Menachot 205

Chapter 205

אאלאLשקבעןShkvnבשעתVshtנדרNdrאבלVlבשעתVshtהפרשהHfrshhלאL

1only in the case where he determined [the kind of vessel] at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man vowed to bring a meal-offering but did not specify the kind of vessel in which it was to be prepared, and only later when setting apart the flour for his meal-offering he mentioned the vessel in which it was to be prepared. If then he actually prepares it in a vessel different from that mentioned by him previously, it is still valid.');">1 it is not [invalid]; [for Scripture says, According as thou hast vowed,2

ב(דברים(dvrymכג,Khg,כד)Khd)כאשרKhshrנדרתNdrtולאVlכאשרKhshrהפרשתHfrsht

2and not 'according as thou hast set apart'. This has also been stated: R'Aha B'Hanina said in the name of R'Assi who said it in the name of R'Johanan, This has been taught only in the case where he determined the kind of vessel at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart, it is not [invalid]; [ Scripture says,] 'According as thou hast vowed', and not 'according as thou hast set apart'.

גאיתמרYtmrנמיNmyאמרMrרביRvyאחאKhברVrחנינאKhnynאמרMrרביRvyאסיSyאמרMrרביRvyיוחנןYvkhnnלאLשנוShnvאלאLשקבעןShkvnבשעתVshtנדרNdrאבלVlבשעתVshtהפרשהHfrshhלאLכאשרKhshrנדרתNdrtולאVlכאשרKhshrהפרשת:Hfrsht:

3<big>MISHNAH: </big>IF A MAN SAID, 'I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF BARLEY', HE MUST BRING ONE OF WHEAT;3 IF 'OF COARSE MEAL', HE MUST BRING IT OF FINE FLOUR; IF 'WITHOUT OIL AND WITHOUT FRANKINCENSE', HE MUST NEVERTHELESS BRING IT WITH OIL AND FRANKINCENSE; IF 'HALF A TENTH, HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH; IF A TENTH AND A HALF', HE MUST BRING TWO.

ד<big>מתני׳</big><big>mtny׳</big>האומרHvmrהריHryעליLyמנחהMnkhhמןMnהשעוריםHshvrymיביאYvyמןMnהחטיםHkhtymקמחKmkhיביאYvyסולתSvltבלאVlשמןShmnובלאVvlלבונהLvvnhיביאYvyשמןShmnולבונהVlvvnh

4R'SIMEON DECLARES HIM EXEMPT, BECAUSE HE DID NOT MAKE HIS OFFERING IN THE MANNER IN WHICH PEOPLE USUALLY MAKE THEIR OFFERINGS. <big>GEMARA: </big>But why is this?

החציKhtsyעשרוןShrvnיביאYvyעשרוןShrvnשלםShlmעשרוןShrvnומחצהVmkhtshיביאYvyשניםShnymרביRvyשמעוןShmvnפוטרFvtrשלאShlהתנדבHtndvכדרךKhdrkhהמתנדבין:Hmtndvyn:

5Here is a vow and also its annulment!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For by the additional words 'of barley' he obviously meant to annul his expressed vow, since every one knows that only wheat may be offered as a meal-offering and not barley.');">4 - The view [expressed in our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, Is that of Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore as soon as he said, 'I take upon myself to bring a meal-offering', that constituted a binding vow, and his subsequent words 'of barley' cannot nullify the effect of his opening words.');">5

ו<big>גמ׳</big><big>gm׳</big>אמאיMyנדרNdrופתחוVftkhvעמוMvהואHv

6For we have learnt: [If a man said,] 'I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] fro dried figs and pressed figs', Beth Shammai say, He becomes a Nazirite [in the ordinary sense];6 but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite.7

זאמרMrחזקיהKhzkyhהאHמניMnyביתVytשמאיShmyהיאHyדאמריDmryתפוסTfvsלשוןLshvnראשוןRshvnדתנןDtnnהריניHrynyנזירNzyrמןMnהגרוגרותHgrvgrvtומןVmnהדבילהHdvylhביתVytשמאיShmyאומריםVmrymנזירNzyrוביתVvytהללHllאומריםVmrymאינוYnvנזירNzyr

7R'Johanan said, You may even say that it is the view of Beth Hillel too, for [we assume that] the man added,' Had I but known that one may not vow a meal-offering in this manner, I should not have vowed in this manner but in that'. Hezekiah said, This8

חר'R'יוחנןYvkhnnאמרMrאפילוFylvתימאTymביתVytהללHllבאומרVvmrאילוYlvהייתיHyytyיודעYvdשאיןShynנודריןNvdrynכךKhkhלאLהייתיHyytyנודרNvdrכךKhkhאלאLכךKhkh

8was taught only in the case where he said a meal-offering of barley', but where he said 'a meal-offering of lentils', he has not [to bring a meal-offering of wheat]. But let us consider: Hezekiah explained our Mishnah according to the view of Beth Shammai, did he not?

טאמרMrחזקיהKhzkyhלאLשנוShnvאלאLדאמרDmrמנחהMnkhhמןMnהשעוריםHshvrymאבלVlאמרMrמנחהMnkhhמןMnהעדשיםHdshymלאL

9But since Beth Shammai maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement] as binding then surely it is immaterial whether he said 'of barley' or 'of lentils'! - He abandoned that view.9 But why did he abandon it? - Raba said, Because our Mishnah was to him difficult to understand.

ימכדיMkhdyחזקיהKhzkyhכמאןKhmnאמרMrלשמעתיהLshmtyhכביתKhvytשמאיShmyוביתVvytשמאיShmyמשוםMshvmתפוסTfvsלשוןLshvnראשוןRshvnהואHvמהMhליLyמןMnהשעוריןHshvrynמהMhליLyמןMnהעדשיםHdshymהדרHdrביהVyh

10Why does it state 'a meal-offering of barley' and not 'of lentils'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to Beth Shammai's view that a man is bound by his first words, then even though he added 'of lentils' he should also be liable to bring a meal-offering of wheat. The fact that our Mishnah implies a distinction between barley and lentils proves that Beth Shammai's view is not upheld.');">10 Obviously it is because of the man's error; now in regard to barley a man may err<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He genuinely believed that he may bring a meal-offering of barley, since there are in fact meal-offerings of barley, e.g., the meal-offering of jealousy (cf. Num. V, 15) . His intention, however, was to bring a proper meal-offering, and therefore in place of the meal-offering of barley he must bring one of wheat.');">11

יאומאיVmyטעמאTmהדרHdrביהVyhאמרMrרבאRvמתניתיןMtnytynקשיתיהKshytyhמאיMyאיריאYryדתניDtnyמנחהMnkhhמןMnהשעוריםHshvrymליתניLytnyמןMnהעדשיםHdshym

11but surely not in regard to lentils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By adding 'of lentils' he obviously intended to revoke his promise, accordingly he is exempt, since we do not accept the view that a man is bound by his first words.');">12 R'Johanan, however, said, Even [if he said] 'of lentils',13

יבאלאLשמעShmמינהMynhמשוםMshvmדטעיDtyהואHvבשעוריםVshvrymטעיTyבעדשיםVdshymלאLטעיTy

12But consider: R'Johanan explained our Mishnah in accordance with the view of Beth Hillel, did he not? And Beth Hillel's view is based upon the man's error; now [I grant you that] a man may err in regard to barley, but surely he would not err in regard to lentils!14

יגורביVrvyיוחנןYvkhnnאמרMrאפילוFylvמןMnהעדשיםHdshymמכדיMkhdyר'R'יוחנןYvkhnnכמאןKhmnאמרהMrhלשמעתיהLshmtyhכביתKhvytהללHllוביתVvytהללHllמשוםMshvmדטעיDtyהואHvבשעוריןVshvrynטעיTyבעדשיםVdshymלאLטעיTy

13- He15 said so only as the result of Hezekiah's argument.

ידלדבריוLdvryvדחזקיהDkhzkyhקאמרKmrליהLyhאתTמאיMyטעמאTmהדרתHdrtבךVkhמשוםMshvmדלאDlקתניKtnyמןMnהעדשיםHdshym

14[For he reasoned with him thus:] Why did you abandon your view? Because our Mishnah does not state 'of lentils'.

טודלמאDlmלאLמיבעיאMyvyקאמרKmrלאLמיבעיאMyvyמןMnהעדשיםHdshymדאיכאDykhלמימרLmymrמהדרMhdrהואHvדהדרDhdrביהVyhותפוסVtfvsלשוןLshvnראשוןRshvnאלאLאפילוFylvמןMnהשעוריןHshvrynנמיNmyדאיכאDykhלמימרLmymrמיטעאMytהואHvדקאDkטעיTyאפילוFylvהכיHkhyתפוסTfvsלשוןLshvnראשוןRshvn

15But it may be that [that was so obvious that] it was not even necessary to be stated! Thus not only where he said 'of lentils',in which case it can only be said that he is revoking his vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For no man would be so mistaken as to believe that he may bring a meal-offering of lentils, obviously then he is retracting his vow, and this he cannot do since he is already bound by his first words.');">16 do we hold that we must adopt the first words [of his statement]; but even where he said 'of barley', in which case it might be said that he has erred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he believed that he could bring a meal-offering of barley. He therefore only intended a meal-offering of barley and since this cannot be brought he should be exempt entirely.');">17 we still say that we must adopt the first words [of his statement].

Previous Chapter Next Chapter