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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 30, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 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 81

Several suggestions are brought to try to find a resolution to a problem that Rabbi Chiya raised- a situation in which a toda and its聽tmura got mixed up and one died. No resolution is found. Another issue is raised regarding the wording used for one’s commitment to bring a toda聽and/or its bread (several different wordings are brought) and how that wording is interpreted.


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

讜讻讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 转讞诇讛 诇诪讜转专讜转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains why: And does one separate an animal as a leftover ab initio?

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讛讜讬 转诪讜专讛

The Gemara suggests another solution: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: And let him bring another animal with loaves and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this be the thanks offering and these its loaves. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves and this will be a substitute, as the substitute of a thanks offering is not sacrificed with loaves, and it may be consumed for the same duration as the thanks offering itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞讬 诪专讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讘讻转驻讬讛 讜讻砖专

Rav Na岣an said to him: Answer me, my Master: The halakha is that one who separates a substitute is liable to receive forty lashes on his shoulders, and yet you say it is fit to separate a substitute ab initio?

专讘 注讬诇讗 讞诇砖 注诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讬讬转讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讜转讘讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara relates that Rav Ila took ill, and Abaye and the Sages went to visit him, and they were sitting and saying: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If the loaves of the thanks offering were within Jerusalem, i.e., the area of consumption of a thanks offering and its loaves, even if they were outside the wall of the Temple courtyard when the thanks offering was slaughtered they are consecrated, then let the owner bring loaves and set them outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves, and if it is not, let them go out and be consumed as non-sacred loaves.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 诇讛谞讬祝 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讻转讬讘 讙讜讜讗讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara responds: This too is not a valid remedy, because there are four loaves of the forty that one must wave. How would he perform the mitzva of waving them? Shall he wave them outside the Temple courtyard? He may not, since 鈥渨aved for a wave offering before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30) is written in the verse, and waving performed outside the Temple courtyard is not considered 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Shall he wave them inside the Temple courtyard? He will have brought non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is not possible.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜诇讬拽讚砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: If one accepts the ruling of 岣zkiyya, who said with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, then let the owner bring an animal and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this additional animal should also be a thanks offering and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this additional animal be a thanks offering and these shall be its loaves, and let forty of the eighty be consecrated for it.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗专讘注讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid remedy, because it reduces the consumption of the forty additional loaves, as the priests may not be able to consume the four loaves given from the additional forty, and the owner cannot consume them because they may be the portion of the priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 专爪讛 讘讛 诪转讻驻专 专爪讛 讘讜讜诇讚讛 诪转讻驻专 诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转诇讚 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 讜讜诇讚讛 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If one separated a pregnant animal as a sin offering and it gave birth, if he wants he can achieve atonement with it, and if he wants he can achieve atonement with its offspring; then let the owner bring a pregnant animal and wait until it gives birth, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then this and its offspring are thanks offerings, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this mother should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them, and let this offspring be the leftover of the thanks offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖

Rav Kahana said to him: Who shall say to us that the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan is that he said that the offspring is considered the property of the one who dedicated the pregnant mother, such that if he reserved it for a specific consecration it is considered reserved for that consecration? Perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that if he reserved it, it is not considered reserved, and this is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one can achieve atonement with the offspring of a pregnant animal separated as a sin offering, as he said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, such as the offspring of an animal that was consecrated when pregnant.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讚诪讛讜专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚诪讛讜专讬讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 注诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 转讛讜讬 诇讗讞专讬讜转

Ravina happened to come to Dimhorya. Rav Dimi, son of Rav Huna from Dimhorya, said to Ravina: And let the owner bring an animal and say: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal for a thanks offering, and let him separate this animal in fulfillment of his vow, and then let him bring another animal, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then these two additional animals are thanks offerings and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this one for which I said: It is incumbent upon me, should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves are for both of them, and let the other animal be for a guarantee, to be sacrificed if my thanks offering gets lost, and it does not require loaves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讟讜讘 讗砖专 诇讗 转讚专 诪砖转讚讜专 讜诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬谞讚讜专 讘转讞讬诇讛

Ravina said to him: The Torah said: 鈥淏etter is it that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay鈥 (Ecclesiastes 5:4), and you say: Let him rise up and vow ab initio? Taking a vow to bring an offering is not encouraged. As all possible remedies have been rejected, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, that there is no remedy in a case where a thanks offering and its substitute were intermingled and one of them died, stands.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering, must bring it and its loaves from non-sacred money in his possession and not second-tithe money. Since he said: It is incumbent upon me, bringing the offering is an obligation, and one may not fulfill an obligation with second-tithe money.

转讜讚讛 注诇讬 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, he must bring the thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money. If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, he may bring it in that manner. Likewise, if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves from second-tithe money, he may bring it in that manner. And he may not bring the loaves from second-tithe wheat; rather, he purchases the flour with second-tithe money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚诇讞诐 讘诇讗 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬讘 讜讛讗讬 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 住讜祝 诪讬诇转讗 谞拽讟

GEMARA: With regard to the various ways in which one can take a vow to bring a thanks offering and its loaves, Rav Huna says: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves, even though he did not expressly take upon himself the obligation to bring the thanks offering itself. What is the reason? This man knows that loaves are not brought without a thanks offering, and by stating the vow in this manner, he was effectively saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves. And the reason he stated his vow in this manner, namely, by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, was that he was citing the end of the matter, as the sacrifice of a thanks offering is completed with the bringing of the loaves.

转谞谉 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讚专 讜讗诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the statement of Rav Huna from that which we learned in the mishna: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, he may bring it as he vowed. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Huna that one who takes a vow to bring the loaves of a thanks offering intends to bring the thanks offering as well, why does the mishna state that he may bring the thanks offering from second-tithe money? Since he said: Its loaves from non-sacred money, he should bring a thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诐 诇驻讟讜专 转讜讚转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara responds: It is different there, in the case of the mishna, as since he said initially: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money, and then said: And its loaves from non-sacred money, he is considered as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so. His vow to bring the loaves is not considered a new vow, but rather as a vow to bring loaves for the specific offering he vowed to bring.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 诇驻讟讜专 诇讞诪讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, then he must bring the thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money, here too let it be said that he is considered as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering to exempt the loaves of so-and-so, and he therefore should bring a thanks offering from second tithe. His initial vow to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money should not include the bringing of the loaves.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞诐 诇诪讬驻讟专 转讜讚讛 讗转讬 转讜讚讛 诇诪讬驻讟专 诇讞诐 诪讬 讗转讬讗

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, it can be said that he intends that the loaves should be brought to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring a thanks offering, because loaves come to exempt the thanks offering. But in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, it cannot be said that the thanks offering is meant to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, as does a thanks offering come to exempt the loaves?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讜讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the statement of Rav Huna that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves. Come and hear a proof from a baraita that contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna: In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering without loaves, or an animal offering without libations, the court coerces him, and he brings a thanks offering with its loaves, or an offering with its libations.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 转讜讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that he is coerced to bring a thanks offering with its loaves is that he said that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering. But if he did not say that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering, but instead said that it is incumbent upon himself to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, he would not be coerced to bring a thanks offering with the loaves, in contradiction to the opinion of Rav Huna.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘诇讗 讝讘讞 转谞讗 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, the same is true even if he did not say that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering, but said only: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaves. And this is the reason that the tanna of the baraita mentions specifically the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring a thanks offering without loaves: Since the tanna wants to teach the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring an animal offering without libations, concerning which he could not teach a case where one renders himself obligated to bring libations without an offering, because, unlike the loaves of a thanks offering, libations are in fact brought on their own and one can take a vow to bring them on their own, he therefore also taught the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring a thanks offering.

讗诪讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara addresses the actual statement of the baraita and asks: Why is he coerced to bring a thanks offering and its loaves? Isn鈥檛 this an instance of a vow with its inherent opening? That is, the vow should be dissolved entirely on the grounds that the one who took the vow may claim that he thought it was possible to bring a thanks offering without loaves, and now that he has been made aware that he cannot, he regrets taking the vow.

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

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

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

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and the ruling of the baraita is with regard to one who says: Had I known that one does not vow in this manner, i.e., to bring a thanks offering without loaves or an animal offering without libations, I would not have vowed in this manner but in that manner, i.e., I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves. There is therefore no opening for a dissolution. And what does the baraita mean when it states that the court coerces him? Why would he require coercion if he says that he would have willingly taken the proper vow? The baraita is referring to a case where, despite the fact that he would have taken the proper vow initially, he now wants to retract his vow altogether.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讜讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖诪专 讜砖诪注转

The Gemara cites a baraita in support of the response of 岣zkiyya: Come and hear: In a case involving one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering without loaves, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal offering without libations, and the Sages said to him: Bring a thanks offering with its loaves, or: Bring an animal offering with its libations, and he says: Had I known that such is the requirement I would not have vowed at all; the halakha is that the court coerces him, and says to him: 鈥淥bserve and hear鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:28).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讝拽讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: Granted, this works out well according to 岣zkiyya, who says that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one attends only to the first statement, since this baraita can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the baraita discusses a case where the person who took the vow says: Had I known that one does not vow in this manner I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves, this baraita presents a difficulty, as although the individual claims that he would not have taken any vow, he must still bring a thanks offering and its loaves. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: This latter baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, but the previous baraita may still be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪讗讬 砖诪专 讜砖诪注转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪专 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜砖诪注转 讛讘讗 诇讞诪讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪专 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜砖诪注转 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专讙讬诇 诇注砖讜转 讻谉

The Gemara turns to analyze the baraita itself: What is the relevance of the phrase in the verse that says: 鈥淥bserve and hear,鈥 to one who vows to bring a thanks offering without its loaves? Abaye says: 鈥淥bserve鈥 means: Bring a thanks offering; 鈥渁nd hear鈥 means: Bring its loaves. Rava says: 鈥淥bserve鈥 means: Bring a thanks offering and its loaves; 鈥渁nd hear鈥 means that you should not act in this manner regularly.

转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专讬 专爪讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讗 专爪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one states: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves from second-tithe money, he shall bring it in that manner. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna teach: He shall bring, which suggests that he must bring the thanks offering and loaves from second-tithe money? Is it not sufficient to fulfill his vow even if he does not bring it from second-tithe money but from non-sacred money? In fact, it is preferable that he bring the offering from non-sacred money. Rav Na岣an and Rav 岣sda say: The mishna does not mean that he must bring it specifically from second-tithe money; rather, if he wants, he brings it from second-tithe money, and if he does not want, he does not need to bring it from second-tithe money.

讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讬讘讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And he may not bring the loaves from second-tithe wheat; rather, he purchases the flour with second-tithe money. With regard to this, Rav Na岣an and Rav 岣sda both say: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased with second-tithe money.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讬讘讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讱 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讱 转讜讚讛 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬诇驻转 诇讛 诪砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My teacher, do you say so? I say that he may not bring the loaves even from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. And I will say my reasoning and I will say your reasoning. I will say your reasoning first: From where do you derive that the loaves of a thanks offering may be brought from wheat purchased with second-tithe money? You derive it from the halakha of a peace offering. A thanks offering is a type of peace offering, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks鈥 (Leviticus 7:15), and a peace offering may be brought from second-tithe money.

  • 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 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 81

讜讻讬 诪驻专讬砖讬谉 转讞诇讛 诇诪讜转专讜转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains why: And does one separate an animal as a leftover ab initio?

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讛讜讬 转诪讜专讛

The Gemara suggests another solution: Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Na岣an, and he was sitting and saying: And let him bring another animal with loaves and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this be the thanks offering and these its loaves. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves and this will be a substitute, as the substitute of a thanks offering is not sacrificed with loaves, and it may be consumed for the same duration as the thanks offering itself.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 注谞讬 诪专讬 讗专讘注讬谉 讘讻转驻讬讛 讜讻砖专

Rav Na岣an said to him: Answer me, my Master: The halakha is that one who separates a substitute is liable to receive forty lashes on his shoulders, and yet you say it is fit to separate a substitute ab initio?

专讘 注讬诇讗 讞诇砖 注诇 诇讙讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘谞谉 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗 讗诪专讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讬讬转讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讜转讘讛 讞讜抓 诇讞讜诪转 讛注讝专讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara relates that Rav Ila took ill, and Abaye and the Sages went to visit him, and they were sitting and saying: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If the loaves of the thanks offering were within Jerusalem, i.e., the area of consumption of a thanks offering and its loaves, even if they were outside the wall of the Temple courtyard when the thanks offering was slaughtered they are consecrated, then let the owner bring loaves and set them outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves, and if it is not, let them go out and be consumed as non-sacred loaves.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讗专讘注 诇讛谞讬祝 讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 诇谞驻讬谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讻转讬讘 讙讜讜讗讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讛诇讻讱 诇讗 讗驻砖专

The Gemara responds: This too is not a valid remedy, because there are four loaves of the forty that one must wave. How would he perform the mitzva of waving them? Shall he wave them outside the Temple courtyard? He may not, since 鈥渨aved for a wave offering before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 7:30) is written in the verse, and waving performed outside the Temple courtyard is not considered 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 Shall he wave them inside the Temple courtyard? He will have brought non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is not possible.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜诇讬拽讚砖讜 诇讛讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: If one accepts the ruling of 岣zkiyya, who said with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, then let the owner bring an animal and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this additional animal should also be a thanks offering and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this additional animal be a thanks offering and these shall be its loaves, and let forty of the eighty be consecrated for it.

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚讗专讘注讬诐

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid remedy, because it reduces the consumption of the forty additional loaves, as the priests may not be able to consume the four loaves given from the additional forty, and the owner cannot consume them because they may be the portion of the priest.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诇讚讛 专爪讛 讘讛 诪转讻驻专 专爪讛 讘讜讜诇讚讛 诪转讻驻专 诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讬诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 砖转诇讚 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 讜讜诇讚讛 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: If one separated a pregnant animal as a sin offering and it gave birth, if he wants he can achieve atonement with it, and if he wants he can achieve atonement with its offspring; then let the owner bring a pregnant animal and wait until it gives birth, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then this and its offspring are thanks offerings, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this mother should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them, and let this offspring be the leftover of the thanks offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗诐 砖讬讬专讜 讗讬谞讜 诪砖讜讬讬专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖

Rav Kahana said to him: Who shall say to us that the reasoning of Rabbi Yo岣nan is that he said that the offspring is considered the property of the one who dedicated the pregnant mother, such that if he reserved it for a specific consecration it is considered reserved for that consecration? Perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that if he reserved it, it is not considered reserved, and this is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one can achieve atonement with the offspring of a pregnant animal separated as a sin offering, as he said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, such as the offspring of an animal that was consecrated when pregnant.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讚诪讛讜专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讚诪讛讜专讬讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讛专讬 注诇讬 讜诇讬讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬转讬 讜诇讬讬转讬 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讘讛讚讛 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 转讜讚讜转 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讗 讚讗诪专讬 注诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 转讛讜讬 诇讗讞专讬讜转

Ravina happened to come to Dimhorya. Rav Dimi, son of Rav Huna from Dimhorya, said to Ravina: And let the owner bring an animal and say: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal for a thanks offering, and let him separate this animal in fulfillment of his vow, and then let him bring another animal, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then these two additional animals are thanks offerings and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this one for which I said: It is incumbent upon me, should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves are for both of them, and let the other animal be for a guarantee, to be sacrificed if my thanks offering gets lost, and it does not require loaves.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讟讜讘 讗砖专 诇讗 转讚专 诪砖转讚讜专 讜诇讗 转砖诇诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬谞讚讜专 讘转讞讬诇讛

Ravina said to him: The Torah said: 鈥淏etter is it that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay鈥 (Ecclesiastes 5:4), and you say: Let him rise up and vow ab initio? Taking a vow to bring an offering is not encouraged. As all possible remedies have been rejected, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya, that there is no remedy in a case where a thanks offering and its substitute were intermingled and one of them died, stands.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering, must bring it and its loaves from non-sacred money in his possession and not second-tithe money. Since he said: It is incumbent upon me, bringing the offering is an obligation, and one may not fulfill an obligation with second-tithe money.

转讜讚讛 注诇讬 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬

If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, he must bring the thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money. If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, he may bring it in that manner. Likewise, if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves from second-tithe money, he may bring it in that manner. And he may not bring the loaves from second-tithe wheat; rather, he purchases the flour with second-tithe money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚诇讞诐 讘诇讗 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬讘 讜讛讗讬 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 住讜祝 诪讬诇转讗 谞拽讟

GEMARA: With regard to the various ways in which one can take a vow to bring a thanks offering and its loaves, Rav Huna says: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves, even though he did not expressly take upon himself the obligation to bring the thanks offering itself. What is the reason? This man knows that loaves are not brought without a thanks offering, and by stating the vow in this manner, he was effectively saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves. And the reason he stated his vow in this manner, namely, by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, was that he was citing the end of the matter, as the sacrifice of a thanks offering is completed with the bringing of the loaves.

转谞谉 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讻诪讛 砖谞讚专 讜讗诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty with the statement of Rav Huna from that which we learned in the mishna: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, he may bring it as he vowed. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rav Huna that one who takes a vow to bring the loaves of a thanks offering intends to bring the thanks offering as well, why does the mishna state that he may bring the thanks offering from second-tithe money? Since he said: Its loaves from non-sacred money, he should bring a thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诐 诇驻讟讜专 转讜讚转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara responds: It is different there, in the case of the mishna, as since he said initially: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money, and then said: And its loaves from non-sacred money, he is considered as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so. His vow to bring the loaves is not considered a new vow, but rather as a vow to bring loaves for the specific offering he vowed to bring.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讬砖讗 讚拽转谞讬 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞注砖讛 讻讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 诇驻讟讜专 诇讞诪讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then with regard to the first clause of the mishna, which teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, then he must bring the thanks offering and its loaves from non-sacred money, here too let it be said that he is considered as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering to exempt the loaves of so-and-so, and he therefore should bring a thanks offering from second tithe. His initial vow to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money should not include the bringing of the loaves.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞诐 诇诪讬驻讟专 转讜讚讛 讗转讬 转讜讚讛 诇诪讬驻讟专 诇讞诐 诪讬 讗转讬讗

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Granted, in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, it can be said that he intends that the loaves should be brought to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring a thanks offering, because loaves come to exempt the thanks offering. But in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, it cannot be said that the thanks offering is meant to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, as does a thanks offering come to exempt the loaves?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讜讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara continues to discuss the statement of Rav Huna that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves. Come and hear a proof from a baraita that contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna: In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering without loaves, or an animal offering without libations, the court coerces him, and he brings a thanks offering with its loaves, or an offering with its libations.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗诪专 转讜讚讛 诇讗

The Gemara infers: The reason that he is coerced to bring a thanks offering with its loaves is that he said that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering. But if he did not say that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering, but instead said that it is incumbent upon himself to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, he would not be coerced to bring a thanks offering with the loaves, in contradiction to the opinion of Rav Huna.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讗诪专 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘诇讗 讝讘讞 转谞讗 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛

The Gemara rejects this: Actually, the same is true even if he did not say that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering, but said only: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaves. And this is the reason that the tanna of the baraita mentions specifically the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring a thanks offering without loaves: Since the tanna wants to teach the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring an animal offering without libations, concerning which he could not teach a case where one renders himself obligated to bring libations without an offering, because, unlike the loaves of a thanks offering, libations are in fact brought on their own and one can take a vow to bring them on their own, he therefore also taught the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring a thanks offering.

讗诪讗讬 谞讚专 讜驻转讞讜 注诪讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara addresses the actual statement of the baraita and asks: Why is he coerced to bring a thanks offering and its loaves? Isn鈥檛 this an instance of a vow with its inherent opening? That is, the vow should be dissolved entirely on the grounds that the one who took the vow may claim that he thought it was possible to bring a thanks offering without loaves, and now that he has been made aware that he cannot, he regrets taking the vow.

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

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

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

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and the ruling of the baraita is with regard to one who says: Had I known that one does not vow in this manner, i.e., to bring a thanks offering without loaves or an animal offering without libations, I would not have vowed in this manner but in that manner, i.e., I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves. There is therefore no opening for a dissolution. And what does the baraita mean when it states that the court coerces him? Why would he require coercion if he says that he would have willingly taken the proper vow? The baraita is referring to a case where, despite the fact that he would have taken the proper vow initially, he now wants to retract his vow altogether.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 转讜讚讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讜讝讘讞 讘诇讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜讝讘讞 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讜诪专 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转讬 讬讜讚注 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 谞讜讚专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讜诪专 诇讜 砖诪专 讜砖诪注转

The Gemara cites a baraita in support of the response of 岣zkiyya: Come and hear: In a case involving one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering without loaves, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal offering without libations, and the Sages said to him: Bring a thanks offering with its loaves, or: Bring an animal offering with its libations, and he says: Had I known that such is the requirement I would not have vowed at all; the halakha is that the court coerces him, and says to him: 鈥淥bserve and hear鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:28).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇讞讝拽讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara continues: Granted, this works out well according to 岣zkiyya, who says that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one attends only to the first statement, since this baraita can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that the baraita discusses a case where the person who took the vow says: Had I known that one does not vow in this manner I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves, this baraita presents a difficulty, as although the individual claims that he would not have taken any vow, he must still bring a thanks offering and its loaves. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: This latter baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, but the previous baraita may still be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

诪讗讬 砖诪专 讜砖诪注转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪专 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜砖诪注转 讛讘讗 诇讞诪讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 砖诪专 讛讘讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜砖诪注转 砖诇讗 转讛讗 专讙讬诇 诇注砖讜转 讻谉

The Gemara turns to analyze the baraita itself: What is the relevance of the phrase in the verse that says: 鈥淥bserve and hear,鈥 to one who vows to bring a thanks offering without its loaves? Abaye says: 鈥淥bserve鈥 means: Bring a thanks offering; 鈥渁nd hear鈥 means: Bring its loaves. Rava says: 鈥淥bserve鈥 means: Bring a thanks offering and its loaves; 鈥渁nd hear鈥 means that you should not act in this manner regularly.

转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讞诪讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讬讘讬讗 讬讘讬讗 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专讬 专爪讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讗 专爪讛 诇讗 讬讘讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that if one states: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering and its loaves from second-tithe money, he shall bring it in that manner. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna teach: He shall bring, which suggests that he must bring the thanks offering and loaves from second-tithe money? Is it not sufficient to fulfill his vow even if he does not bring it from second-tithe money but from non-sacred money? In fact, it is preferable that he bring the offering from non-sacred money. Rav Na岣an and Rav 岣sda say: The mishna does not mean that he must bring it specifically from second-tithe money; rather, if he wants, he brings it from second-tithe money, and if he does not want, he does not need to bring it from second-tithe money.

讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗诇讗 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 诪诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讬讘讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches: And he may not bring the loaves from second-tithe wheat; rather, he purchases the flour with second-tithe money. With regard to this, Rav Na岣an and Rav 岣sda both say: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased with second-tithe money.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讬讟讬 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讗讘诇 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讬讘讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讟讬谉 讛诇拽讜讞讜转 讘诪注讜转 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讜讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讱 讗讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚讬讚讱 转讜讚讛 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 讬诇驻转 诇讛 诪砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying: The mishna taught only that the loaves may not be brought from second-tithe wheat itself, but he may bring the loaves from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. Rabbi Zeira said to him: My teacher, do you say so? I say that he may not bring the loaves even from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. And I will say my reasoning and I will say your reasoning. I will say your reasoning first: From where do you derive that the loaves of a thanks offering may be brought from wheat purchased with second-tithe money? You derive it from the halakha of a peace offering. A thanks offering is a type of peace offering, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks鈥 (Leviticus 7:15), and a peace offering may be brought from second-tithe money.

Scroll To Top