Menachot 216

Chapter 216

א <big>גמ׳</big> והא אמרת רישא שור במנה והביא שנים במנה לא יצא

1 <big>GEMARA: </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 [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.

ב שור זה ונסתאב שאני:

2 BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. Why?2

ג שני שוורין אלו עולה ונסתאבו רצה יביא בדמיהן אחד ורבי אוסר: מאי טעמא

3 - Because it is like the case where he vowed a large animal and he brought a small one.3 For even though they have suffered a blemish.4

ד משום דהוה ליה גדול והביא קטן ואף על גב דנסתאב לכתחילה לא שרי רבי

4 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

ה ולפלוג נמי ברישא

5 - 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.

ו רבי אכולה מילתא פליג ונטר להו לרבנן עד דמסקי מילתייהו והדר מיפליג עלייהו

6 [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.

ז תדע דקתני איל זה עולה ונסתאב רצה יביא בדמיו כבש כבש זה לעולה ונסתאב רצה יביא בדמיו איל ורבי אוסר שמע מינה:

7 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 The question was raised: What is the rule where a different kind is brought for the original kind?7

ח איבעיא להו ממינא למינא מאי

8 - 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

ט תא שמע שור זה עולה ונסתאב לא יביא בדמיו איל אבל מביא בדמיו שני אילים ורבי אוסר לפי שאין בילה שמע מינה

9 This proves it.9 But if that is the case, why two [rams]?

י אי הכי מאי איריא תרי אפילו חד נמי דהא בנסתאב לרבנן לא שני להו בין גדול לקטן

10 [They should also permit him to bring] one, since according to the view of the Rabbis, where the original offering suffered a blemish,10 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

יא תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבנן:

11 '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;12

יב רבי אוסר לפי שאין בילה: טעמא דאין בילה הא יש בילה שרי

12 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.

יג והתנן איל זה עולה ונסתאב רצה יביא בדמיו כבש כבש זה עולה ונסתאב יביא בדמיו איל ורבי אוסר

13 BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT.13 - 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

יד תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי

14 As for unblemished animals,15 [if a man vowed] a calf and he brought a bullock, or a lamb and he brought a ram, he has fulfilled his obligation.

טו ובטהורים עגל והביא פר כבש והביא איל יצא סתמא כרבנן:

15 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 rule16

טז רצה יביא בדמיו ב' [כו']: אמר רב מנשיא בר זביד אמר רב לא שנו אלא דאמר שור זה עולה אבל אמר שור זה עלי עולה הוקבע

16 applies only where the man said, 'This ox shall be a burnt-offering';17 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

יז ודלמא עלי להביאו קאמר

17 Perhaps he only meant: 'I take upon myself to bring [this ox]'!19 - 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 rule20

יח אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב מנשיא בר זביד אמר רב לא שנו אלא דאמר שור זה עולה אי נמי אמר שור זה עלי עולה אבל אמר שור זה ודמיו עלי עולה הוקבע:

18 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 value21

יט <big>מתני׳</big> האומר אחד מכבשי הקדש ואחד משורי הקדש והיו לו שנים הגדול שבהן הקדש שלשה בינוני שבהם הקדש פירשתי ואיני יודע מה שפירשתי או שאמר לי אבא ואיני יודע מה הגדול שבהן הקדש:

19 shall be a burnt-offering', there i a definite obligation.22 <big>MISHNAH: </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.

כ <big>גמ׳</big> אלמא מקדיש בעין יפה מקדיש אימא סיפא בינוני שבהן הקדש אלמא מקדיש בעין רעה מקדיש

20 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 ME23

כא אמר שמואל חוששין אף לבינוני דלגבי קטן עין יפה הוא

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

כב היכי עביד אמר רבי חייא בר רב ממתין לו עד שיומם ומחיל ליה לקדושתיה בגדול

22 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 What then should [this man] do?25

כג אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא שנו אלא דאמר אחד משוורי הקדש אבל אמר שור בשוורי הקדש הגדול שבהן הקדש תורא בתוראי קאמר

23 - Hiyya26 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

כד איני והאמר רב הונא אמר ר' חייא משמיה דעולא האומר לחבירו בית בביתי אני מוכר לך מראהו עלייה לאו משום דגריע לא מעולה שבבתים:

24 R'Nahman said in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha, This28 applies only where a man said, 'One of my oxen shall be holy'.

כה מיתיבי שור בשוורי הקדש וכן שור של הקדש שנתערב באחרים הגדול שבהן הקדש וכולם ימכרו לצרכי עולות ודמיהן חולין

25 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.29 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]!30

כו תרגומא אשור של הקדש שנתערב באחרים והא וכן קאמר תרגומא אגדול:

26 Is it not because this expression implies the worst?31 - No; ['aliyyah means] the finest of his houses.32

כז מיתיבי בית בביתי אני מוכר לך ונפל מראהו נפול עבד בעבדיי אני מוכר לך ומת מראהו מת

27 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 but the price thereof is free for common use? - This34 refers only to the case where an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with others.35 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;36 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.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter