Menachot 108b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna: “This ox is an olah,” and it became blemished; if he wishes, he may bring two with its value:

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

But did you not say in the first clause [in the preceding Mishna]: the one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring

an ox worth one hundred dinars,”

and brought two worth one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled [his obligation]!?

and brought two oxen worth one hundred dinars, has not fulfilled his obligation!?

And we answer: The one who vows

“this ox”

and it became blemished is different;

that is to say, there is a distinction between a vow and a donation: if he vowed [to bring] a large ox, he cannot bring two small ones; but this one, who did not vow but merely donated an ox, once it became blemished he no longer has any obligation by virtue of his statement at all, since he donated only this one; rather, the value of the ox is [designated] for an olah, and therefore he may bring two with the value of the ox.

We learned in the Mishna:

“These two oxen are olah offerings,” and they became blemished; if he wishes, he may bring one with their value, and Rabbi prohibits:

And we raise an objection against Rabbi, [asking] why he did not also disagree in the first clause and prohibit bringing two small oxen with the value of one olah:

For

what is the reason

that Rabbi prohibited bringing a large ox with the value of small oxen? It is

because it would be—

that is to say, it should be compared to one who vows

[to bring] a large [animal] and brought a small [one],

who has not fulfilled his obligation [as explained in the preceding Mishna], because the large is more significant than the small; and the same applies to one who vows [to bring] two and brought one, who has not fulfilled [his obligation], because the two are more significant than the one—

And although it became blemished,

that is to say, although in truth the law of our Mishna should not be compared to the law of the first clause, because this is a vow and that is a donation, as the Gemara distinguished above, nevertheless

initially Rabbi does not permit

even in the case of a donation, as in the case of a vow—

And if so, this is difficult:

then Rabbi should also disagree

with what is stated

in the first clause,

that if one donated one [animal] and it became blemished, he brings two with its value. For Rabbi holds in the preceding Mishna, concerning a vow, that even if one vowed a small [animal] and brought a large [one], he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. Thus, according to Rabbi, in a vow he cannot bring something more significant; and therefore, since Rabbi himself compares a donation to a vow, in a donation too he should not be able to bring two in place of one, since the two are more significant than the one, contrary to what is stated in the first clause!? And we answer: Indeed,

Rabbi disagrees with the entire matter

[both with the first clause and with the final clause],

but he waited for them—

Rabbi

until the Rabbis had completed their statement

[Rabbi waited until the Sages had finished their words],

and then disagreed with them

[and afterward Rabbi disagreed with them concerning the entire matter].

Know

that indeed Rabbi also disagreed with the first clause, that is, with the parallel of a small [animal] and he brought a large [one],

as it teaches

in the final clause of our Mishna: “

This ram is an olah”

and it became blemished; if he wishes, he may bring a lamb with its value; “

This lamb is an olah”

and it became blemished; if he wishes, he may bring a ram with its value, and Rabbi prohibits—

It is therefore explicit that Rabbi disagrees in the case of one who donates a small [animal] and brings a large [one],

and the same law applies that Rabbi also disagrees in the case of one who donates one [animal] and brings two, which are more significant than the one: he may not bring them initially.

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer from this

that Rabbi disagreed both concerning two and he brought one and concerning one and he brought two.

They raised a dilemma:

From one species to another, what is the law?

For example, he donated an ox and wishes to bring two rams; may he bring them?

Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

One who donates and says, “

This ox is an olah”—

and it became blemished, he may not bring a ram with its value,

because it is excessively smaller than the ox,

but he may bring two rams with its value—

And Rabbi prohibits, because there is no blending,

that is to say, since he is obligated to bring two meal-offerings of libations [a meal-offering for each ram], and he cannot mix them in one vessel; and since he must bring the meal-offering in two vessels, the offering that he brings does not resemble the first offering, and he cannot bring them in place of the first offering.

In any event,

infer from this

that the Rabbis permit changing from one species to another when he donated and did not vow.

And we raise an objection to this:

If so,

that there is no deficiency because of changing from one species to another, then

why specifically two? Even one as well,

that is to say: why does the beraita state that he cannot bring one ram in place of an ox because it is smaller, and that he was permitted only to bring two? By law, he should even be able to bring one ram, although it is small—

For when it became blemished—

that is, in the donation of an offering that became blemished, and not in a vow—

according to the Rabbis there is no difference for them between large and small,

as is explicit in our Mishna, that if one donated a ram he may bring a lamb!?

And we answer:

Two tannaim, and according to the Rabbis,

the tanna of the Mishna according to the Rabbis and the tanna of the beraita according to the Rabbis disagree concerning the law of one who donates a large [animal], whether he may bring a small [one].

We learned in a beraita:

“Rabbi prohibits because there is no blending”:

And we raise an objection:

The reason

that Rabbi prohibited bringing two in place of one is

because there is no blending; but if there is blending, it is permitted

to change and bring two in place of one—

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

“This ram is an olah and it became blemished; if he wishes, he may bring a lamb with its value; this lamb is an olah and it became blemished, he may bring a ram with its value, and Rabbi prohibits;”

it follows that Rabbi prohibited changing even from small to large, and the same law applies that he cannot change and bring two in place of one, because the two in relation to the one are like the large in relation to the small, as explained in the discussion above!?

And we answer:

Two tannaim, and according to Rabbi.

We learned in the continuation of the beraita:

“And with pure [animals]”

[that is, unblemished animals], which are not redeemed, but he undertook to bring

a calf and brought a bull,

or he undertook to bring

a lamb and brought a ram—

he has fulfilled [his obligation]:

And we explain it: The anonymous [ruling]

of the beraita

is

according to the Rabbis

of our Mishna, who hold that one who vowed a small [animal] and brought a large [one] has fulfilled [his obligation], even in the case of a vow.

We learned in the Mishna: This ox is an olah and it became blemished; if

he wishes, he may bring two with its value:

Rav Menashya bar Zevid said in the name of Rav:

They taught

—that he may bring two in place of one—

only

in a case where he

said, “

This ox is an olah”—

But if he said, “

This ox is incumbent upon me as an olah”:

his vow was fixed

to bring it as one offering and not as two, because since he said “upon me,” he became liable for its replacement.

And we raise an objection to this:

Perhaps when he says, “

It is incumbent upon me to bring it

for this reason that he

said,”

but if it became blemished, he did not accept responsibility for it!?

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Menashya bar Zevid said in the name of Rav:

They taught only when he said, “

This ox is an olah”;

alternatively,

[and the same law applies] if he

said, “

This ox is incumbent upon me as an olah”;

but

if he said—

said, “

This ox and its value are incumbent upon me as an olah”:

his vow was fixed

to bring its value as one offering and not as two.

Mishna:

One who says, “

One of my consecrated lambs

for the altar,”

and “

one

[or he said one]

of my consecrated oxen,”

and he had two,

then

the larger among them is consecrated.

And if he had

three,

then

the middle one among them is consecrated.

And if he came before us and said, “

I specified, but I do not know what I specified,”

or “

My father told me

that he consecrated,”

and I do not know what

he said,” then

the larger among them is consecrated.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who says, “One of my consecrated lambs,” or “one of my consecrated oxen,” and he had two—the larger among them is consecrated:

And we raise an objection:

Apparently—

because we say that he consecrated the larger—he

consecrates generously;

he

consecrates;

but:

Consider the final clause

of our Mishna: if he had three,

the middle one among them is consecrated

and not the largest;

apparently, he consecrates ungenerously!?

for in relation to the small one it is

Said

—he answered—

Shmuel:

This that we learned in the final clause, “the middle one among them is consecrated,” means that

we are concerned even for the middle one

lest it is consecrated,

for regarding the small one

it is

generous.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught—that when he has three animals, we are concerned about the middle-sized one— only when he said, “One of my consecrated oxen.”

And we explain: Since it is uncertain which one is consecrated,

what should he do

[how should he act]?

Said—

explained—

Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav:

He waits for it

—for the middle one—

until it becomes blemished, and

redeems it by

transferring its sanctity to the larger one

[redeems it upon the larger one]. Thus, in either case, the larger one is consecrated and not the middle one: if it was unconsecrated from the outset, all is well; and if it was consecrated, he redeemed it upon the larger one.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

They taught

—that when he has three, we are concerned for the middle one—

only when he said, “

one of my consecrated oxen”;

but if he said, “

an ox among my consecrated oxen”:

the largest among them

alone—

is consecrated,

because he

said, ‘the ox among my oxen’

[the ox with the definite article among his oxen].

And we raise an objection to this:

That is not so

[but the matter is not so], for:

Did Rav Huna not say in the name of Rabbi Hiyya in the name of Ulla:

One who says to his fellow, “

a house among my houses”

[which is like “an ox among my oxen”] “

I am selling to you,” then the seller

shows it

to him

the buyer,

the upper story—

so that the buyer consecrates them and offers them as burnt offerings.

And what is the meaning of

“is it not because it is inferior,”

that is to say: is the meaning not that he shows him the inferior house among his houses, such as the upper story? It is therefore evident that he need not give him the best house among his houses!?

And we answer:

No, it is not as you explained, that “upper story” means an inferior house; rather, “upper story” means

the finest among the houses.

and their value

The beraita raises an objection

to Rabbah bar Avuha from a beraita in which we learned: “

An ox among my consecrated oxen

for an olah,”

and likewise a consecrated ox

as an olah

that became mixed with others:

Then

the largest among them is consecrated,

that is to say, he consecrates it and offers it as an olah, because perhaps it is the consecrated one;

and all of them—

the other oxen, which are also uncertain—

are sold

while unblemished

for the needs of olah offerings,

and they are consecrated and offered by the purchaser as an olah,

and

their

proceeds are unconsecrated.

says “and likewise”: “and likewise, a consecrated ox that became intermingled with others”

it says, indicating that the law of one who says, “An ox among my consecrated oxen,” differs from the law of a consecrated ox that became intermingled with others!?

It is therefore explicit that when one says, “an ox among my consecrated oxen,” the consecration does not certainly take effect upon the largest; rather, all of them are uncertain!?

And we answer:

Explain it as referring to what we learned, “and all of them shall be sold for the needs of olah offerings,” only

with regard to

a consecrated ox that became mixed with others,

but in truth, when he said, “an ox among my consecrated oxen,” the largest is consecrated, whereas the others need not be sold for the needs of olah offerings.

And we raise an objection to this:

But “

and likewise

a consecrated ox that became mixed with others”

it says

in the beraita. Thus, the law of one who says “an ox among my consecrated oxen” and the law of an ox that became mixed [with others] are different!?

And we answer:

interpret it [

interpret it] as referring to what he said, “and likewise”—referring to

a large ox

that is consecrated, for in this they are both equal; but the ruling that all of them are to be sold for the needs of burnt offerings was stated only regarding an ox that became mixed in.

Meitivi

They raised a further objection from a beraita against Rav Nahman in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

One who says to his fellow, “

I am selling you one house from among my houses,”

and one fell,

one of his houses:

This seller

shows it

to the buyer—the house that has

fallen—

and says to him, “This is what I sold you, and yours fell.” And likewise, one who said, “

I am selling you one slave from among my slaves,”

and one died,

one of his slaves:

he shows him

the

dead one—