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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 21, 2018 | ื™ืดื’ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 neveilaย (an animal that died without being slaughtered properly)pure or impure?


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

ืืœื ืฉืงื‘ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ื“ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ืœื

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.

ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื•ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื”ืคืจืฉืช

The reason for this is that the Torah states: โ€œThat 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 mouthโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: โ€œAccording to what you have vowed,โ€ 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืงื‘ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ื“ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื•ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื”ืคืจืฉืช

It was also stated that Rabbi Aแธฅa bar แธคanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The tannaโ€™im 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: โ€œAccording to what you have vowed,โ€ and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืžื— ื™ื‘ื™ื ืกื•ืœืช ื‘ืœื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื”

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: โ€œHis offering shall be of fine flourโ€ (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.

ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืฉืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ ื›ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ื ื“ืจ ื•ืคืชื—ื• ืขืžื• ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื ื–ื™ืจ

แธคizkiyya 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ืš ืืœื ื›ืš

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื

ยง The Gemara cites another disagreement between แธคizkiyya and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan about the mishna: แธคizkiyya 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.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Now, แธคizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammaiโ€™s opinion, and Beit Shammaiโ€™s 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: แธคizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืชื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื

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.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื˜ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืขื™ ื‘ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื˜ืขื™

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื˜ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื™ ื‘ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื˜ืขื™

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื“ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจืช ื‘ืš ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 แธคizkiyya. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื”ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื™ื˜ืขื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื˜ืขื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื

The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Zeโ€™eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of oneโ€™s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minแธฅa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minแธฅat seโ€™orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minแธฅat seโ€™orim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงืžื— ื™ื‘ื™ื ืกื•ืœืช ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

Rav Naแธฅman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Zeโ€™eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naแธฅman 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 Naแธฅman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.

ื‘ืœื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

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 Naแธฅman 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.

ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ ื”ื•ื

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?

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืฉืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ ื›ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื’ืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื“ื ืžืชืคื™ืก

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 personโ€™s 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืชื ื“ื‘ ืื“ื ืžื ื—ื” ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ (ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“) ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื—ื’ ืฉื—ืœ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“

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.

ื“ื™ื• ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื—ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื ืืœื• ืœืคืจื™ื ื•ืืœื• ืœื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ื ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืฉื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืœืœ

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Arenโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืฉืฉื™ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืœ ืžื“ื•ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ

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 seโ€™a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty seโ€™a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืื™ืœ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“

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?

ืคืชื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืจืืฉ ื”ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื—ื’ ืฉื—ืœ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื“ื™ื• ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื™ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื—ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื ืืœื• ืคืจื™ื ื•ืื™ืœื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืขื‘ื” ื•ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืจื›ื” ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื•ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืžื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื”

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Arenโ€™t these meal offerings brought with bulls and those brought with lambs? Donโ€™t 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? Isnโ€™t 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 isnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืืžื•ืจ ืืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื ื—ื” ื‘ืœื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื—ืจื‘ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื‘ื ืžื ื—ื” ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœื”ื™ื‘ืœืœ

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: โ€œAnd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as anotherโ€ (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœ ืžื“ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ

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 seโ€™a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty seโ€™a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.

ื›ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ื™ืฆื” ื—ืกืจ ืฉื•ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืกืจ ื ื™ืžื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืื ืœื ื‘ืœืœ ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื›ืœ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืœื” ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ื‘ื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืœื” ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืคืจื“ื” ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืชื” ื•ืฉื™ืขืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ืกื ื ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื“ื ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืžืขืฉื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ื ื•ื—ืจื™ืŸ ืขืจื•ื“ื™ืื•ืช ืœืืจื™ื•ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื˜ืจื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืœื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืฉื•ืงืขื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ื“ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื“ื‘ืจ

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak 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 kingโ€™s stadium [beโ€™istarya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeysโ€™ 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.

ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื—ื™ื™ืš ืชืœืื™ื ืœืš ืžื ื’ื“ ื–ื” ื”ืœื•ืงื— ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืฉื ื” ืœืฉื ื”

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 แธคanin said in interpreting the verse: โ€œAnd your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your lifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 28:66). โ€œAnd your life shall hang in doubt before youโ€; 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.

ื•ืคื—ื“ืช ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื™ื•ืžื ื–ื” ื”ืœื•ืงื— ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ืœืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืœ ืชืืžืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ืš ื–ื” ื”ืกื•ืžืš ืขืœ ื”ืคืœื˜ืจ

โ€œAnd you shall fear night and dayโ€; 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. โ€œAnd you shall have no assurance of your lifeโ€; 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's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

ืืœื ืฉืงื‘ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ื“ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ืœื

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.

ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื•ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื”ืคืจืฉืช

The reason for this is that the Torah states: โ€œThat 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 mouthโ€ (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: โ€œAccording to what you have vowed,โ€ 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.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉืงื‘ืขืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ื“ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืช ื•ืœื ื›ืืฉืจ ื”ืคืจืฉืช

It was also stated that Rabbi Aแธฅa bar แธคanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The tannaโ€™im 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: โ€œAccording to what you have vowed,โ€ and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื™ื‘ื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืžื— ื™ื‘ื™ื ืกื•ืœืช ื‘ืœื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื”

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: โ€œHis offering shall be of fine flourโ€ (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.

ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืฉืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ ื›ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืื™ ื ื“ืจ ื•ืคืชื—ื• ืขืžื• ื”ื•ื

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.

ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื ื–ื™ืจ

แธคizkiyya 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืš ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื›ืš ืืœื ื›ืš

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื

ยง The Gemara cites another disagreement between แธคizkiyya and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan about the mishna: แธคizkiyya 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.

ืžื›ื“ื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจ ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: Now, แธคizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammaiโ€™s opinion, and Beit Shammaiโ€™s 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: แธคizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืชื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื

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.

ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื˜ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืขื™ ื‘ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื˜ืขื™

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžืืŸ ืืžืจื” ืœืฉืžืขืชื™ื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื˜ืขื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื™ ื‘ืขื“ืฉื™ื ืœื ื˜ืขื™

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan 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 Yoแธฅanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื“ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืช ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื”ื“ืจืช ื‘ืš ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 แธคizkiyya. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื“ืœืžื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืขื“ืฉื™ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื”ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžื™ื˜ืขื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื˜ืขื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืชืคื•ืก ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ืืžืจ ื–ืขื™ืจื™ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื

The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Zeโ€™eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of oneโ€™s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minแธฅa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minแธฅat seโ€™orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minแธฅat seโ€™orim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงืžื— ื™ื‘ื™ื ืกื•ืœืช ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

Rav Naแธฅman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Zeโ€™eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naแธฅman 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 Naแธฅman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.

ื‘ืœื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

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 Naแธฅman 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.

ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื”

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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืฆื” ื™ื‘ื™ื ืฉื ื™ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ ื”ื•ื

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?

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืžื ื—ื” ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ืฆื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืื—ืจื™ื ื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจ ืฉืœื ื”ืชื ื“ื‘ ื›ื“ืจืš ื”ืžืชื ื“ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืฉื™ื˜ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืžืจื” ื“ืืžืจ ืืฃ ื‘ื’ืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืื“ื ืžืชืคื™ืก

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 personโ€™s 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžืชื ื“ื‘ ืื“ื ืžื ื—ื” ืฉืœ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ (ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ืขืฉืจื•ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“) ืื ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื—ื’ ืฉื—ืœ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“

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.

ื“ื™ื• ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื—ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื ืืœื• ืœืคืจื™ื ื•ืืœื• ืœื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ื ื–ื” ืขื ื–ื” ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืฉื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืœืœ

Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Arenโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืฉืฉื™ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื›ืœ ืžื“ื•ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ ื‘ื”ืŸ

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 seโ€™a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty seโ€™a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืื™ืœ ืฉืื™ืœื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉืฉื™ื ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืื—ื“

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?

ืคืชื— ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ืื™ืœืขืื™ ืจืืฉ ื”ืžื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื•ืืžืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืฉืœ ื—ื’ ืฉื—ืœ ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื“ื™ื• ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื™ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื—ื“

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื ืืœื• ืคืจื™ื ื•ืื™ืœื™ื ื•ืืœื• ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืขื‘ื” ื•ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืจื›ื” ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ืฉื—ืจื™ืช ื•ืืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœืชืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืžื–ื” ืขืœ ื–ื”

Rabbi Shimon said to him: Arenโ€™t these meal offerings brought with bulls and those brought with lambs? Donโ€™t 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? Isnโ€™t 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 isnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืืžื•ืจ ืืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ืœ ืžื ื—ื” ื‘ืœื•ืœื” ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื•ื—ืจื‘ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื‘ื ืžื ื—ื” ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœื”ื™ื‘ืœืœ

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: โ€œAnd every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as anotherโ€ (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœ ืžื“ืช ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื”ื•ื ื˜ื•ื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกืื” ื—ืกืจ ืงืจื˜ื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ื‘ื•ืœ

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 seโ€™a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty seโ€™a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.

ื›ื‘ื™ืฆื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื›ื‘ื™ืฆื” ื—ืกืจ ืฉื•ืžืฉื•ื ืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ืžื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก ืฉืœืฉื” ืขืœ ืฉืœืฉื” ื—ืกืจ ื ื™ืžื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ืžื“ืจืก

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.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื‘ืœืœื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืื ืœื ื‘ืœืœ ื›ืฉืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื›ืœ ื”ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืœื” ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ื‘ื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืจืื•ื™ ืœื‘ื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืœื” ืžืขื›ื‘ืช ื‘ื•

The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didnโ€™t 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืคืจื“ื” ืื—ืช ืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืชื” ื•ืฉื™ืขืจื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ื“ืžื” ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ืกื ื ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืขืœ ื“ื ื ื‘ื™ืœื•ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืชื™ืจื ืžืขืฉื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ื ื•ื—ืจื™ืŸ ืขืจื•ื“ื™ืื•ืช ืœืืจื™ื•ืช ื‘ืื™ืกื˜ืจื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืœืš ื•ื”ื™ื• ืขื•ืœื™ ืจื’ืœื™ื ืฉื•ืงืขื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืจื›ื•ื‘ื•ืชื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ื“ื ื•ืœื ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื“ื‘ืจ

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak 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 kingโ€™s stadium [beโ€™istarya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeysโ€™ 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.

ืื™ืฉืชื™ืง ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืงื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื—ื™ื™ืš ืชืœืื™ื ืœืš ืžื ื’ื“ ื–ื” ื”ืœื•ืงื— ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืฉื ื” ืœืฉื ื”

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 แธคanin said in interpreting the verse: โ€œAnd your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your lifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 28:66). โ€œAnd your life shall hang in doubt before youโ€; 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.

ื•ืคื—ื“ืช ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื™ื•ืžื ื–ื” ื”ืœื•ืงื— ืชื‘ื•ืื” ืžืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ืœืขืจื‘ ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืœ ืชืืžืŸ ื‘ื—ื™ื™ืš ื–ื” ื”ืกื•ืžืš ืขืœ ื”ืคืœื˜ืจ

โ€œAnd you shall fear night and dayโ€; 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. โ€œAnd you shall have no assurance of your lifeโ€; 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