Menachot 216

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>But have you not stated in the earlier [Mishnah]: [If a man said, 'I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh', and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation? - It is different here where he said 'THIS OX', and it suffered a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he specified the ox, as soon as it became unfit for sacrifice the obligation of his vow has come to an end, and he is not bound to replace it by another; accordingly when it is sold and another offering brought with the price thereof it need not be quite the same as the original offering.');">¹</span> [IF HE SAID,] 'THESE TWO OXEN SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING ONE OX WITH THE PRICE THEREOF.

BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. Why?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why does Rabbi forbid it?');">²</span>

- Because it is like the case where he vowed a large animal and he brought a small one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For generally speaking two oxen, even though together only equal in price to one, are more profitable than one.');">³</span> For even though they have suffered a blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the obligation of this man's vow has come to an end.');">⁴</span>

Rabbi does not permit it in the first instance. Should he not then differ in the first case too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the first clause of our Mishnah which reads: [IF A MAN SAID,] 'THIS OX SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING', AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING TWO WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. According to Rabbi this, too, should be forbidden, for it is like the case where a man vowed a small animal and he brought a large one.');">⁵</span>

- Rabbi indeed disagrees with the whole teaching, but he waited until the Rabbis had stated their view in full and then expressed his dissent. This can also be proved, for [the Mishnah] states: [IF HE SAID,] 'THIS RAM SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING', AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A LAMB WITH THE PRICE THEREOF.

[IF HE SAID,] 'THIS LAMB SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING', AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A RAM WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT.

This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the last clause of the Mishnah, viz., the offering of a ram with the price of the blemished lamb, is on all fours with the first clause, viz., the offering of two oxen with the price of the blemished one; and as Rabbi expressly differs with the Rabbis in the last clause, he obviously differs with them in the first clause too.');">⁶</span> The question was raised: What is the rule where a different kind is brought for the original kind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, e.g., an ox which had been assigned for an offering had suffered a blemish, may one bring rams with the price of the blemished ox or not?');">⁷</span>

- Come and hear: [If a man said,] 'This ox shall be a burnt-offering', and it suffered a blemish, he may not bring a ram with the price thereof, but he may bring two rams with the price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it, for one may not mix them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two meal-offerings which must accompany the two rams. Each meal-offering must be brought in a separate vessel, accordingly the present offering with its two meal-offerings is quite different from the original offering which required but one meal-offering.');">⁸</span>

This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one may bring a different kind (rams) with the price of the original blemished animal (the ox) .');">⁹</span> But if that is the case, why two [rams]?

[They should also permit him to bring] one, since according to the view of the Rabbis, where the original offering suffered a blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the obligation of this man's vow has then come to an end.');">¹⁰</span> it makes no difference whether a large or a small animal [is brought with the price thereof]! - Two Tannaim differ as to the view of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one Tanna is of the opinion that even according to the Rabbis it is forbidden in the first instance to bring a smaller animal with the price of the larger blemished animal.');">¹¹</span>

'Rabbi forbids it, for one may not mix them'. Now the reason [for Rabbi's view] is that one may not mix them, but if one were allowed to mix them it would be permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring a different kind of animal for an offering with the price of the blemished animal.');">¹²</span>

but we have learnt: [IF HE SAID,] 'THIS RAM SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING', AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A LAMB WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. [IF HE SAID,] 'THIS LAMB SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING', AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A RAM WITH THE PRICE THEREOF.

BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Notwithstanding that the present offering and the original offering are alike in that each requires but one meal-offering.');">¹³</span> - Two Tannaim differ as to the view of Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One Tanna maintains that Rabbi insists only upon the present and the original offering being alike in the number of vessels required for the accompanying meal-offering; but the other Tanna holds that Rabbi insists upon the animals being identical.');">¹⁴</span>

As for unblemished animals,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'clean animals'. This is a continuation of the Baraitha quoted above in answer to the question that was raised.');">¹⁵</span> [if a man vowed] a calf and he brought a bullock, or a lamb and he brought a ram, he has fulfilled his obligation.

This is an anonymous teaching in accord with the view of the Rabbis. HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING TWO WITH THE PRICE THEREOF etc. R'Menashya B'Zebid said in the name of Rab, This rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with the price of the blemished ox he may bring two.');">¹⁶</span>

applies only where the man said, 'This ox shall be a burnt-offering';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in truth the obligation of this man's vow came to an end when the ox suffered a blemish.');">¹⁷</span> but if he said, 'I take upon myself that this ox shall be a burnt-offering', there is a definite obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring one burnt-offering. The use of the expression 'I take upon myself' imposes an obligation upon the man to bring the offering according to the terms of his vow which was here one burnt- offering and not two.');">¹⁸</span>

Perhaps he only meant: 'I take upon myself to bring [this ox]'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the emphasis upon 'this'. Therefore if the ox became unfit that discharges his vow.');">¹⁹</span> - The fact is that if such a statement was at all made it was made in these terms: R'Menashya B'Zebid said in the name of Rab, This rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That with the price of the blemished ox he may bring two.');">²⁰</span>

applies only where the man said, 'This ox shall be a burnt-offering'. or where he said, 'I take upon myself that this ox shall be a burnt-offering'; but if he said, 'I take upon myself that this ox or its value<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the ox suffers a blemish and is sold.');">²¹</span>

shall be a burnt-offering', there i a definite obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 668, n. 8.');">²²</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SAID, 'ONE OF MY LAMBS SHALL BE HOLY', OR 'ONE OF MY OXEN SHALL BE HOLY', AND HE HAD TWO ONLY, THE LARGER ONE IS HOLY.

IF HE HAD THREE, THE MIDDLE ONE IS HOLY. [IF HE SAID,] 'I SPECIFIED ONE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH IT WAS I SPECIFIED', OR [IF HE SAID,] 'MY FATHER TOLD ME<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before he died.');">²³</span>

[THAT HE HAD SPECIFIED ONE] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH IT IS', THE LARGEST ONE AMONG THEM MUST BE HOLY. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[THE LARGER ONE IS HOLY.] We thus see that he that sanctifies sanctifies in a liberal spirit.

Now turn to the next clause: THE MIDDLE ONE IS HOLY, which shows that he that sanctifies sanctifies in an illiberal spirit! - Samuel said, It means that we must take into account the possibility of the middle one also [being holy], for that shows a liberal spirit as compared with the smallest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus both the largest animal and the middle one might be the one that was sanctified, for each can be regarded as a liberal offering as compared with the smallest animal.');">²⁴</span> What then should [this man] do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to be allowed to use one of these two animals.');">²⁵</span>

- Hiyya<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to MSS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read: R. Hiyya.');">²⁶</span> B'Rab said, He must wait until the middle one suffers a blemish and then transfer its sanctity to the largest one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that now the largest animal is the holy one without any shadow of doubt, for it was either holy in the first place or it has now become holy; on the other hand the middle one is now free for common use.');">²⁷</span>

R'Nahman said in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha, This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we must consider the possibility of the middle one also being holy. ohrhav rha ohasev ase');">²⁸</span> applies only where a man said, 'One of my oxen shall be holy'.

but if he said, 'An ox among my oxen shall be holy', then the largest among them is holy, for he meant thereby: the [finest] ox among my oxen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For so is the superlative degree expressed in Hebrew; cf. 'the song of songs', the finest song, , the holy of holies', the most holy. vhhkg');">²⁹</span> But surely this is not right, for R'Huna B'Hiyya said in the name of 'Ulla, If a man said to his fellow, 'I sell you a house among my houses', he may show him an attic ['aliyyah]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the subject matter of the sale. Heb. , 'an upper room, an attic'.');">³⁰</span>

Is it not because this expression implies the worst?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Similarly the expression 'an ox among my oxen would imply the smallest animal, contrary to R Nahman. vhhkg');">³¹</span> - No; ['aliyyah means] the finest of his houses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word is here taken in the sense of 'the finest', 'the most distinguished'.');">³²</span>

An objection was raised: If a man said, 'An ox among my oxen shall be holy', and so, too, if an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with other [unconsecrated oxen], the largest one among them must be holy, and all the others must be sold to be used for burnt-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we take into account the possibility of any one of the others being the holy one, thus contrary to R. Nahman who ruled that the expression an ox among my oxen' definitely indicates the largest one.');">³³</span> but the price thereof is free for common use? - This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that all must be sold for burnt-offerings.');">³⁴</span> refers only to the case where an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where a man said, 'An ox among my oxen shall be holy', there is no doubt at all that no other than the largest one was intended.');">³⁵</span> But it says here 'and so too'! - That refers only to the ruling that the largest one [must be holy]. A further objection was raised: If a man said, 'I sell you a house among my houses', and one [of his houses] fell down, he may show him the fallen house;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the one that was sold.');">³⁶</span> or if he said, 'I sell you a slave among my slaves', and one [of his slaves] died, he may show him the dead slave.