Menachot 162

תודה עלי מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר יביא היא ולחמה מן החולין תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין יביא היא ולחמה מן המעשר יביא ולא יביא מחיטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני:

[IF HE SAID.] 'THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM [SECOND] TITHE [MONEY]'. HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the bread is subsidiary to the thank-offering, and since he vowed to bring the thank-offering from what is unconsecrated that included the bread too, and his subsequent words are of no consequence.');">¹</span> [IF HE SAID,] 'THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED', HE SHALL BRING IT SO.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב הונא האומר הרי עלי לחמי תודה מביא תודה ולחמה מאי טעמא מידע ידע האי גברא דלחם בלא תודה לא איקריב והאי תודה ולחמה קאמר והאי דקאמר לחמי תודה סוף מילתא נקט

[IF HE SAID,] 'BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE', HE SHALL BRING IT SO; BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., money which had been used for redeeming Second Tithe produce.');">²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Huna said, If a man said, 'Behold I take upon myself [to bring] the bread of a thank-offering', he must bring a thank-offering and its bread. For what reason?

תנן תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין יביא כמה שנדר ואמאי כיון דאמר לחמה מן החולין יביא היא ולחמה מן החולין

Since this man knows full well that bread alone cannot be offered he obviously meant a thank-offering together with its bread, and when he said, 'The bread of a thank-offering' he merely stated the final words [of the vow].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But his intention was to offer a thank-offering too.');">³</span> We have learnt: [IF HE SAID,] 'THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED', HE SHALL BRING IT SO. Now why is this so?

שאני התם דכיון דאמר תודה מן המעשר נעשה כאומר הרי עלי לחם לפטור תודתו של פלוני

Surely since he said, 'Its bread from what is unconsecrated', he ought to bring both it [the thank-offering] and its bread from what is unconsecrated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when he said 'Bread from what is unconsecrated', let it be taken as the final words of an unexpressed intention, so that he must bring both the thank-offering and the bread from what is unconsecrated. His opening words 'the thank-offering from Second Tithe' would be of no htnt consequence. V., however, Tosaf s.v. .');">⁴</span> - There it is quite different, for since he had already said, 'The thank-offering from Second Tithe', [when he next said, 'Bread from what is unconsecrated'] it is to be taken as though he had said, 'Behold I take upon myself to bring the bread for So-and-so's thank-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'to exempt So-and-so's thank-offering (from the bread-offering) .' This vow is binding, and he must bring the bread from what is unconsecrated, whether that other's thank-offering was of Second Tithe or of what was unconsecrated. So too in the case of our Mishnah, this man meant to offer bread from what was unconsecrated to exempt his own thank-offering brought from Second Tithe from this obligation.');">⁵</span> If that is so, then in th first clause too which reads, [IF HE SAID,] 'THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY, HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED, it should also be taken as though he had said, 'Behold I take upon myself to bring the thank-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the animal.');">⁶</span>

אי הכי רישא דקתני תודה מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר יביא היא ולחמה מן החולין הכא נמי נעשה כאומר הרי עלי תודה לפטור לחמו של פלוני

for So-and-so's bread'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly in our Mishnah he should be permitted to bring the thank-offering from what is unconsecrated and the bread from Second Tithe, as he had actually vowed.');">⁷</span> - How can you compare [the two]? Bread might very well be brought for another's thank-offering; but is a thank-offering ever brought for another's bread?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not, for the bread is subsidiary to the thank-offering.');">⁸</span>

הכי השתא בשלמא לחם למיפטר תודה אתי תודה למיפטר לחם מי אתיא

Come and hear: If a man said, 'Behold I take upon myself to offer a thank-offering without the bread', or 'an animal-offering without the drink-offerings', they compel him to bring the thank-offering with the bread or the animal-offering with the drink-offerings. Now this is so only where he said, 'a thank-offering', but where he did not say 'a thank-offering',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But offered to bring the bread alone.');">⁹</span> he would not '[have to bring anything at all!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in conflict with R. Huna.');">¹⁰</span>

תא שמע האומר הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם וזבח בלא נסכים כופין אותו ומביא תודה ולחמה זבח ונסכים

- [No.] it is just the same even though he did not say 'a thank-offering',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by offering the bread of a thank-offering he is compelled to bring a thank-offering too.');">¹¹</span> but since the Tanna wished to state the case of an animal-offering without the drink-offerings, when he could not have stated [the reverse, viz.] drink-offerings without an animal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one may certainly offer drink-offerings without an animal-offering, cf. infra 107a.');">¹²</span> he also stated the case of the thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But even where he did not say 'a thank-offering' but only the bread-offering he is compelled to bring a thank-offering also, in accord with R. Huna.');">¹³</span>

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>

הוא הדין אף על גב דלא אמר תודה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא זבח בלא נסכים דלא מתני ליה נסכים בלא זבח תנא נמי תודה

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nazir 9a.');">¹⁷</span> If a man said, 'I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is nonsense for a Nazirite must abstain only from wine and grapes but not from figs.');">¹⁸</span> Beth Shammai say.

אמאי נדר ופתחו עמו הוא

He becomes a Nazirite;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the ordinary sense and must abstain from wine and grapes. Beth Shammai maintain that he is bound by his first expression 'I will be a Nazirite' and his subsequent words are disregarded.');">¹⁹</span> but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this is a vow which carries with it its annulment. He purposely added the words 'from dried figs. etc,' in order to annul his vow of becoming a Nazirite.');">²⁰</span> R'Johanan said, You may even say that this is in accordance with Beth Hillel, [only we must suppose that the man] said, 'Had I but known that one cannot vow in this manner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a thank-offering without the bread.');">²¹</span>

אמר חזקיה הא מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי תפוס לשון הראשון דתנן הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבלה בית שמאי אומרים נזיר ובית הלל אומרים אינו נזיר

I should not have vowed in this manner but in that'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thank-offering with bread.');">²²</span> What [then means], 'They compel him'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he has expressly indicated his intention that he meant to bring a thank-offering with bread.');">²³</span> -That is if he wishes to change his mind now.

רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בית הלל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך ומאי כופין דקא בעי הדר ביה

Come and hear: If a man said, 'I take upon myself to bring a thank-offering without bread', or 'an animal-offering without the drink-offerings', and when they said to him, 'You must bring a thank-offering with the bread' or 'an animal-offering with the drink-offerings'. he replied, 'Had I but known this I would not have vowed at all', they compel him none the less and say to him, 'Observe and hear'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 28.');">²⁴</span> Now this is well according to Hezekiah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For like the previous Baraitha this Baraitha also adopts the view of Beth Shammai.');">²⁵</span>

תא שמע האומר הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם וזבח בלא נסכים ואמרו לו הבא תודה ולחמה וזבח ונסכים ואומר אילו הייתי יודע שכן לא הייתי נודר כופין אותו ואומר לו (דברים יב, כח) שמור ושמעת

but it surely presents a difficulty to R'Johanan!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This Baraitha surely cannot be reconciled with Beth Hillel's view; for since his vow is clearly annulled by his subsequent statement why should he be compelled to offer it?');">²⁶</span> - R'Johanan will reply, That [Baraitha] undoubtedly represents Beth Shammai's view. What is meant by 'Observe and hear'? -Abaye said, 'Observe': bring the thank-offering, 'and hear:' bring its bread-offering.

בשלמא לחזקיה ניחא ליה אלא לר' יוחנן קשיא אמר לך ר' יוחנן הא ודאי בית שמאי היא

Raba said.' Observe': bring the thank-offering with its bread-offering.' and hear': be not in th habit of doing so.

מאי שמור ושמעת אמר אביי שמור הבא תודה ושמעת הבא לחמה רבא אמר שמור הבא תודה ולחמה ושמעת שלא תהא רגיל לעשות כן

[IF HE SAID.] 'BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE'. HE SHALL BRING IT SO.' HE SHALL BRING IT SO!' Is he then bound to bring it so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is there no way of not bringing it (as he vowed) '. Surely if be brings what is unconsecrated it is all the better!');">²⁷</span>

(תודה) היא ולחמה מן המעשר יביא יביא לא סגי דלא מייתי רב נחמן ורב חסדא אמרי רצה מביא לא רצה לא יביא

- R'Nahman and R'Hisda explained, If he wishes he brings it [as he vowed]. and if not he need not bring it [as he vowed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But may bring it from what is unconsecrated.');">²⁸</span> BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY.

ולא יביא מחיטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני רב נחמן ורב חסדא דאמרי תרוייהו לא שנו אלא מחיטי מעשר שני אבל מחיטין הלקוחות ממעות מעשר שני יביא

R'Nahman and R'Hisda both said, They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the original Second Tithe produce.');">²⁹</span> but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the wheat bad been bought in Jerusalem with Second Tithe money for ordinary purposes and not for the bread of a thank-offering.');">³⁰</span> R'Jeremiah was sitting before R'Zera and recited as follows: They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat, but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money.

יתיב רבי ירמיה קמיה דרבי זירא ויתיב וקאמר לא שנו אלא מחיטי מעשר שני אבל מחיטין הלקוחות במעות מעשר שני יביא אמר ליה רבי אתה אומר כן אני אומר אפילו מחיטין הלקוחות במעות מעשר שני לא יביא ואימא טעמא דידי ואימא טעמא דידך אימא טעמא דידך תודה מהיכא קא ילפת לה משלמים

[R'Zera] said to him, Master, you say so; but I say that even from wheat bought with Second Tithe money he may not bring it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Except where the wheat was bought with Second Tithe money for the express purpose of the thank-offering, in which case our Mishnah clearly teaches that he may bring it from that.');">³¹</span> And I will state my reason and I will state your reason. I will state your reason: Whence do you know this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it may be brought from Second Tithe money.');">³²</span> of the thank-offering? From peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we find the thank-offering referred to as peace-offerings. cf. Lev. VII, 13.');">³³</span>