Menachot 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, when he designated them -

in a pan or in a deep pan -

at the time of the vow, but

if he vowed an unspecified meal-offering and designated it

at the time of separation,

as in a case where he said concerning a tenth of an ephah that was before him, “This shall be a pan-baked meal-offering for the fulfillment of my vow”

—not

is it designated as such, and he may change the vessel, and because it is stated: “Guard and fulfill the utterance of your lips

as you vowed,”

and not

do you need to fulfill it

“as you separated it

.”

It was also stated: Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this only when he designated them at the time of the vow, but at the time of separation

not,

as it is written,

“

as you vowed, and not ‘as you separated.’”

Mishna:

A person may donate a meal-offering only in complete tenths of an ephah of wheat flour, with oil and frankincense; and

one who says:

“I undertake to bring a meal-offering of barley,”

must bring one of wheat,

and the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And similarly, one who says, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering of

flour,”

must bring fine flour.

And similarly, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

without oil and without frankincense,”

must bring

also

oil and frankincense.

And similarly, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

of half a tenth of an ephah,”

must bring a complete tenth of an ephah.

And similarly, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

of a tenth and a half,”

must bring two.

Rabbi Shimon exempts him

from bringing a meal-offering, since his vow is not a vow, because

he did not make a donation in the manner of those who donate.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering of barley,” must bring one of wheat:

And we raise an objection:

Why

must he bring one of wheat? Is this not like

a vow accompanied by its own opening—

that is, he specified at the end of his statement that he was accepting upon himself only a meal-offering of barley; and since a person knows that one does not donate barley meal-offerings, it follows that the end of his statement demonstrates that he was not accepting any meal-offering upon himself at all. Thus, his vow has something that can annul it, like an opening or regret, which annul a vow [together with the dissolution of the vow by a sage].

Hizkiyya

answered

:

These are the words of Rashi: “It is a vow accompanied by its own opening: Along with the vow, he stated an opening through which he expresses regret, for since he said ‘of barley,’ we say that he had no intention of bringing anything, since a person knows that there is no barley meal-offering” the passage ; and:

Whose opinion is this

that our Mishna follows?

It is that of Beit Shammai, who say: We seize the first expression.

That is, we do not say that the end of his statement nullifies its beginning. Rather, the beginning of his statement, in which he accepted upon himself a meal-offering, stands independently, and he intended to obligate himself in a meal-offering. When he added “of barley,” his intention was to retract, but a person cannot retract from his vow.

As we learned

in tractate Nazir 9a:

A nazirite is prohibited from wine but permitted to eat dried figs and fig cakes. And one who says:

“I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from fig cakes,”

Beit Shammai say:

He is

a nazirite, because we seize the first expression, in which he said, “I am hereby a nazirite,” and he can no longer retract from it.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

the expression that is, do not seize the first expression—and this is a vow accompanied by its own opening ; and:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

to explain our Mishna:

You may even say

that our Mishna is

according to Beit Hillel,

and with what are we dealing here?

With

a case where he

says:

“Had I known that one does not make such a vow” [“I undertake to bring a meal-offering of barley”],

I would not have made such a vow

as I made,

but rather this [“I undertake to bring a meal-offering of wheat”].

Hizkiyya said:

They taught in our Mishna that he must bring one of wheat

Hezekiah said:

They taught ; and:

only

in a case where

he said: “I undertake to bring

a meal-offering of barley,”

but if

he said: “I undertake to bring

a meal-offering of lentils,”

he does not

bring any meal-offering at all, as the reason is about to be explained.

And we raise an objection:

Since Hizkiyya stated his teaching according to whom

did he necessarily state it?

According to Beit Shammai,

that is, Hizkiyya explained our Mishna above according to Beit Shammai. It follows that Hizkiyya stated that according to Beit Shammai, if one vowed to bring lentils, it is not a vow -

But

Beit Shammai’s position is

because they seize the first expression,

and if so,

what difference is there between one who vowed

of barley and one who vowed of lentils? Just as he cannot retract and say “of barley,” so he cannot retract and say “of lentils”!?

And we answer:

He retracted [he retracted]

from what

Hizkiyya had explained concerning our Mishna as following Beit Shammai, and he agrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation that our Mishna follows Beit Hillel, because the person mistakenly thought that one could donate a barley meal-offering. Thus, Hizkiyya’s distinction is understandable: If he accepted upon himself a meal-offering of lentils, one certainly cannot say that he was mistaken, since we never find a lentil meal-offering at all. This is unlike barley, which is brought as an obligatory meal-offering by an individual when he brings it on behalf of his wife, the sota who secluded herself after being warned. He may mistakenly think that an individual may also donate a barley meal-offering.

The wording of the Gemara above indicates that he is obligated to bring wheat even according to Beit Hillel only when he explicitly stated that, had he known, he would have vowed to bring wheat; whereas we do not independently presume that he was mistaken. If so, this requires examination: What relevance is there to distinguishing between barley and lentils? If he says that he was mistaken even with regard to lentils, he should be obligated to bring wheat; and if he says that he was not mistaken, he should not be obligated even when he accepted barley upon himself. What difference is there between barley and lentils?]

The Gemara adds an explanation:

And for what reason did he retract [why did Hizkiyya in fact retract] from his explanation that our Mishna follows Beit Shammai!?

He said

Rava explained:

For the wording of

the Mishna was difficult for him [the wording of the Mishna was difficult for him]. If it follows Beit Shammai, why specifically did it teach

in our Mishna, “I undertake to bring

a meal-offering of barley”?

Let it teach: “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

of lentils—he must bring one of wheat.” For according to Beit Shammai there is no difference, and this would be a greater novelty: Even if he vowed to bring a meal-offering of lentils, where he certainly is not mistaken, nevertheless he must bring a wheat meal-offering, because we seize the first expression.

Rather, infer from it

that the reason for our Mishna is

that he is mistaken, and it follows the opinion of Beit Hillel. Therefore, it is understandable that our Mishna did not state, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering of lentils,” because in such a case he truly would not bring one of wheat:

with barley he is mistaken

in thinking that one may donate a meal-offering of it,

but with lentils he is not mistaken.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan

disagrees with Hizkiyya and

said:

According to our Mishna,

even if he said, “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

of lentils,”

he must bring one of wheat.

And we raise an objection:

Since Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his teaching according to whom? According to Beit Hillel,

that is, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan himself, the explanation of our Mishna is that it follows Beit Hillel; it follows that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated his words according to the opinion of Beit Hillel -

But

Beit Hillel’s position is

because he is mistaken,

and it is only

with barley

that one can say he is

mistaken;

but

with lentils

he certainly

is not mistaken. Why, then, should he be obligated to bring a wheat meal-offering!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yoḥanan

said this according to Hizkiyya’s own position—

who retracted and agreed with him—

he was saying it to him!

And this is what he said to him:

“For what reason did you retract [what is the reason that you retracted from your explanation]? Is it

because it did not teach: “I undertake to bring a meal-offering

of lentils”?

And you infer from this that if he said “a meal-offering of lentils,” according to our Mishna, he is not bound by a vow. But this is not so, because

perhaps even if he said “of lentils,” he is obligated to bring a meal-offering; rather, our Mishna

merely states the less obvious case.

It is not necessary

to say that when he said

‘of lentils,’ one can say—that is, it is certainly the case—

that he is retracting his statement and we seize

the first expression.

Rather, even

when he said

‘of barley’ as well, although

one can say that he is mistaken

in thinking that it is possible to bring a meal-offering of barley, and that had he known that it was impossible to bring one of barley he would not have vowed at all,

nevertheless he is obligated to bring a wheat meal-offering, because

we seize the first expression.

of lentils.”

This implies to you that if he said “a meal-offering of lentils,” according to our Mishna he is not considered to have made a vow. But this is not so, because

perhaps even if he said “of lentils,” he is obligated to bring a meal-offering. Rather, our Mishna

even if he said “of lentils,” he is liable to bring a meal-offering; rather, the Mishnah

states ‘It is not necessary’; ‘It is not necessary’

is saying “not only”

when he said

“of lentils,” there is reason to say—that is, certainly—

namely, certainly

he is merely retracting, and we follow

the first expression.

Rather, even

when he said

“of barley” as well,

even

though there is reason to say that he is mistaken, thinking that one may bring a meal-offering of barley, and had he known that one could not bring one of barley he would not have made a vow at all,

for had he known barley could not be used, he would not have vowed

even so, he is obligated to bring a wheat meal-offering, because

he must bring wheat, because

we follow the first expression.