Menachot 103b — the Talmud in English

Zeiri said: They taught this only

that we say, “Seize the first expression”

but

in a case such as

where he said “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a

meal-offering

of barley,” for then it is possible to separate the word “meal-offering” from what follows and say: This person intended a complete meal-offering and then retracted,

but he did not say “

meal-offering”

but rather said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of barley” [in the construct form,

he will not

bring any meal-offering at all, for he accepted upon himself only a meal-offering of barley, and he cannot.

Rav Naḥman sat and stated this teaching [that is, Rav Naḥman sat and stated the teaching of Zeiri],

and

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from our Mishna:

It was taught: “

Flour—he shall bring fine flour,”

and

what, is it not that he did not say “

meal-offering”

but rather said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring flour,” and nevertheless he must bring fine flour? It is therefore clear that he need not mention the expression “meal-offering” separately in order that we interpret his words as a vow and retraction; and the same law applies if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of barley,” that he is obligated to bring a meal-offering of wheat

!? And Rav Naḥman answered him:

No,

rather, it is speaking of a case such as

where he said “

meal-offering.”

Rava raised another objection

from the continuation of the Mishna: “

Without oil and frankincense,”

he shall bring oil and frankincense,” and

what, is it not that he did not say “

meal-offering.”

And Rav Naḥman answered:

No, he said “

meal-offering.”

He again raises an objection from the continuation of the Mishna: “

Half an issaron—he shall bring a complete issaron,”

and

what, is it not that he did not say “meal-offering”

!?”

And he answered:

No, he said “

meal-offering.”

Rava returned and objected:

If so—

that the Mishna is dealing with a case where he said “meal-offering”—

say from the latter clause: “An issaron and a half—he shall bring two,”

but

since he said “

meal-offering,”

he became obligated in one issaron,

and

when he said “

half an issaron,”

he said nothing at all

!

And he answered:

It is necessary; he said “

It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal-offering of half an issaron and an issaron,”

for since he said “meal-offering,”

he became obligated in one issaron; when he said ‘half an issaron,’ he said nothing at all; when he then said ‘an issaron’,”

he brings another issaron.

Rava still objected:

If so,

that it is speaking of one who used the expression “meal-offering” and “seize the first expression,” then the following is difficult, as we learned at the end of the Mishna: “

Rabbi Shimon exempts him, for he did not volunteer in the manner in which people volunteer,”

and

why

is this not in the manner in which people volunteer? He used the expression “meal-offering,” and “seize the first expression,” and it follows that he volunteered a “meal-offering” in the manner in which people volunteer

!? He said

Rava answered:

Rava:

Rabbi Shimon

does not hold of “seize the first expression,” but

he stated it according to the approach of Rabbi Yosei,

who said: Even at the completion of his words a person is seized

and attached, and his intention is directed to everything that he utters with his mouth; he intended a meal-offering of barley, and thought that a person can volunteer and bring such an offering, and therefore there is nothing in his words.

Mishna:

A person may volunteer a meal-offering of

up to

sixty issaron and bring

them

in one vessel.

And

if he said “

It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one

issaron,” he

brings sixty

of them

in one vessel, and

one issaron

in one vessel [separately];

and the tannaim disputed the reason for this law:

The first tanna holds:

For we find that the community brings on the first festival day

[of Sukkot]

that occurs on Shabbat, sixty-one

issaron, and this is the largest number of offerings that is brought for the community on one day—

and

it is sufficient for an individual that he be

[that he should be]

less than the community by

one issaron

. Rabbi Shimon said:

Rabbi Shimon said:

But were those issaron that he brings on the first festival day in one vessel

!?

[some of the issaron]

for the bulls, and these

[some of them]

for the lambs,

for their manner of mixing is not equal, for the meal-offering of the bulls is mixed thickly, whereas the meal-offering of the lambs is mixed thinly—

And they are not mixed with one another,

[he cannot mix them in one vessel], for it follows that he would add or subtract oil if he mixed them together; and how can we learn from this that sixty issaron may be brought in one vessel

!?

Rather, for this reason a person brings up to sixty issaron in one vessel: for all sixty issaron—when he brings them in one vessel—he puts in them only one log of oil, and more than sixty issaron he cannot mix with one log. The Sages said

to Rabbi Shimon:

But are

sixty

issaron

mixed

together,

and

if there are

sixty-one

issaron

they are not mixed

together!?

He said to them

Rabbi Shimon to the Sages:

All the measures of the Sages are so,

for

with forty seah he immerses, but with forty seah lacking a kortov

he cannot immerse in them;

and so too I will bring a meal-offering whose measure is exact: sixty issaron.

Gemara:

A question was asked above

of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i

[they asked Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i a question]:

From where is it derived that one who says “

It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one

issaron,” that he

brings sixty

issaron

in one vessel, and

one issaron

in one vessel?

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i opened,

who was

the chief speaker

by the king’s command

everywhere,

For we find that the community brings on the first day of the festival, when it occurs on Shabbat, sixty-one

and said:

For we find that the community brings on the first festival day that occurs on Shabbat sixty-one

issaron, and

it is sufficient for an individual that he reduce from the community

one issaron

.

Rabbi Shimon said to him

to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i:

But did these libations come in one vessel

!?

[whose mixture is equal]

and these are lambs,

and it follows that

these

[the meal-offering of the bulls and rams]

have a thick mixture, while these have a thin mixture;

and furthermore,

these—

the meal-offering of the morning daily-offering and the additional-offerings—

have their mixture

in the

morning, while these—

the meal-offering of the afternoon daily-offering—

have their mixture in the afternoon, and

if so

they are not mixed with one another.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i said to Rabbi Shimon: If so, you say

He said to him

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i to Rabbi Shimon: If so,

you say

what is the reason that one may not volunteer a meal-offering in one vessel except up to sixty issaron?

He said to him

Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i:

For it says

[Leviticus 7]: “

And every meal-offering mixed with oil and dry,”

the Torah has already said: Bring a meal-offering that can be mixed,

and a meal-offering of more than sixty issaron cannot be mixed with one log of oil.

He said to him

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i to Rabbi Shimon: But

with sixty

issaron

are they mixed,

whereas

with sixty-one they are not mixed

!?

He said to him Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila’i:

All the measures of the Sages are so,

and he brought three examples:

a.

With forty seah he immerses,

whereas

with forty seah lacking a kortov he cannot immerse.

b. Food that is

the size of an egg renders food impure with food impurity,

whereas food that is

the size of an egg lacking a sesame seed does not render food impure with food impurity.

c. A garment

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

renders impure with the impurity of a seat

of a person with a flux [if the person with a flux sat or lay upon it], whereas

three by three lacking a single hair

[one thread]

does not render impure with the impurity of a seat.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi Shimon’s reason:

But what of it if they are not mixed

[what difference does it make]!?

Did we not learn: If he did not mix, it is valid!?

With regard to anything suitable for mixing— that is, up to sixty issaron measures—

Rabbi Zeira said:

Anything suitable for mixing—

that is, up to sixty issaron—

the mixing does not prevent its validity,

as we learned: “If he did not mix, it is valid”

; and

but

anything that is not suitable for mixing

—that is, a meal-offering of more than sixty issaron, which cannot be mixed—

the mixing prevents its validity.

that died, and the Sages measured its blood

Since the Gemara was occupied with the measures of the Sages, the Gemara further discusses a quarter-log of blood from an animal carcass, whose impurity the Sages measured at a quarter-log, because at this measure the blood can coagulate and amount to an olive-bulk.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

meaning that they examined it according to the measure of a quarter-log: If a quarter-log emerged from it, they declared it impure, and if not, they did not. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna raised an objection to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement, from which it appears that the blood of carcasses transmits impurity through a quarter-log—from a beraita:

There was an incident involving a mule belonging to the House of Rabbi—

which died, and the Sages measured its blood

of the carcass that came out of it

at a quarter-log,

that is, they examined it according to the measure of a quarter-log: if a measure of a quarter-log came out of it, they rendered it impure, and if not, they did not.

Rabbi Isaac bar Bisna raised an objection—

to the words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, from which it appears that the blood of carcasses renders impure with a quarter-log—from a beraita:

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Joshua ben Beteira testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it is pure—

And Rabbi Joshua ben Beteira said—

the continuation of the wording of the beraita is—

There was an incident: they would slaughter wild asses for the lions in the king’s Istria

[the king’s servants would slaughter wild asses for the lions to eat]—

and pilgrims would sink in blood up to their knees, and the Sages did not say to them

anything

at all,

for the blood of carcasses does not render impure—

And how did Rabbi Joshua ben Levi say that in Rabbi’s household they were concerned about the impurity of the blood of carcasses!?

He fell silent,

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, and did not answer the objection!

Rabbi Zerika said to

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi:

For what reason does the master not answer

why do you not answer the objection!?

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said to

Rabbi Zerika:

How can I answer him

how can I answer him, for I have no strength, for

Rabbi Hanin said:

It is written in the rebuke in the portion of Ki Tavo: "

And your life shall hang before you,"

this is one who purchases produce from year to year,

for he does not have a field of his own, and he purchases produce every year, and fears lest for the following year he will not have money to purchase produce. "

And you shall fear night and day,"

this is one who purchases produce from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve,

and throughout the week he fears lest he will not have produce for the following week. "

And do not trust in your life,"

this is one who relies on the baker

to bake, and he purchases from him every day, for every day he worries lest tomorrow he will not have money to purchase bread -