Commentary for Menachot 162:8

טעמא דאמר אבל לא אמר תודה לא

Why is it so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where a man vowed to bring a thank-offering without the bread he must nevertheless bring the bread as well.');">¹⁴</span> Surely this is a vow that carries with it its annulment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a vow and with it its opening'. This man's intention apparently was to bring the thank-offering alone, but realizing immediately that his promise of a thank-offering would also entail the bread-offering he immediately decided to annul his vow by adding the words 'without bread'.');">¹⁵</span> - The authority for this [view of our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, is Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a statement is made consisting of two parts, one inconsistent with the other, we recognize the first expression only and the other is to be disregarded. Here, therefore, as soon as the man said 'I take upon myself to bring a thank-offering', that constituted a binding vow, and his subsequent words 'without the bread' cannot nullify the effect of his opening words.');">¹⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 162:8. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.