Menachot 103b (קג:) — the Talmud in English

Ze'iri 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: He 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 barley meal-offering” [in the construct form],

he does not

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

Rav Naḥman sat and recited this teaching

[Rav Naḥman sat and recited Ze'iri’s teaching],

Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman

from our Mishna:

We learned: “

Flour: he must bring fine flour,”

and

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 thus clear that he need not mention the expression “meal-offering” separately for us to interpret his words as a vow followed by a retraction; and the same law applies if he said, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a barley meal-offering”—that he is obligated to bring a wheat meal-offering!?

Rava raised another question from the continuation of the Mishna: “

Rav Naḥman answered him: No,

rather, it is speaking of a case where

he said

“meal-offering.”

Rava raised another question

from the continuation of the Mishna:

Without oil and frankincense,”

he must bring oil and frankincense,” and

is it not that he did not say

“meal-offering”?

Rav Naḥman answered:

No, he said

“meal-offering.”

He raised another question from the continuation of the Mishna: “

Half an issaron: he must bring a complete issaron,”

and

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

He answered:

No, he said

“meal-offering.”

meal-offering.”

Rava returned and raised an objection:

If so—

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

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

but

since he said

“meal-offering,”

he became obligated in an issaron,

and

when he said

“half an issaron,”

he said nothing at all

This was explained by Tosafot, s.v. “If so, say”: “Granted, if he did not say ‘meal-offering,’ he brings two, as he says, ‘Had I known.’ But since he said ‘a meal-offering of an issaron and a half,’ why does he bring two? You said that where he did not say ‘meal-offering’ there is nothing; if so, because of that half an issaron he should bring nothing”; and from these words it is proven that they maintain that Rava intended to say that our Mishna follows Beit Hillel. But according to the straightforward reading of the Gemara, and as appears from Rashi’s words—that Rava too interprets our Mishna as following Beit Shammai, except that in his view it is unnecessary for him to say the word “meal-offering,” since a person does not utter his words in vain—if so, the meaning of “If so” requires explanation. What difference is it whether his obligation is because he said “meal-offering” or because a person does not utter his words in vain? The straightforward explanation must be that if his obligation derives from the expression “meal-offering,” this can be interpreted only as an obligation to bring one issaron, and everything he added is meaningless; but if a person does not utter his words in vain, we cannot say that he intended to accept only one issaron, for if so, why did he add “and a half”? Granted, in all the other cases in the Mishna one can say that he intended to retract, but when he said “an issaron and a half,” there is no expression of retraction here, merely empty words. Necessarily, then, he intended to accept an additional complete issaron. So it appears at first glance.

He answered:

It is necessary only in a case where he said

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

for since he said “meal-offering,”

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

he brings another issaron.

Rava still raised a question:

If so,

if the case is one in which he used the expression “meal-offering” and we “seize the first expression,” then this contradicts what we learned at the end of the Mishna: “

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

and

why

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

This is the straightforward understanding, but it is difficult to say that Rava is the one who raises the question, since he is the one who answers it; this is not conclusive. This was explained according to Rashi, and cited by Tosafot, who asked: We established above that the Rabbis follow Beit Shammai, who say “seize the first expression”; if so, Rabbi Shimon, who follows Beit Hillel, does not accept “seize the first expression; [This was already explained in the note above on page 103a: from these words of Tosafot it can be demonstrated that our discussion does not follow the approach of the discussion in Nazir, which interprets the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as concerning the law of requesting annulment of a consecration, for if so, there would be no place for their question]. They answered: We concluded above that Ḥizkiya retracted [and interprets our Mishna as following Beit Hillel]; but the matter is obscure, for if Beit Shammai do not hold “seize the first expression,” all the more so Beit Hillel do not hold this. What, then, is the Gemara’s question? He

answered,

Rava:

Rabbi Shimon

does not hold “seize the first expression”; rather,

he stated it in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosei,

who said: Even at the conclusion of his words a person is apprehended

and attached to everything that he utters with his mouth. He intended a barley meal-offering, believing that a person can volunteer and bring such an offering; therefore, his words have no effect.

Mishna:

A person may volunteer a meal-offering of

up to

sixty isaron and bring them

all

in a single vessel.

And

if he said, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one

isaron,” he

brings sixty

of them

in a single vessel, and

one issaron

in a separate vessel [separately]. The tannaim disagree concerning the reason for this law:

The first tanna maintains:

This is because

we find that the community brings on the first day of the Festival

[of Sukkot]

that occurs on Shabbat, sixty-one

isaron, and this is the greatest number of offerings brought by the community on a single day—

and

it is sufficient for an individual that he be

[that he should be]

less than the community by

one issaron

one.

Rabbi Shimon said:

Were those isaron that the community brings on the first day of the Festival in a single vessel!?

Are these not

[some of the isaron]

for the bulls, and these

[the others]

for the lambs?

Their mixtures are not alike, for the mixture of the bull offerings is thick, whereas the mixture of the lamb offerings is thin—

And they cannot be mixed with one another, [he cannot mix them in a single vessel], since if he mixes them together, he will either add too much oil or use too little; so how can this serve as a basis for sixty isaron in one vessel!?

!?

Rather, a person may bring up to sixty isaron in a single vessel because for all sixty isaron—when he brings them in one vessel—he adds only one log of oil, and more than sixty isaron cannot be properly mixed with one log.

The Sages said

to Rabbi Shimon:

But do

sixty

isaron

be mixed

together,

while

if there are

sixty-one

isaron they

cannot be mixed

together!?

Rabbi Shimon said to them,

to the Sages:

All the measures established by the Sages are like this,

for

with forty se'a he immerses, but with forty se'a less a kortov

he cannot immerse in it;

and I, too, say that the mixture is possible only up to the precisely measured amount of sixty isaron.

Gemara:

A question was posed above

to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i [they posed a question to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i]:

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i

From where is it derived that one who says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one

isaron,”

brings sixty

isaron

in a single vessel, and

one issaron

in a separate vessel?

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i began,

who was

the foremost speaker

by royal decree

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 day of the Festival that occurs on Shabbat sixty-one

isaron,

and it is sufficient for an individual to be less than the community

by one issaron

one.

Rabbi Shimon said to

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i:

But were these libations brought in a single vessel!?

Are these not bulls and rams [whose mixtures are alike],

These are bulls and rams [whose mixtures are the same],

and these are lambs?

And it emerges that

these

[the bull and ram meal-offerings]

have a thick mixture, whereas 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, whereas these

—the meal-offering of the afternoon daily offering—

have their mixture in the afternoon, and

if so,

they cannot be mixed with one another.

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

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i said to him,

to Rabbi Shimon: If so,

you say

what is the reason that a person may not volunteer a meal-offering in a single vessel except up to sixty isaron?

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 isaron cannot be mixed with one log of oil.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i to Rabbi Shimon: But do

sixty

isaron

be mixed,

while

with sixty-one they cannot be mixed!?

He said to him,

Rabbi Shimon to Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Ila'i:

All the measures established by the Sages are like this,

and he brought three examples:

a.

With forty se'a he immerses,

whereas

with forty se'a less a kortov he cannot immerse.

b. Food that is

the size of an egg contracts food impurity,

whereas food that is

the size of an egg less a sesame seed does not contract food impurity.

c. A garment

three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

contracts midras impurity

from a zav [if the zav sat or lay upon it], whereas

three by three less one thread [

one thread]

does not contract midras impurity.

We raise an objection to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning:

And if they cannot be mixed, what of it

[what difference does it make]!?

But we learned: If he did not mix it, 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 isaron—

the absence of mixing does not invalidate it,

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

; and

however,

anything not suitable for mixing—

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

the absence of mixing invalidates it.

that died, and the Sages measured its blood

As the Gemara was discussing the measures established by the Sages, it further discusses a quarter-log of blood from an animal carcass, for the Sages assessed its impurity at a quarter-log because at this amount the blood can coagulate and amount to an olive-bulk.

Rabbi Yehoshua 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—

it died, and the Sages assessed its blood

of the carcass that emerged from it

at a quarter-log;

that is, 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 words, from which it appears that the blood of carcasses contracts impurity at a quarter-log—from a beraita:

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

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira said—

the continuation of the beraita’s wording is—

There was an incident, and they would slaughter wild asses for the lions in the king’s district [

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

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

anything

at all,

because the blood of carcasses does not impart impurity—

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 -