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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 26, 2018 | 讬状讞 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 108

Why were there 6 boxes for money for voluntary offerings in the Beit Hamikdash (6 out of 13 were for this!)? If someone specified a particular animal for a voluntary offering and it became blemished, are there rules regarding what one can bring in its stead?


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

讜讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜讛砖注讬专讬诐 讜讛诪讜转专讜转 讜讛诪注讛

And one was for the value of the lambs brought as a nazirite鈥檚 or a leper鈥檚 guilt offering. And one was for the value of the goats brought as communal sin offerings on Festivals. And one was for the surplus coins of one who designated money to purchase one of those offerings and had money left over after purchasing the animal. And one was for the additional silver ma鈥檃 paid as a premium in a case when two people brought their half-shekel jointly as one shekel.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讗谞爪讜讬讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讬讜诪讬讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚

After citing these four opinions, the Gemara explains: All of the other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of 岣zkiyya that the six collection horns are to prevent quarrels between the families of priests, as they hold that we are not concerned about quarreling between the priests. There is no reason for them to fight, as each and every family serves on its own day and receives the hides of the animals sacrificed on that day.

讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讗讬注驻讜砖讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan that the six horns are to prevent the coins from decaying, as we are not concerned that the coins will decay.

讻讝注讬专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬

The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Ze鈥檈iri that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because we do not interpret a mishna in accordance with an individual opinion against the majority opinion.

讻讘专 驻讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜转专讜转 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讜转

The other Sages also do not say in accordance with the explanation of bar Padda that the six collection horns were for the value of bulls, rams, lambs, and goats that had been lost, for the surplus coins left over after purchasing an offering, and for the ma鈥檃 paid as a premium in addition to the half-shekel of two people. This is because they hold that there is no reason to differentiate between the surplus and the value of specific animals, as all of the animals that were lost and another offered in their place are also surplus, and their value is surplus after the replacement offering was purchased.

诪注讛 谞诪讬 诇砖拽诇讬诐 讗讝诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讛讬讻谉 拽诇讘讜谉 讝讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖拽诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇谞讚讘讛

The other Sages also do not agree with bar Padda鈥檚 explanation that the sixth collection horn was for the ma鈥檃, because they hold that the ma鈥檃 goes toward the same purpose as the regular shekels, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the ma鈥檃: Where would this premium [kalbon] go, i.e., what was done with it? It would be added to the shekels themselves, which would be used to buy the daily and additional offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer says: It would be used for communal gift offerings.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara cites two additional explanations for the purpose of the six collection horns. And Shmuel says: These six horns correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing six offerings, namely: The surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite鈥檚 guilt offering, brought if he comes into contact with a corpse during his term of naziriteship; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper鈥檚 guilt offering, brought as part of his purification process; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

And Rabbi Oshaya says that there is a different explanation for the six collection horns: They correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite鈥檚 guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper鈥檚 guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after the purchase of pairs of doves or pigeons by women after childbirth, by zavim as part of their purification process, and others; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽讬谞讬谉 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Shmuel does not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya that one of the collection horns was for the surplus coins left over after purchasing pairs of birds? The Gemara answers: A collection horn for coins for pairs of birds is already taught in the first clause of the mishna in tractate Shekalim (18a), among the list of seven collection horns that served purposes other than the communal gift offerings.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转谞讬 讜诇讗 转谞讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜转谞讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讞讚 诇拽讬谞讬谉 讜讞讚 诇诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna without teaching that one of the collection horns was for pairs of birds? Does he have a different version of the mishna? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna explicitly, teaching in his version of the mishna that there was a collection horn for pairs of birds? The Gemara answers that one of the collection horns was for coins designated for purchasing pairs of birds, and one collection horn was for the surplus coins remaining after purchasing pairs of birds.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 砖诇 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪讜转专 诪谞讞讛 讬专拽讘

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Oshaya does not say in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers that he holds like the one who says that the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are not used to purchase other offerings but are left to rot; as it is taught in a baraita: The surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering are left to rot.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 谞讚讘讛 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘

The Gemara clarifies the opaque wording: What is the baraita saying? Rav 岣sda said that this is what the baraita is saying: The surplus coins left over from the purchase of a meal offering of a sinner are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讬专拽讘

Rabba offered an alternative interpretation of the baraita and said: Even the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are also used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. Rather, the surplus coins left over from purchasing the loaves accompanying a thanks offering are left to rot.

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讬专拽讘

The Gemara points out that the opinions of Rav 岣sda and Rabba correspond to opinions raised in the dispute among earlier amora鈥檌m, as with regard to the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that they are used to buy a communal gift offering, while Rabbi Elazar says that they must be left to rot.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讜转专 砖拽诇讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 讜拽讬谞讬 讝讘讜转 讜拽讬谞讬 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 诪讜转专讬讛谉 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a mishna (Shekalim 6b): The surplus coins that had been designated for shekels are non-sacred property; but with regard to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah meal offering, and the surplus money that had been designated to purchase offerings that are brought due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as the pairs of birds of zavim, the pairs of birds of zavot, the pairs of birds of women after childbirth, and sin offerings, and guilt offerings, in these cases, the surplus coins must be used for a communal gift offering.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara explains the objection: What is the meaning of the phrase: The tenth of an ephah meal offering? Is it not referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the High Priest鈥檚 tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering?

诇讗 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of a sinner, which is also brought from a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11).

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘

Rav Na岣an bar Rav Yitz岣k said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of the one who said: The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讻讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 诇讬诪讚 注诇 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a sinner鈥檚 meal offering: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if his means are not sufficient for two doves or two pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). Rabbi Yehuda said that the phrase 鈥渋t is a sin offering鈥 is interpreted as a restriction: It is called a sin offering, and no other meal offering is called a sin offering. This taught that with regard to the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, it is not called a sin offering, and consequently it requires frankincense.

讜诪讚讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 诪讜转专讛 讬专拽讘

Rav Na岣an inferred: And since it is not called a sin offering, its surplus coins should not be used to buy communal gift offerings like the surplus coins of sin offerings; rather, they should be left to rot.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘讜 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently it became blemished [venista鈥檈v] and was disqualified from sacrifice, he should redeem the bull and with that money purchase another bull as an offering in its stead. If he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money instead of one. If one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring one bull with their redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls.

讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

In a case where one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. In a case where one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with redemption money from another type of animal.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 砖讜专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讘诪谞讛 诇讗 讬爪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering and it became blemished, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause, i.e., in the previous mishna (107b), that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars as a burnt offering or peace offering, and he brought two bulls with a combined value of one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled his obligation? If so, why does the mishna here teach that one may bring two bulls with the redemption money of one bull?

砖讜专 讝讛 讜谞住转讗讘 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers that these two cases are not comparable. The previous mishna was referring to a case where one vowed to bring a bull worth one hundred dinars, without referring to a specific bull. Therefore, he is obligated to fulfill the specific conditions of his vow. By contrast, this mishna is referring to a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and therefore, if the bull becomes blemished and disqualified as an offering the halakha is different. Since he was only ever obligated to sacrifice this bull, and is no longer able to sacrifice it, he is no longer obligated by his vow, and may bring any number of offerings with its value.

砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬谉 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘讜 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The mishna teaches that if one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring with the money of their redemption one bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring only one bull?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讘讬讗 拽讟谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞住转讗讘 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 砖专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Because it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a large bull and he brought a small bull, in which case he has not fulfilled his vow. Similarly, in this case, he vowed to bring two bulls and brought only one. And although he is not actually obligated to bring two bulls, as the bulls that he consecrated became blemished and he needs only to bring an offering with their redemption money, nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not permit bringing two bulls instead of one ab initio.

讜诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree in the first clause of the mishna as well, which states that if one consecrated a specific bull as a burnt offering and it subsequently became blemished, he may purchase two bulls with its redemption money. There, too, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should prohibit bringing two bulls ab initio, as it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a small bull and brought a large one, in which case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

专讘讬 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 驻诇讬讙 讜谞讟专 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住拽讬 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 诪讬驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with this entire matter, both in the first and latter clauses of the mishna; but he waited until the Rabbis had completed their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to both cases.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 诇注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Know that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the statement of the Rabbis in the first clause of the mishna as well, as the mishna teaches that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. In a case where one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal, even if he wishes to bring a ram with the redemption money of a lamb. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the Rabbis even in a case where one consecrated a small animal and wishes to bring a large animal with its redemption money. Conclude from it that he also disagrees in a case where one vowed to bring a certain animal which subsequently became blemished; the person may not bring two animals with the redemption money.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诪讬谞讗 诇诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the Rabbis, what is the halakha with regard to one who wishes to use the redemption money from an animal of one species which became blemished to purchase a different species of animal? For example, if one vowed to bring a bull which subsequently became blemished, may he bring rams with its value instead?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讗讘诇 诪讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a baraita: If one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may not bring a ram with its redemption money, as a ram is not worth as much as a bull. But he may bring two rams with its redemption money, if together they are equal in value to the bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, the reason being that one must bring two meal offerings to accompany his two rams. These meal offerings must be brought in two vessels, because there is no mixing permitted. Accordingly, bringing two offerings runs counter to the person鈥檚 vow, which involved bringing only one meal offering. Conclude from this baraita that according to the Rabbis it is permitted to use the redemption money from one species of animal to purchase a different species.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讘谞住转讗讘 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: If so, if the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a different species of animal, why does the baraita specifically state that one may bring two rams in place of a bull? The same halakha would apply even for one ram, as although one ram is smaller than one bull, in a case where the animal became blemished, according to the Rabbis, there is no difference whether one brings a large animal or a small animal. If one vowed to bring a ram he may bring a lamb instead, so why not a ram in place of a bull?

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. The tanna of the mishna holds that the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal that became blemished. The tanna of the baraita holds that the Rabbis do not deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal.

专讘讬 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讛讗 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 砖专讬

The baraita states: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring two rams with the redemption money of a bull, because there is no mixing. The Gemara infers: The reason that he deems it prohibited is because there is no mixing. But had there been mixing, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it would be permitted.

讜讛转谞谉 讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. If one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits any kind of divergence from the animal that was consecrated, regardless of whether mixing is permitted.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna of the baraita holds that Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited to switch to a different type of animal only if it affects the accompanying meal offering, whereas the tanna of the mishna holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems any kind of change prohibited.

讜讘讟讛讜专讬诐 注讙诇 讜讛讘讬讗 驻专 讻讘砖 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讬诇 讬爪讗 住转诪讗 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara cites the latter clause of the baraita: All of the cases in the mishna and baraita are referring to a case where the animal became blemished; and with regard to pure animals, i.e., those that are not blemished, if one vowed to bring a calf and brought a bull instead, or he vowed to bring a lamb and brought a ram instead, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara explains that the unattributed last clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would disagree in this case as well.

专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬诐 [讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜拽讘注

搂 The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it became blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, not two.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇讬 诇讛讘讬讗讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara challenges Rav鈥檚 opinion: But perhaps when he said: This bull is incumbent upon me, he meant: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as an offering, but he did not intend to accept responsibility in case it becomes blemished.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 讜讚诪讬讜 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜拽讘注

Rather, if it was stated that there is a case where one is responsible if the animal becomes blemished, it was stated as follows: Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, or he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull and its value are incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it becomes blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, and not two.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讻讘砖讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 砖诇砖讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬 砖讘讛诐 讛拽讚砖 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 砖驻讬专砖转讬 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: One of my lambs is consecrated, or: One of my bulls is consecrated, and he has two lambs or bulls, the larger of them is consecrated. If he has three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. If one says: I specified the lamb or bull that is to be consecrated but I do not know what animal I specified in my vow, or he says that: My father said to me before his death that he consecrated one of the lambs or the bulls, but I do not know what animal he consecrated, the largest of them is consecrated.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 讗诇诪讗 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that if one says: One of my lambs is consecrated, and he has two lambs, the larger one is consecrated. The Gemara infers: Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates generously. But say the latter clause of the mishna: If he has three lambs, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly. How can this contradiction be resolved?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗祝 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬 讚诇讙讘讬 拽讟谉 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗

Shmuel said: The presumption is that one who consecrates, consecrates generously. When the latter clause of the mishna states that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, it does not mean that only the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rather, the larger animal is consecrated, and additionally we are concerned, i.e., we must take in consideration the possibility, that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, as compared to consecrating the small animal, consecrating the middle-sized animal is generous. Therefore, the vow could have been referring to either the large animal or the middle-sized animal.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪诪转讬谉 诇讜 注讚 砖讬讜诪诐 讜诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讘讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: How should he act? He consecrated only one of them, and it is uncertain which animal should be sacrificed. Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav said: He should wait until the middle-sized animal becomes blemished and then desacralize it by transferring its sanctity onto the large animal, which is then sacrificed on the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讘砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 转讜专讗 讘转讜专讗讬 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches that if one had three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The Sages taught that the middle-sized animal is consecrated only when he said: One of my bulls is hereby consecrated. But if he said: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, only the largest of them is consecrated. It is as if he said: The most valuable bull from among my bulls [tora betorai] is consecrated.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬转 讘讘讬转讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪专讗讛讜 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙专讬注 诇讗 诪注讜诇讛 砖讘讘转讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that Rabbi 岣yya said in the name of Ulla: One who says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, can show him an loft [aliyya], since he did not specify which house he is selling? Is this not because the loft is the worst of his houses? If so, when one says: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, he is presumably referring to the least valuable of his bulls. The Gemara answers: No, Ulla did not say that the seller gives the purchaser a loft, but rather the best [me鈥檜la] of his houses.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讜专 讘砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讻谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻讜诇诐 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 注讜诇讜转 讜讚诪讬讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one said: A bull from among my bulls is consecrated, or similarly if a consecrated bull became mixed with other non-consecrated bulls, the largest of them is consecrated, and all of the other bulls must be sold to people who vowed to bring burnt offerings, for the purpose of bringing them as burnt offerings, since it is uncertain which one of them was consecrated, and the payment for them is non-sacred. Evidently, if one says: I hereby consecrate a bull from among my bulls, all of his bulls have uncertain consecrated status.

转专讙讜诪讗 讗砖讜专 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽讗诪专 转专讙讜诪讗 讗讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Interpret this as referring only to a consecrated bull that became mixed with others. The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita say: And similarly, indicating that this halakha applies to both cases? The Gemara answers: Interpret it as referring to the halakha that the largest of the bulls is consecrated. That halakha does apply to both cases, but the halakha that the rest of the bulls have uncertain consecrated status applies only to the latter case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讬转 讘讘讬转讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜谞驻诇 诪专讗讛讜 谞驻讜诇 注讘讚 讘注讘讚讬讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜诪转 诪专讗讛讜 诪转

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, and one of the houses subsequently fell, he can show him the fallen house, and say to him: This is the one I sold you. Similarly, if one says to another: I sell you a slave from among my slaves, and one of the slaves dies, he can show him the dead slave and say: This is the slave I sold you.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 108

讜讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜讛砖注讬专讬诐 讜讛诪讜转专讜转 讜讛诪注讛

And one was for the value of the lambs brought as a nazirite鈥檚 or a leper鈥檚 guilt offering. And one was for the value of the goats brought as communal sin offerings on Festivals. And one was for the surplus coins of one who designated money to purchase one of those offerings and had money left over after purchasing the animal. And one was for the additional silver ma鈥檃 paid as a premium in a case when two people brought their half-shekel jointly as one shekel.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻讞讝拽讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讗谞爪讜讬讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讬讜诪讬讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚

After citing these four opinions, the Gemara explains: All of the other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of 岣zkiyya that the six collection horns are to prevent quarrels between the families of priests, as they hold that we are not concerned about quarreling between the priests. There is no reason for them to fight, as each and every family serves on its own day and receives the hides of the animals sacrificed on that day.

讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讗讬注驻讜砖讬 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan that the six horns are to prevent the coins from decaying, as we are not concerned that the coins will decay.

讻讝注讬专讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻讬讞讬讚讗讛 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬

The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Ze鈥檈iri that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because we do not interpret a mishna in accordance with an individual opinion against the majority opinion.

讻讘专 驻讚讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讜转专讜转 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 诪讜转专讜转

The other Sages also do not say in accordance with the explanation of bar Padda that the six collection horns were for the value of bulls, rams, lambs, and goats that had been lost, for the surplus coins left over after purchasing an offering, and for the ma鈥檃 paid as a premium in addition to the half-shekel of two people. This is because they hold that there is no reason to differentiate between the surplus and the value of specific animals, as all of the animals that were lost and another offered in their place are also surplus, and their value is surplus after the replacement offering was purchased.

诪注讛 谞诪讬 诇砖拽诇讬诐 讗讝诇讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讛讬讻谉 拽诇讘讜谉 讝讛 讛讜诇讱 诇砖拽诇讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇谞讚讘讛

The other Sages also do not agree with bar Padda鈥檚 explanation that the sixth collection horn was for the ma鈥檃, because they hold that the ma鈥檃 goes toward the same purpose as the regular shekels, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the ma鈥檃: Where would this premium [kalbon] go, i.e., what was done with it? It would be added to the shekels themselves, which would be used to buy the daily and additional offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer says: It would be used for communal gift offerings.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara cites two additional explanations for the purpose of the six collection horns. And Shmuel says: These six horns correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing six offerings, namely: The surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite鈥檚 guilt offering, brought if he comes into contact with a corpse during his term of naziriteship; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper鈥檚 guilt offering, brought as part of his purification process; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诪专 讻谞讙讚 诪讜转专 讞讟讗转 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜诪讜转专 讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

And Rabbi Oshaya says that there is a different explanation for the six collection horns: They correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite鈥檚 guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper鈥檚 guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after the purchase of pairs of doves or pigeons by women after childbirth, by zavim as part of their purification process, and others; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 拽讬谞讬谉 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Shmuel does not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya that one of the collection horns was for the surplus coins left over after purchasing pairs of birds? The Gemara answers: A collection horn for coins for pairs of birds is already taught in the first clause of the mishna in tractate Shekalim (18a), among the list of seven collection horns that served purposes other than the communal gift offerings.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 转谞讬 讜诇讗 转谞讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讜转谞讬 拽讬谞讬谉 讞讚 诇拽讬谞讬谉 讜讞讚 诇诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬谉

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna without teaching that one of the collection horns was for pairs of birds? Does he have a different version of the mishna? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna explicitly, teaching in his version of the mishna that there was a collection horn for pairs of birds? The Gemara answers that one of the collection horns was for coins designated for purchasing pairs of birds, and one collection horn was for the surplus coins remaining after purchasing pairs of birds.

讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 砖诇 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪讜转专 诪谞讞讛 讬专拽讘

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Oshaya does not say in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers that he holds like the one who says that the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are not used to purchase other offerings but are left to rot; as it is taught in a baraita: The surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering are left to rot.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 谞讚讘讛 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘

The Gemara clarifies the opaque wording: What is the baraita saying? Rav 岣sda said that this is what the baraita is saying: The surplus coins left over from the purchase of a meal offering of a sinner are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.

专讘讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讬专拽讘

Rabba offered an alternative interpretation of the baraita and said: Even the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are also used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. Rather, the surplus coins left over from purchasing the loaves accompanying a thanks offering are left to rot.

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讬专拽讘

The Gemara points out that the opinions of Rav 岣sda and Rabba correspond to opinions raised in the dispute among earlier amora鈥檌m, as with regard to the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that they are used to buy a communal gift offering, while Rabbi Elazar says that they must be left to rot.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讜转专 砖拽诇讬诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讜诪讜转专 拽讬谞讬 讝讘讬谉 讜拽讬谞讬 讝讘讜转 讜拽讬谞讬 讬讜诇讚讜转 讜讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诪讜转 诪讜转专讬讛谉 谞讚讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a mishna (Shekalim 6b): The surplus coins that had been designated for shekels are non-sacred property; but with regard to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah meal offering, and the surplus money that had been designated to purchase offerings that are brought due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as the pairs of birds of zavim, the pairs of birds of zavot, the pairs of birds of women after childbirth, and sin offerings, and guilt offerings, in these cases, the surplus coins must be used for a communal gift offering.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

The Gemara explains the objection: What is the meaning of the phrase: The tenth of an ephah meal offering? Is it not referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the High Priest鈥檚 tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering?

诇讗 诪讜转专 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of a sinner, which is also brought from a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11).

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪住转讘专讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜转专 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讬专拽讘

Rav Na岣an bar Rav Yitz岣k said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of the one who said: The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讬诐 注诇讬讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讬转谉 注诇讬讛 诇讘谞讛 讻讬 讞讟讗转 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 诇讬诪讚 注诇 注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 讜讟注讜谞讛 诇讘讜谞讛

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a sinner鈥檚 meal offering: The verse states: 鈥淏ut if his means are not sufficient for two doves or two pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:11). Rabbi Yehuda said that the phrase 鈥渋t is a sin offering鈥 is interpreted as a restriction: It is called a sin offering, and no other meal offering is called a sin offering. This taught that with regard to the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, it is not called a sin offering, and consequently it requires frankincense.

讜诪讚讗讬谞讛 拽专讜讬讛 讞讟讗转 诪讜转专讛 讬专拽讘

Rav Na岣an inferred: And since it is not called a sin offering, its surplus coins should not be used to buy communal gift offerings like the surplus coins of sin offerings; rather, they should be left to rot.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬诐 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘讜 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently it became blemished [venista鈥檈v] and was disqualified from sacrifice, he should redeem the bull and with that money purchase another bull as an offering in its stead. If he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money instead of one. If one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring one bull with their redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls.

讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讗诐 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

In a case where one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. In a case where one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with redemption money from another type of animal.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 讗诪专转 专讬砖讗 砖讜专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗 砖谞讬诐 讘诪谞讛 诇讗 讬爪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering and it became blemished, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the first clause, i.e., in the previous mishna (107b), that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars as a burnt offering or peace offering, and he brought two bulls with a combined value of one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled his obligation? If so, why does the mishna here teach that one may bring two bulls with the redemption money of one bull?

砖讜专 讝讛 讜谞住转讗讘 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers that these two cases are not comparable. The previous mishna was referring to a case where one vowed to bring a bull worth one hundred dinars, without referring to a specific bull. Therefore, he is obligated to fulfill the specific conditions of his vow. By contrast, this mishna is referring to a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and therefore, if the bull becomes blemished and disqualified as an offering the halakha is different. Since he was only ever obligated to sacrifice this bull, and is no longer able to sacrifice it, he is no longer obligated by his vow, and may bring any number of offerings with its value.

砖谞讬 砖讜讜专讬谉 讗诇讜 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘讜 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉 讗讞讚 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The mishna teaches that if one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring with the money of their redemption one bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring only one bull?

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讘讬讗 拽讟谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞住转讗讘 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 砖专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Because it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a large bull and he brought a small bull, in which case he has not fulfilled his vow. Similarly, in this case, he vowed to bring two bulls and brought only one. And although he is not actually obligated to bring two bulls, as the bulls that he consecrated became blemished and he needs only to bring an offering with their redemption money, nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not permit bringing two bulls instead of one ab initio.

讜诇驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 讘专讬砖讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree in the first clause of the mishna as well, which states that if one consecrated a specific bull as a burnt offering and it subsequently became blemished, he may purchase two bulls with its redemption money. There, too, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should prohibit bringing two bulls ab initio, as it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a small bull and brought a large one, in which case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

专讘讬 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 驻诇讬讙 讜谞讟专 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讚诪住拽讬 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讜讛讚专 诪讬驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with this entire matter, both in the first and latter clauses of the mishna; but he waited until the Rabbis had completed their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to both cases.

转讚注 讚拽转谞讬 讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 诇注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Know that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the statement of the Rabbis in the first clause of the mishna as well, as the mishna teaches that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. In a case where one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal, even if he wishes to bring a ram with the redemption money of a lamb. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the Rabbis even in a case where one consecrated a small animal and wishes to bring a large animal with its redemption money. Conclude from it that he also disagrees in a case where one vowed to bring a certain animal which subsequently became blemished; the person may not bring two animals with the redemption money.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪诪讬谞讗 诇诪讬谞讗 诪讗讬

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the Rabbis, what is the halakha with regard to one who wishes to use the redemption money from an animal of one species which became blemished to purchase a different species of animal? For example, if one vowed to bring a bull which subsequently became blemished, may he bring rams with its value instead?

转讗 砖诪注 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讗讘诇 诪讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬 讗讬诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a baraita: If one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may not bring a ram with its redemption money, as a ram is not worth as much as a bull. But he may bring two rams with its redemption money, if together they are equal in value to the bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, the reason being that one must bring two meal offerings to accompany his two rams. These meal offerings must be brought in two vessels, because there is no mixing permitted. Accordingly, bringing two offerings runs counter to the person鈥檚 vow, which involved bringing only one meal offering. Conclude from this baraita that according to the Rabbis it is permitted to use the redemption money from one species of animal to purchase a different species.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 转专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讚 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 讘谞住转讗讘 诇专讘谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讬 诇讛讜 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: If so, if the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a different species of animal, why does the baraita specifically state that one may bring two rams in place of a bull? The same halakha would apply even for one ram, as although one ram is smaller than one bull, in a case where the animal became blemished, according to the Rabbis, there is no difference whether one brings a large animal or a small animal. If one vowed to bring a ram he may bring a lamb instead, so why not a ram in place of a bull?

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. The tanna of the mishna holds that the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal that became blemished. The tanna of the baraita holds that the Rabbis do not deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal.

专讘讬 讗讜住专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 讛讗 讬砖 讘讬诇讛 砖专讬

The baraita states: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring two rams with the redemption money of a bull, because there is no mixing. The Gemara infers: The reason that he deems it prohibited is because there is no mixing. But had there been mixing, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it would be permitted.

讜讛转谞谉 讗讬诇 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讻讘砖 讻讘砖 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讜谞住转讗讘 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 讗讬诇 讜专讘讬 讗讜住专

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. If one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits any kind of divergence from the animal that was consecrated, regardless of whether mixing is permitted.

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna of the baraita holds that Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited to switch to a different type of animal only if it affects the accompanying meal offering, whereas the tanna of the mishna holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems any kind of change prohibited.

讜讘讟讛讜专讬诐 注讙诇 讜讛讘讬讗 驻专 讻讘砖 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讬诇 讬爪讗 住转诪讗 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara cites the latter clause of the baraita: All of the cases in the mishna and baraita are referring to a case where the animal became blemished; and with regard to pure animals, i.e., those that are not blemished, if one vowed to bring a calf and brought a bull instead, or he vowed to bring a lamb and brought a ram instead, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara explains that the unattributed last clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would disagree in this case as well.

专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 砖谞讬诐 [讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜拽讘注

搂 The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it became blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, not two.

讜讚诇诪讗 注诇讬 诇讛讘讬讗讜 拽讗诪专

The Gemara challenges Rav鈥檚 opinion: But perhaps when he said: This bull is incumbent upon me, he meant: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as an offering, but he did not intend to accept responsibility in case it becomes blemished.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 讘专 讝讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注讜诇讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讝讛 讜讚诪讬讜 注诇讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜拽讘注

Rather, if it was stated that there is a case where one is responsible if the animal becomes blemished, it was stated as follows: Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, or he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull and its value are incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it becomes blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, and not two.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诪讻讘砖讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 砖诇砖讛 讘讬谞讜谞讬 砖讘讛诐 讛拽讚砖 驻讬专砖转讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 砖驻讬专砖转讬 讗讜 砖讗诪专 诇讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: One of my lambs is consecrated, or: One of my bulls is consecrated, and he has two lambs or bulls, the larger of them is consecrated. If he has three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. If one says: I specified the lamb or bull that is to be consecrated but I do not know what animal I specified in my vow, or he says that: My father said to me before his death that he consecrated one of the lambs or the bulls, but I do not know what animal he consecrated, the largest of them is consecrated.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 诪拽讚讬砖 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讘讬谞讜谞讬 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 讗诇诪讗 诪拽讚讬砖 讘注讬谉 专注讛 诪拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that if one says: One of my lambs is consecrated, and he has two lambs, the larger one is consecrated. The Gemara infers: Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates generously. But say the latter clause of the mishna: If he has three lambs, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly. How can this contradiction be resolved?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讜砖砖讬谉 讗祝 诇讘讬谞讜谞讬 讚诇讙讘讬 拽讟谉 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗

Shmuel said: The presumption is that one who consecrates, consecrates generously. When the latter clause of the mishna states that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, it does not mean that only the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rather, the larger animal is consecrated, and additionally we are concerned, i.e., we must take in consideration the possibility, that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, as compared to consecrating the small animal, consecrating the middle-sized animal is generous. Therefore, the vow could have been referring to either the large animal or the middle-sized animal.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诪诪转讬谉 诇讜 注讚 砖讬讜诪诐 讜诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 诇拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讘讙讚讜诇

The Gemara asks: How should he act? He consecrated only one of them, and it is uncertain which animal should be sacrificed. Rabbi 岣yya bar Rav said: He should wait until the middle-sized animal becomes blemished and then desacralize it by transferring its sanctity onto the large animal, which is then sacrificed on the altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讗诪专 砖讜专 讘砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 转讜专讗 讘转讜专讗讬 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches that if one had three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The Sages taught that the middle-sized animal is consecrated only when he said: One of my bulls is hereby consecrated. But if he said: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, only the largest of them is consecrated. It is as if he said: The most valuable bull from among my bulls [tora betorai] is consecrated.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚注讜诇讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬转 讘讘讬转讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 诪专讗讛讜 注诇讬讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙专讬注 诇讗 诪注讜诇讛 砖讘讘转讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Huna say that Rabbi 岣yya said in the name of Ulla: One who says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, can show him an loft [aliyya], since he did not specify which house he is selling? Is this not because the loft is the worst of his houses? If so, when one says: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, he is presumably referring to the least valuable of his bulls. The Gemara answers: No, Ulla did not say that the seller gives the purchaser a loft, but rather the best [me鈥檜la] of his houses.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖讜专 讘砖讜讜专讬 讛拽讚砖 讜讻谉 砖讜专 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 砖讘讛谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻讜诇诐 讬诪讻专讜 诇爪专讻讬 注讜诇讜转 讜讚诪讬讛谉 讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one said: A bull from among my bulls is consecrated, or similarly if a consecrated bull became mixed with other non-consecrated bulls, the largest of them is consecrated, and all of the other bulls must be sold to people who vowed to bring burnt offerings, for the purpose of bringing them as burnt offerings, since it is uncertain which one of them was consecrated, and the payment for them is non-sacred. Evidently, if one says: I hereby consecrate a bull from among my bulls, all of his bulls have uncertain consecrated status.

转专讙讜诪讗 讗砖讜专 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 砖谞转注专讘 讘讗讞专讬诐 讜讛讗 讜讻谉 拽讗诪专 转专讙讜诪讗 讗讙讚讜诇

The Gemara answers: Interpret this as referring only to a consecrated bull that became mixed with others. The Gemara challenges: But doesn鈥檛 the baraita say: And similarly, indicating that this halakha applies to both cases? The Gemara answers: Interpret it as referring to the halakha that the largest of the bulls is consecrated. That halakha does apply to both cases, but the halakha that the rest of the bulls have uncertain consecrated status applies only to the latter case.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讬转 讘讘讬转讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜谞驻诇 诪专讗讛讜 谞驻讜诇 注讘讚 讘注讘讚讬讬 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讜诪转 诪专讗讛讜 诪转

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, and one of the houses subsequently fell, he can show him the fallen house, and say to him: This is the one I sold you. Similarly, if one says to another: I sell you a slave from among my slaves, and one of the slaves dies, he can show him the dead slave and say: This is the slave I sold you.

Scroll To Top