鈥檛 it the case that they are not mixed with one another? The communal offerings cannot serve as precedent because they never bring sixty-one tenths in one vessel.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 讜讞专讘讛 讻讘专 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 诪谞讞讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讬讘诇诇

The Sages said to him: You should state a reason why a meal offering of more than sixty tenths of an ephah must be brought in more than one vessel. Rabbi Shimon said to them: It says in the Torah: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 诪讚转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻谉 讛讜讗 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讛讜讗 讟讜讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讞住专 拽专讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟讘讜诇

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it so that if the mixture consists of sixty tenths of flour, it can be mixed with a log of oil, and if it consists of sixty-one tenths, it cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: All the measures of the Sages are so: In a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se鈥檃 less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.

讻讘讬爪讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讞住专 砖讜诪砖讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讞住专 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住

Similarly, food in the volume of an egg-bulk transmits the ritual impurity of food, while food in the volume of an egg-bulk less a small amount equal to the volume of a sesame seed does not transmit impurity of food. Similarly, a garment that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading if a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] sits or lies on it, while if it is three by three handbreadths less one thread, a tiny measurement, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading.

讜讻讬 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil with the flour in a meal offering, if he did not mix them, it is still valid? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira says: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Although there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪注砖讛 讘驻专讚讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 砖诪转讛 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚诪讛 讘专讘讬注讬转

The Gemara relates an incident involving halakhic measurements: Rabbi Beivai says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There was an incident involving a mule belonging to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that died, and the Sages estimated the amount of its blood that emerged as a quarter-log, which is the minimum measurement for it to impart ritual impurity.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讚诐 谞讘讬诇讜转 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪注砖讛 讜讛讬讜 谞讜讞专讬谉 注专讜讚讬讗讜转 诇讗专讬讜转 讘讗讬住讟专讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜讛讬讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 砖讜拽注讬谉 注讚 专讻讜讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讚诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讚讘专

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna raises an objection: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified that they had a tradition concerning the blood of unslaughtered animal carcasses that it is ritually pure. Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira said: An incident occurred where people were killing wild donkeys in order to feed the meat to the lions that were in the king鈥檚 stadium [be鈥檌starya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeys鈥 blood, and the Sages did not say anything to them about them becoming impure. Apparently, the blood of an animal carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the carcass itself does.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 讞讬讬讱 转诇讗讬诐 诇讱 诪谞讙讚 讝讛 讛诇讜拽讞 转讘讜讗讛 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛

Rabbi Beivai was silent and did not answer. Rabbi Zerika said to him: What is the reason that the Master does not respond to the question? Rabbi Beivai said to him: How can I respond to him? My circumstances can be described as Rabbi 岣nin said in interpreting the verse: 鈥淎nd your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your life鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:66). 鈥淎nd your life shall hang in doubt before you鈥; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one year for the next, because he is not certain that he will find grain to eat in the next year.

讜驻讞讚转 诇讬诇讛 讜讬讜诪诐 讝讛 讛诇讜拽讞 转讘讜讗讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗诇 转讗诪谉 讘讞讬讬讱 讝讛 讛住讜诪讱 注诇 讛驻诇讟专

鈥淎nd you shall fear night and day鈥; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one Shabbat eve to another because he does not have the resources to provide for himself further. 鈥淎nd you shall have no assurance of your life鈥; this is referring to one who relies on the baker [hapalter] to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 103

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 103

讗诇讗 砖拽讘注谉 讘砖注转 谞讚专 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗

only when he assigned it at the time of the vow. But if at the time of the vow he simply said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, and at the time of the designation of the fine flour as a meal offering he specified a particular type of meal offering, he is not obligated to bring that type, and if he brought a different type, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

讻讗砖专 谞讚专转 讜诇讗 讻讗砖专 讛驻专砖转

The reason for this is that the Torah states: 鈥淭hat which has emerged from your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: 鈥淎ccording to what you have vowed,鈥 and not: According to what you have designated to fulfill your vow, only matters specified as part of the vow are essential to its content.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖拽讘注谉 讘砖注转 谞讚专 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诇讗 讻讗砖专 谞讚专转 讜诇讗 讻讗砖专 讛驻专砖转

It was also stated that Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The tanna鈥檌m taught in the mishna that meal offerings are not valid only when he established their type at the time of the vow and subsequently brought a different type of meal offering. But if he mentioned one type of meal offering at the time of the designation of the flour, and then brought it differently, it is not invalid, as the Torah states: 鈥淎ccording to what you have vowed,鈥 and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 诪谉 讛讞讟讬诐 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 讘诇讗 砖诪谉 讜讘诇讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, should bring the meal offering from wheat, as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from flour, should bring the meal offering from fine flour, as it is written: 鈥淗is offering shall be of fine flour鈥 (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering without oil and without frankincense, he should bring it with oil and frankincense, as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense.

讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬谉

If one vows to bring as a meal offering half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half an ephah, he should bring two tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.

讙诪壮 讗诪讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is the vow to bring a meal offering from barley valid? It is seemingly a case of a vow and its extenuation together. The statement: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, is a valid vow, while the next term: From barley, constitutes a retraction, as the speaker knows that a meal offering may not be brought from barley.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讚转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专 诪谉 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诪谉 讛讚讘讬诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讝讬专 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞讝讬专

岣zkiyya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, attend only to the first statement. As we learned in a mishna (Nazir 9a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from pressed figs, which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He is a full-fledged nazirite, as one attends only to the first statement, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. And Beit Hillel say: The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore he is not a nazirite, as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 谞讜讚专讬谉 讻讱 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讻讱 讗诇讗 讻讱

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is referring to one who, upon being informed that such a vow is not effective, says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner to bring barley for a meal offering, I would not have vowed in this manner but rather in that manner, by vowing to bring wheat instead.

讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诇讗

搂 The Gemara cites another disagreement between 岣zkiyya and Rabbi Yo岣nan about the mishna: 岣zkiyya says that the Sages taught in the mishna only that where he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, he can bring a meal offering from wheat instead, but if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow is not valid.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讛 诇讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讛讚专 讘讬讛

The Gemara asks: Now, 岣zkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai鈥檚 opinion, and Beit Shammai鈥檚 ruling is due to the principle that one should attend only to the first statement. If so, what is the difference to me whether he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley or from lentils? In either case, that principle should require him to bring a meal offering from wheat. The Gemara answers: 岣zkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 诪谞讞讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 诇讬转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that he retracted his explanation? Rava said: The mishna posed a difficulty for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach this halakha using the example of a meal offering from barley? Let it teach the halakha using the example of a meal offering from lentils, which is a greater novelty.

讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讟注讬 讛讜讗 讘砖注讜专讬诐 讟注讬 讘注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讟注讬

Rather, learn from it that the reason the vow takes effect is because one may err. With regard to barley, it is reasonable that one may err, since one of the individual meal offerings, the meal offering of a sota, comes from barley. But with regard to lentils, one would not err in thinking that one may bring a meal offering from them. Therefore, one can presume that by saying: Lentils, he intended to negate his initial statement.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 诪讻讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讻讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讟注讬 讛讜讗 讘砖注讜专讬谉 讟注讬 讘注讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讟注讬

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to being a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yo岣nan states that his tradition in interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel understand that the reason the meal offering takes effect is because one may reasonably err. One may err with regard to barley being fit for a meal offering, but with regard to lentils, he will not err that they are fit. Why then, does Rabbi Yo岣nan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚讞讝拽讬讛 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讚专转 讘讱 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 拽转谞讬 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan does in fact hold that when he vows to bring a meal offering from lentils it is not valid. What he said was in response to the statement of 岣zkiyya. Rabbi Yo岣nan is saying to him: What is the reason that you retracted your explanation of the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is because the mishna does not teach using the example of one who vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, which would have been a greater novelty.

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪谉 讛注讚砖讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讛讚专 讛讜讗 讚讛讚专 讘讬讛 讜转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪讬讟注讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 转驻讜住 诇砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan questions this reasoning: Perhaps the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that when one vows to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect and he brings a meal offering from wheat. He brings it because one has reason to say that he in fact intended to vow and then retracted his initial statement, and yet the vow takes effect in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one should attend only to the initial statement and his retraction is disregarded. But even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley, where one has reason to say he made an error, and had he known that a meal offering is not brought from barley, he would not have vowed at all, nevertheless, the vow takes effect and he must bring a meal offering, due to the principle: Attend only to the first statement.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗

The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze鈥檈iri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one鈥檚 statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [min岣], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [min岣t se鈥檕rim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said min岣t se鈥檕rim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.

讬转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽诪讞 讬讘讬讗 住讜诇转 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rav Na岣an was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze鈥檈iri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: One who vows to bring a meal offering from regular flour, which is not used for a meal offering, should bring the meal offering from fine flour. Is it not referring to a case where he did not say: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, but rather said: It is incumbent upon me to bring regular flour? Apparently, the vow takes effect even if one did not state the term meal offering in an independent form. Rav Na岣an responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.

讘诇讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讬讘讬讗 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rava raised another, similar objection from the continuation of the mishna: With regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering without oil and frankincense, his vow takes effect, and he shall bring it with oil and frankincense. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the word meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Na岣an responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering without oil or frankincense.

讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讬讘讬讗 注砖专讜谉 砖诇诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛

Rava asks again based on the mishna: If one vows to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the term meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Na岣an responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讞爪讛 讬讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗诪专 讛讜讗

Rava asks: If it is so that in all the cases in the mishna his vow included the term meal offering, say the last clause: If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half of an ephah, he should bring two tenths. Once he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah of flour. Therefore, when he states the words: Half a tenth, he is not saying anything, as he did not say the term meal offering with it, and would not have to bring two tenths. In what case is the ruling in the latter clause relevant?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诪谞讞讛 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讜注砖专讜谉 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘注砖专讜谉 讻讬 讗诪专 讞爪讬 注砖专讜谉 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚专 讗诪专 注砖专讜谉 诪讬讬转讬 注砖专讜谉 讗讞专讬谞讗

Rav Na岣an answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in the case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth and a tenth. Since he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah for it. When he said: Half a tenth, he is saying nothing, since a meal offering is not brought with that amount of flour. When he then said the word tenth, he therefore brings another tenth, totaling two tenths.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 砖诇讗 讛转谞讚讘 讻讚专讱 讛诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘讙诪专 讚讘专讬讜 讗讚诐 诪转驻讬住

Rava asks: If so, then when the mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge, why is this his opinion? Once he said the term meal offering, the vow should be valid. Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the conclusion of a person鈥檚 statement is also accepted. Therefore, even when he said the term meal offering at the beginning of the vow, since at the end he also made declarations that do not apply to a voluntary meal offering, the vow does not take effect.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞讛 砖诇 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 讜诪讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 (讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 注砖专讜谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚) 讗诐 讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 砖讻谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚

MISHNA: A person may pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and bring all sixty tenths in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty tenths of an ephah, he brings it in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one tenths of an ephah, he brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, as the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings as meal offerings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought.

讚讬讜 诇讬讞讬讚 砖讛讜讗 驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讞讚

It is sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community. When the first day of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of Sukkot, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讗 讗诇讜 诇驻专讬诐 讜讗诇讜 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讬谞诐 谞讘诇诇讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诇讗 注讚 砖砖讬诐 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讬讘诇诇

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren鈥檛 these meal offerings for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other (see 89a)? Rather, the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because up to sixty tenths of fine flour can be mixed with one log of oil.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻诇 诪讚讜转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻谉 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讛讜讗 讟讜讘诇 讜讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讞住专 拽专讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟讘讜诇 讘讛谉

The Rabbis said to him: Is it so that sixty tenths of flour can be mixed with a log of oil, but sixty-one tenths cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: All the measures of the Sages are so: For example, in a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se鈥檃 less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

讙诪壮 砖讗讬诇 砖讗讬诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 诪谞讬谉 诇讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讘讬讗 砖砖讬诐 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The Sages asked a question above, i.e., in front of, Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: From where is it derived that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths, brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel?

驻转讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讬诇注讗讬 专讗砖 讛诪讚讘专讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诪专 砖讻谉 诪爪讬谞讜 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖诇 讞讙 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讚讬讜 诇讬讞讬讚 砖讬驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai, the first speaker on every occasion, began his speech and said: Since we find that the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of fine flour are brought, it is therefore sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛诇讗 讗诇讜 驻专讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讜讗诇讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 注讘讛 讜讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 专讻讛 讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 砖讞专讬转 讜讗诇讜 讘诇讬诇转谉 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讜讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Aren鈥檛 these meal offerings brought with bulls and those brought with lambs? Don鈥檛 these, the meal offerings brought with the bulls, have a thick mixture, as six log of oil are mixed with three tenths of an ephah of flour, and those, the meal offerings brought with the lambs, have a thin mixture, as three log of oil are mixed with a tenth of an ephah of flour? Isn鈥檛 the mixture of these meal offerings, the daily offering and the additional offerings, performed in the morning, and the mixture of those meal offerings, brought with the afternoon daily offering, performed in the afternoon, and isn鈥檛 it the case that they are not mixed with one another? The communal offerings cannot serve as precedent because they never bring sixty-one tenths in one vessel.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪讜专 讗转讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 诪谞讞讛 讘诇讜诇讛 讘砖诪谉 讜讞专讘讛 讻讘专 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛讘讗 诪谞讞讛 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讛讬讘诇诇

The Sages said to him: You should state a reason why a meal offering of more than sixty tenths of an ephah must be brought in more than one vessel. Rabbi Shimon said to them: It says in the Torah: 鈥淎nd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another鈥 (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

讗诪专 诇讜 讘砖砖讬诐 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讘砖砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 诪讚转 讞讻诪讬诐 讻谉 讛讜讗 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讛讜讗 讟讜讘诇 讘讗专讘注讬诐 住讗讛 讞住专 拽专讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟讘讜诇

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Is it so that if the mixture consists of sixty tenths of flour, it can be mixed with a log of oil, and if it consists of sixty-one tenths, it cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: All the measures of the Sages are so: In a ritual bath containing forty se鈥檃 of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se鈥檃 less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.

讻讘讬爪讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讻讘讬爪讛 讞住专 砖讜诪砖讜诐 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住 砖诇砖讛 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讞住专 谞讬诪讗 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 诪讚专住

Similarly, food in the volume of an egg-bulk transmits the ritual impurity of food, while food in the volume of an egg-bulk less a small amount equal to the volume of a sesame seed does not transmit impurity of food. Similarly, a garment that is three by three handbreadths is susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading if a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] sits or lies on it, while if it is three by three handbreadths less one thread, a tiny measurement, it is not susceptible to ritual impurity imparted by treading.

讜讻讬 讗讬谉 谞讘诇诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讗诐 诇讗 讘诇诇 讻砖专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讘讬诇讛 讘讬诇讛 诪注讻讘转 讘讜

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that although there is a mitzva to mix the oil with the flour in a meal offering, if he did not mix them, it is still valid? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira says: For any measure of flour that is suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing does not invalidate the meal offering. Although there is a mitzva to mix the oil and the flour ab initio, the meal offering is fit for sacrifice even if the oil and the flour are not mixed. And for any measure of flour that is not suitable for mixing with oil in a meal offering, the lack of mixing invalidates the meal offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪注砖讛 讘驻专讚讛 讗讞转 砖诇 讘讬转 专讘讬 砖诪转讛 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚诪讛 讘专讘讬注讬转

The Gemara relates an incident involving halakhic measurements: Rabbi Beivai says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There was an incident involving a mule belonging to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that died, and the Sages estimated the amount of its blood that emerged as a quarter-log, which is the minimum measurement for it to impart ritual impurity.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 注诇 讚诐 谞讘讬诇讜转 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪注砖讛 讜讛讬讜 谞讜讞专讬谉 注专讜讚讬讗讜转 诇讗专讬讜转 讘讗讬住讟专讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讱 讜讛讬讜 注讜诇讬 专讙诇讬诐 砖讜拽注讬谉 注讚 专讻讜讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讚诐 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讚讘专

Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Bisna raises an objection: Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira testified that they had a tradition concerning the blood of unslaughtered animal carcasses that it is ritually pure. Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira said: An incident occurred where people were killing wild donkeys in order to feed the meat to the lions that were in the king鈥檚 stadium [be鈥檌starya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeys鈥 blood, and the Sages did not say anything to them about them becoming impure. Apparently, the blood of an animal carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the carcass itself does.

讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讜讛讬讜 讞讬讬讱 转诇讗讬诐 诇讱 诪谞讙讚 讝讛 讛诇讜拽讞 转讘讜讗讛 诪砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛

Rabbi Beivai was silent and did not answer. Rabbi Zerika said to him: What is the reason that the Master does not respond to the question? Rabbi Beivai said to him: How can I respond to him? My circumstances can be described as Rabbi 岣nin said in interpreting the verse: 鈥淎nd your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your life鈥 (Deuteronomy 28:66). 鈥淎nd your life shall hang in doubt before you鈥; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one year for the next, because he is not certain that he will find grain to eat in the next year.

讜驻讞讚转 诇讬诇讛 讜讬讜诪诐 讝讛 讛诇讜拽讞 转讘讜讗讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诇注专讘 砖讘转 讜讗诇 转讗诪谉 讘讞讬讬讱 讝讛 讛住讜诪讱 注诇 讛驻诇讟专

鈥淎nd you shall fear night and day鈥; this is referring to one who purchases grain from one Shabbat eve to another because he does not have the resources to provide for himself further. 鈥淎nd you shall have no assurance of your life鈥; this is referring to one who relies on the baker [hapalter] to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.

Scroll To Top