Menachot 103a — the Talmud in English

Rather, when he specified them -

in a pan or in a shallow baking dish -

at the time of the vow. But

if he made an unspecified vow to bring a meal-offering and specified it

at the time of setting it apart,

as when he said concerning a tenth of an ephah that was before him, “This shall be a meal-offering baked in a pan, to fulfill my vow,” -

it is not

fixed in that form, and he may change the vessel. This is because it is stated: And in the Chazon Ish 19:20, he wrote: “It is clear from Rashi’s explanation that verbal sanctification does not fix the tenth of an ephah for a pan or a shallow baking dish except in the case of a voluntary offering, or when one sets it apart for his vow and his vow had been specified for a pan or a shallow baking dish. But when he made an unspecified vow and afterward verbally specified this tenth of an ephah for a pan, it is not fixed. Since it was sanctified for his vow, and his vow was not specified, the tenth of an ephah that enters into the fulfillment of the vow is likewise not fixed. Even though he now specified it verbally, he does not have the authority to add to his vow”; see there further.

“You shall safeguard the expression of your lips and fulfill it,

as you vowed,”

but you

do not have to fulfill it

as you set it apart.”

It was also stated: Rabbi Aha bar Hanina said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this only when he specified them at the time of the vow; but at the time of setting them apart -

no,

as it is written,

“as you vowed,”

and not “as you set it apart.”

Mishna:

A person may not voluntarily donate a meal-offering except in whole tenths of an ephah of wheat flour, together with oil and frankincense; and

one who says:

“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of barley,”

must bring one of wheat,

as the Gemara will explain.

Similarly, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of

flour,”

must bring fine flour.

And similarly, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

without oil and without frankincense,”

must bring

also

oil and frankincense.

And similarly, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of

half a tenth of an ephah,”

must bring a complete tenth of an ephah.

And similarly, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of

one and a half tenths of an ephah,”

must bring two.

Rabbi Shimon exempts him

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

he did not make his donation in the manner in which people ordinarily donate.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If one says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of barley,” he must bring one of wheat:

And we raise a difficulty:

Why

must he bring one of wheat? Is it not like

a vow accompanied by its own opening for annulment—that is, he ultimately clarified that he was accepting upon himself only a meal-offering of barley; and since a person knows that one does not donate a barley meal-offering, his final words demonstrate that he did not accept any meal-offering upon himself at all. Thus, his vow contains something that can annul it, like an opening or regret, which annul the vow [together with the authorization of a Sage].

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].

He said

in answer,

Hezekiah:

Whose opinion is this?

Our Mishna is

the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: We follow the first expression. That is, we do not say that his final words cancel his initial words. Rather, his initial words, in which he accepted a meal-offering upon himself, stand 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.

This is

as we learned

in tractate Nazir 9a:

A nazirite is forbidden to consume wine, but is permitted to consume dried figs and pressed figs. And one who says,

“I am a nazirite from dried figs and from pressed figs,”

Beit Shammai say:

He is

a nazirite, because we follow the first expression, “I am a nazirite,” and he can no longer retract.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite.

Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain our Mishna:

You may even say

that our Mishna is the opinion of

Beit Hillel,

and here, with what case are we dealing?

With

a case in which he

says:

“If I had known that one does not make a vow in this manner,” [“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of barley,”]

I would not have made such a vow

“I would not have made the vow in this manner”

as I did,

“but in this manner” [“It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of wheat.”]

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

Hezekiah said:

They taught

in our Mishna that he must bring one of wheat

only

in a case

where he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

he said: “I undertake to bring

meal-offering of barley”;

but

if

he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

Since Hizkiyya stated his teaching according to whom

meal-offering of lentils,”

he does not

bring any meal-offering at all, as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

And we raise a difficulty:

Since Hezekiah expressed this teaching according to whom?

He necessarily expressed it

according to Beit Shammai.

That is, Hezekiah previously explained our Mishna as the opinion of Beit Shammai, and it follows that Hezekiah made this statement according to Beit Shammai: If one vowed to bring a meal-offering of lentils, it is not a vow -

But

surely

the reason for Beit Shammai is that we follow the first expression.

If so,

what difference is there whether he vowed

дал ли он

to bring one of barley or one of lentils? Just as he cannot retract and say “of barley,” so he cannot retract and say “of lentils”!?

And we answer:

Hezekiah retracted [that is,

Hezekiah changed his mind] from his explanation of our Mishna as the opinion of Beit Shammai, and he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan’s explanation that our Mishna follows Beit Hillel, because the person mistakenly thought that one could donate a barley meal-offering. Accordingly, Hezekiah’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 meal-offering of lentils. Barley, however, is used for the obligatory meal-offering of an individual when he brings it for his wife who secluded herself with another man after being warned, and therefore he may mistakenly think that an individual may also voluntarily donate a barley meal-offering.

For the wording of

The Gemara further explains:

And what is the reason that he retracted [that is, why did Hezekiah in fact retract] from explaining our Mishna as the opinion of Beit Shammai!?

a meal-offering of barley”?

He

explained,

Rava said:

Because the wording of

the Mishna presented him with a difficulty [that is, he found the wording of the Mishna difficult]. If it follows Beit Shammai,

with barley he is mistaken

why specifically did it teach

in our Mishna, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a

meal-offering of barley”?

Let it teach: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

said:

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, when he certainly was not mistaken, nevertheless he must bring a wheat meal-offering because we follow the first expression.

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

Rather, infer from this that the reason for our Mishna

is

because he was mistaken, and it follows the opinion of Beit Hillel. Accordingly, it is understandable that our Mishna did not state: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of lentils,” because in that case he truly would not bring one of wheat:

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

with barley he is mistaken, thinking that it is possible to donate a meal-offering of barley,

But

but with lentils he is not mistaken.

And Rabbi Yohanan

disagrees with Hezekiah and

said:

According to the opinion of our Mishna,

even

if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

of lentils,”

he must bring one of wheat.

And we raise a difficulty:

Since Rabbi Yohanan expressed this teaching according to whom? According to Beit Hillel,

that is, Rabbi Yohanan himself explains our Mishna as following Beit Hillel, and it follows that Rabbi Yohanan made his statement according to the opinion of Beit Hillel -

But

surely

the reason for Beit Hillel is that he was mistaken,

and

with regard to barley

there is reason to say that he was

mistaken,

but

with regard to lentils he certainly

It is not necessary

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

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan

that he is retracting his statement and we seize

was speaking according to Hezekiah’s own words -

who had retracted and agreed with him -

and was saying this to him!

This is what he said to him:

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

The reason, you say, is

because it did not teach: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering

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

говорит

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

“не только

when he said

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

то есть конечно же

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,

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

он обязан принести минху из пшеницы, поскольку

we follow the first expression.