Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
There is a dispute regarding a case where someone vowed to bring a mincha of barley. The Tana Kama says that because such a thing does not exist, we obligate them to bring a mincha of wheat. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that what was said is nothing, as there is no voluntary mincha of barley. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan attempt to understand the Tana Kama’s position. For Chizkiya, it is based on the view of Beit Shammai who hold that we seize the first expression – the statement “I take upon myself a mincha” already creates an obligation to bring a wheat offering, and what one said afterward (where perhaps it was a retraction) is not accepted at all because it is too late. According to Rabbi Yochanan, who establishes an ukimta for the Mishna, it refers to a case where, when told there is no mincha of barley, the person says that they did not know, and had they known, they would have vowed wheat.
There is another dispute in our Mishna between Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan that appears to present opinions opposite to what they said previously, but the Gemara explains the matter. Chizkiya retracted and agreed with Rabbi Yochanan, while Rabbi Yochanan challenged his retraction and explained how Chizkiya could have explained the words of the Mishna according to his original logic.
Zeiri limits the words of the Mishna to a case where one said “I take upon myself a mincha…”, but if one did not say “mincha” but rather “I take upon myself barley” or “I take upon myself a barley mincha,” we do not apply the principle of seizing the first expression. Rava challenges Rav Nachman regarding Zeiri’s words based on our Mishna, but Rav Nachman resolves his challenges.
One who volunteers to bring more than sixty issaron must bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in another vessel. Why is sixty established as the maximum amount for a single vessel? The Tana Kama explains this based on the day that has the most libations in the Temple – the first day of Sukkot that falls on Shabbat, when they bring libations in the amount of sixty-one issaron. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says it is based on what can be mixed in one vessel; more than sixty is impossible. The Sages challenge him as to why specifically this number was chosen. Rabbi Shimon responds that this is the case with all measurements established by the Sages. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Shimon, noting that a mincha is valid even if it was not actually mixed, so why is the potential for mixing so important? They answer based on the words of Rabbi Zeira, that it must be eligible for mixing (anything eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything not eligible for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it).
Today’s daily daf tools:
Menachot 103
אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לָא.
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.
״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״, וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.
The reason for this is that the Torah states: “That 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” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: “According to what you have vowed,” 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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לֹא, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״ וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.
It was also stated that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna’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: “According to what you have vowed,” and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ – יָבִיא מִן הַחִטִּים. ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת. ״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה״ – יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה.
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: “His offering shall be of fine flour” (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.
״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, ״עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!
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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הָא מַנִּי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.
Ḥizkiyya 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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל, בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ – לָא.
§ The Gemara cites another disagreement between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan about the mishna: Ḥizkiyya 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.
מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן אָמַר לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן הוּא. מָה לִי מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, מָה לִי מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים? הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Now, Ḥizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion, and Beit Shammai’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: Ḥizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וּמַאי טַעְמָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״!
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.
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים לָא טָעֵי.
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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים. מִכְּדֵי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא. בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים – לָא טָעֵי!
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?
לִדְבָרָיו דְּחִזְקִיָּה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אַתְּ מַאי טַעְמָא הָדְרַתְּ בָּךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
דִּלְמָא ״לָא מִיבַּעְיָא״ קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִהְדָּר הוּא דְּהָדַר בֵּיהּ, וּתְפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נָמֵי, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיטְעָא הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵי, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״, אֲבָל לָא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ – לָא.
The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze’eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one’s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minḥa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minḥat se’orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minḥat se’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.
יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת, לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
Rav Naḥman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze’eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.
״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה״, יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
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 Naḥman 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.
״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
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 Naḥman 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.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ לֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר הוּא.
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?
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן וְעִשָּׂרוֹן״, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ וְלֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר, כִּי הָדַר אָמַר ״עִשָּׂרוֹן״ מַיְיתֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן אַחֲרִינָא.
Rav Naḥman 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.
אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין, אַמַּאי? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם מַתְפִּיס.
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’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.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן, וּמֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. (אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – מֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד). אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ – מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד.
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.
דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ לַפָּרִים, וְאֵלּוּ לַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵינָם נִבְלָלִים זֶה עִם זֶה! אֶלָּא עַד שִׁשִּׁים יְכוֹלִין לִיבָּלֵל.
Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren’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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, וְשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים כֵּן – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, וּבְאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן.
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’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.
גְּמָ׳ שְׁאִיל שְׁאֵילָה לְמַעְלָה מֵרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי: מִנַּיִן לְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד?
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?
פָּתַח רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי, רֹאשׁ הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְאָמַר: שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ צִיבּוּר מְבִיאִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד, דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁיִּפְחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ פָּרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים? אֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן עָבָה, וְאֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן רַכָּה, אֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן שַׁחֲרִית, וְאֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְאֵין נִבְלָלִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.
Rabbi Shimon said to him: Aren’t these meal offerings brought with bulls and rams, and those brought with lambs? Don’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? Isn’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 isn’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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר אַתָּה״. אָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה״, כְּבָר אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא מִנְחָה שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהִיבָּלֵל.
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: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.
אָמַר לוֹ: בְּשִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, בְּשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לוֹ: כׇּל מִדַּת חֲכָמִים כֵּן הוּא – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל.
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’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.
כְּבֵיצָה – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, כְּבֵיצָה חָסֵר שׁוּמְשׁוּם – אֵין מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין. שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְטַמֵּא מִדְרָס, שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה חָסֵר נִימָא אַחַת – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִדְרָס.
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.
וְכִי אֵין נִבְלָלִין, מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא תְּנַן: אִם לֹא בָּלַל – כָּשֵׁר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’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.
אָמַר רַבִּי בִּיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפִרְדָּה אַחַת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דָּמָהּ בִּרְבִיעִית.
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.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא עַל דַּם נְבֵילוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין עֲרוֹדְיָאוֹת לַאֲרָיוֹת בְּאִיסְטַרְיָא שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, וְהָיוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים שׁוֹקְעִין עַד רְכוּבּוֹתֵיהֶן בַּדָּם, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָהֶם דָּבָר.
Rabbi Yitzḥak 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’s stadium [be’istarya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeys’ 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.
אִישְׁתִּיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָא מַהְדַּר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין: ״וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד״ – זֶה הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּבוּאָה מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה.
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 Ḥanin said in interpreting the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your life” (Deuteronomy 28:66). “And your life shall hang in doubt before you”; 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.
״וּפָחַדְתָּ לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם״ – זֶה הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּבוּאָה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, ״וְאַל תַּאֲמֵן בְּחַיֶּיךָ״ – זֶה הַסּוֹמֵךְ עַל הַפַּלְטֵר.
“And you shall fear night and day”; 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. “And you shall have no assurance of your life”; this is referring to one who relies on the baker [hapalter] to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Menachot Daf 102-110- Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Menahot 103: Casual Speech, Casual Measures (Not Recommended)
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Bronx, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Menachot 103
אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לָא.
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.
״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״, וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.
The reason for this is that the Torah states: “That 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” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: “According to what you have vowed,” 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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לֹא, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״ וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.
It was also stated that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna’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: “According to what you have vowed,” and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ – יָבִיא מִן הַחִטִּים. ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת. ״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה״ – יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה.
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: “His offering shall be of fine flour” (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.
״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, ״עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אַמַּאי? נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!
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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הָא מַנִּי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.
Ḥizkiyya 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.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל, בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ – לָא.
§ The Gemara cites another disagreement between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan about the mishna: Ḥizkiyya 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.
מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן אָמַר לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן הוּא. מָה לִי מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, מָה לִי מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים? הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Now, Ḥizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion, and Beit Shammai’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: Ḥizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וּמַאי טַעְמָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״!
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.
אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים לָא טָעֵי.
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.
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים. מִכְּדֵי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא. בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים – לָא טָעֵי!
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?
לִדְבָרָיו דְּחִזְקִיָּה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אַתְּ מַאי טַעְמָא הָדְרַתְּ בָּךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
דִּלְמָא ״לָא מִיבַּעְיָא״ קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִהְדָּר הוּא דְּהָדַר בֵּיהּ, וּתְפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נָמֵי, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיטְעָא הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵי, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״, אֲבָל לָא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ – לָא.
The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze’eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one’s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minḥa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minḥat se’orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minḥat se’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.
יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת, לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
Rav Naḥman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze’eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman 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 Naḥman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.
״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה״, יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
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 Naḥman 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.
״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
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 Naḥman 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.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ לֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר הוּא.
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?
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן וְעִשָּׂרוֹן״, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ וְלֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר, כִּי הָדַר אָמַר ״עִשָּׂרוֹן״ מַיְיתֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן אַחֲרִינָא.
Rav Naḥman 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.
אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין, אַמַּאי? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם מַתְפִּיס.
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’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.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן, וּמֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. (אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – מֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד). אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ – מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד.
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.
דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ לַפָּרִים, וְאֵלּוּ לַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵינָם נִבְלָלִים זֶה עִם זֶה! אֶלָּא עַד שִׁשִּׁים יְכוֹלִין לִיבָּלֵל.
Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren’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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, וְשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים כֵּן – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, וּבְאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן.
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’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.
גְּמָ׳ שְׁאִיל שְׁאֵילָה לְמַעְלָה מֵרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי: מִנַּיִן לְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד?
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?
פָּתַח רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי, רֹאשׁ הַמְדַבְּרִים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְאָמַר: שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ צִיבּוּר מְבִיאִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד, דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁיִּפְחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.
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.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ פָּרִים וְאֵילִים, וְאֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים? אֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן עָבָה, וְאֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן רַכָּה, אֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן שַׁחֲרִית, וְאֵלּוּ בְּלִילָתָן בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְאֵין נִבְלָלִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.
Rabbi Shimon said to him: Aren’t these meal offerings brought with bulls and rams, and those brought with lambs? Don’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? Isn’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 isn’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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר אַתָּה״. אָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה״, כְּבָר אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא מִנְחָה שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהִיבָּלֵל.
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: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have, one as well as another” (Leviticus 7:10). The Torah has already stated here: Bring a meal offering that is capable of being mixed.
אָמַר לוֹ: בְּשִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, בְּשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לוֹ: כׇּל מִדַּת חֲכָמִים כֵּן הוּא – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל.
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’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse and be purified.
כְּבֵיצָה – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, כְּבֵיצָה חָסֵר שׁוּמְשׁוּם – אֵין מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין. שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה – מְטַמֵּא מִדְרָס, שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה חָסֵר נִימָא אַחַת – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִדְרָס.
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.
וְכִי אֵין נִבְלָלִין, מַאי הָוֵי? וְהָא תְּנַן: אִם לֹא בָּלַל – כָּשֵׁר! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה – אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָּה – בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: Even if sixty tenths do not mix with one log of oil, what of it? But didn’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.
אָמַר רַבִּי בִּיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּפִרְדָּה אַחַת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי שֶׁמֵּתָה, וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת דָּמָהּ בִּרְבִיעִית.
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.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא עַל דַּם נְבֵילוֹת שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן בְּתֵירָא: מַעֲשֶׂה וְהָיוּ נוֹחֲרִין עֲרוֹדְיָאוֹת לַאֲרָיוֹת בְּאִיסְטַרְיָא שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, וְהָיוּ עוֹלֵי רְגָלִים שׁוֹקְעִין עַד רְכוּבּוֹתֵיהֶן בַּדָּם, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָהֶם דָּבָר.
Rabbi Yitzḥak 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’s stadium [be’istarya], and those ascending to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festival were wading up to their knees [rekhuboteihen] in the donkeys’ 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.
אִישְׁתִּיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא קָא מַהְדַּר מָר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי אַהְדַּר לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָנִין: ״וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד״ – זֶה הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּבוּאָה מִשָּׁנָה לְשָׁנָה.
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 Ḥanin said in interpreting the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall fear night and day, and you shall have no assurance of your life” (Deuteronomy 28:66). “And your life shall hang in doubt before you”; 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.
״וּפָחַדְתָּ לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם״ – זֶה הַלּוֹקֵחַ תְּבוּאָה מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, ״וְאַל תַּאֲמֵן בְּחַיֶּיךָ״ – זֶה הַסּוֹמֵךְ עַל הַפַּלְטֵר.
“And you shall fear night and day”; 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. “And you shall have no assurance of your life”; this is referring to one who relies on the baker [hapalter] to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.
