Menachot 81b — the Talmud in English

b. One who says

“A thanksgiving-offering is incumbent upon me from non-sacred produce, and its loaves from tithe produce”

must bring both it and its loaves from non-sacred produce;

and although, had he said, “A thanksgiving-offering and its loaves are incumbent upon me from tithe produce,” he could bring them from tithe produce, as is explained below in the Mishna; and the reason is: his obligation of a thanksgiving-offering obligates him to bring loaves, and he no longer has the power to say that he will bring the loaves from tithe produce. d. One who says

“A thanksgiving-offering

is incumbent upon me

from tithe produce, and its loaves from non-sacred produce,”

must bring

—if he wishes—as he vowed; that is, he may bring the thanksgiving-offering even from tithe produce, since that is what he vowed, whereas the loaves he must bring specifically from non-sacred produce.

One who says, “Behold, a thanksgiving-offering is incumbent upon me,

it and its loaves from tithe produce,”

must bring

—if he wishes—both of them from tithe produce.

And

when he is able to bring from tithe produce,

he must not bring from the grain of second tithe

itself,

but from the money

of the redemption of

second tithe

only; and the Gemara will explain the reason.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: One who says

“Behold, the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering are incumbent upon me,”

and did not mention the thanksgiving-offering itself in his vow,

brings a thanksgiving-offering and its loaves.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

For he vowed only concerning the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering!

Because

this man certainly knows that bread without a thanksgiving-offering is not sacrificed

[he knows that it is impossible to sacrifice bread without a thanksgiving-offering],

and this

“a thanksgiving-offering and its loaves”

he was saying,

[and therefore he certainly intended to obligate himself in a thanksgiving-offering and in its loaves]—

And this that he

did not

say only

“the”

loaves of a thanksgiving-offering

is only because

he took the end of the matter

[he mentioned only the end of the matter], but his essential intention was the entire matter.

And we raise an objection against Rav Huna from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who says

“A thanksgiving-offering from tithe produce, and its loaves from non-sacred produce,”

must bring,

and he need not bring the thanksgiving-offering specifically from non-sacred produce—

and according to Rav Huna, who holds that one who obligates himself in loaves thereby also becomes obligated in a thanksgiving-offering, the following difficulty arises:

And why

can he bring the thanksgiving-offering from tithe produce? For

since he said

“its loaves from non-sacred produce,”

and became obligated—in Rav Huna’s view—in a thanksgiving-offering as well, if so, we should consequently say that

he must bring both it and its loaves from non-sacred produce!?

And we answer:

It is different there

when he explicitly said, “A thanksgiving-offering from tithe produce and its loaves from non-sacred produce,”

for

since he said

“a thanksgiving-offering from tithe produce,”

he is considered as one who says

“Behold, bread is incumbent upon me, to discharge

the obligation of bread for

the thanksgiving-offering of so-and-so.”

And we raise a difficulty on this:

If so, in

the first clause, which

teaches:

“One who says

‘a thanksgiving-offering

is incumbent upon me

from non-sacred produce, and its loaves from

tithe produce, he must bring both it and its loaves from non-sacred produce,’

and because once he became obligated in a thanksgiving-offering he consequently also became obligated in its loaves, and he must bring them from non-sacred produce like any other obligatory matter, and although he said, “and its loaves from tithe produce,” his words have no effect; the difficulty is: Why should he not bring its loaves from tithe produce? For

here too

let us say:

he is considered as one who says

“Behold, a thanksgiving-offering is incumbent upon me to discharge the loaves of so-and-so”!?

And we answer:

How now

[is the matter comparable to the proof]!?

Granted, bread comes to discharge a thanksgiving-offering

[bread indeed comes to discharge a thanksgiving-offering], and it is appropriate to interpret his obligation in bread as something that comes to complete the obligation of the thanksgiving-offering.

But

does a thanksgiving-offering come to discharge bread!?

Does the thanksgiving-offering come to discharge the loaves, so that we should interpret his obligation in a thanksgiving-offering as something that comes to complete the obligation of loaves that he became obligated in? It is not so, for the obligation of the thanksgiving-offering is the primary obligation, and the loaves come on account of the thanksgiving-offering. Therefore, once he became obligated in a thanksgiving-offering, he became obligated in loaves as well, and he cannot bring the loaves from tithe produce.

Come and hear: One who says

“Behold, a thanksgiving-offering is incumbent upon me without bread,”

and a sacrifice

[or he said, “Behold, a sacrifice is incumbent upon me]

without libations,”

they compel him and he brings a thanksgiving-offering and its loaves, a sacrifice and libations.

And we raise an objection from this beraita against Rav Huna: It follows

the reason is that he said

“a thanksgiving-offering”

alone [that is, specifically if he obligated himself in a thanksgiving-offering], then he is obligated in a thanksgiving-offering and bread;

but if he did not say “a thanksgiving-offering,”

that is, if he said “bread” alone—

no,

he does not become obligated in a thanksgiving-offering and bread, contrary to Rav Huna!?

And we answer: In truth, the same law applies even though he did not say “a thanksgiving-offering,”

but rather obligated himself only in bread: he is obligated in a thanksgiving-offering and bread. And the reason this was not mentioned in the beraita is:

And since he needed to teach

“a sacrifice without libations,”

which it did not teach him

“libations without a sacrifice,”

since

the beraita is also discussing libations, and in this matter specifically, if he obligated himself in a sacrifice he is obligated to bring libations as well, but if he obligated himself in libations he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice, because a person may vow libations by themselves, unlike the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering, which do not come by themselves; therefore

it also taught “a thanksgiving-offering”

alone, and did not teach bread alone.

And we raise a difficulty concerning what we learned in the beraita: “One who says, ‘Behold, a thanksgiving-offering is incumbent upon me without bread, and a sacrifice without libations,’ they compel him and he brings a thanksgiving-offering and its loaves, a sacrifice and libations”:

Why

is he obligated to bring bread and libations? For

it is a vow with its opening alongside it,

and he should not bring a thanksgiving-offering or a sacrifice at all!? That is, his statement “without bread, without libations”—which is an impossibility, since once he obligated himself in a thanksgiving-offering he consequently became obligated in loaves—is a retraction from what he obligated himself in the thanksgiving-offering. For he knows that there is no thanksgiving-offering without bread, and since he said this within the time of speech, his entire vow should be annulled, as though he had found an opening for his vow!?

He said that Hezekiah answered: Who is the author of this beraita?

It is the school of Shammai, for they say

in a similar case,

“Grasp the first expression,”

and here too, grasp the first expression, by which he obligated himself in a thanksgiving-offering and a sacrifice, and do not grasp the latter expression, in which he said, “without bread, without libations”—

as we learned

in tractate Nazir 9a: One who says, “I am a nazirite,” is forbidden wine, which the Torah forbade to him, and all the other prohibitions of a nazirite. One who says,

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

Beit Shammai say:

he is

a nazirite,

because he said, “I am a nazirite,” and although by saying “from dried figs and from pressed figs” he retracted from his words, nevertheless he is a complete nazirite. The same is true according to their view: what he said, “without bread, without libations,” is ineffective in nullifying what he became obligated in—a thanksgiving-offering and a sacrifice.

because he said, “I am hereby a nazirite,” and although by saying, “from dried figs and pressed figs,” he retracted from his first words, he is nevertheless a complete nazirite. Similarly, according to their view, his statement “without loaves” and “without libations” cannot cancel what he had undertaken to bring—a thanks-offering and a sacrifice.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite,

because this is considered

“a vow whose opening for annulment was stated together with it.”

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a nazirite,

for this is like “a vow with its opening alongside it.”

Rabbi Yohanan said

to explain the beraita differently:

You may even say

that this beraita is

the school of Hillel,

and nevertheless this is not “a vow with its opening alongside it,” because the beraita is dealing

with one who says,

“Had I known that one does not vow in this manner

[a thanksgiving-offering without bread, a sacrifice without libations],

I would not have vowed in this manner

as I said,

but in this manner

[“A thanksgiving-offering with bread, a sacrifice with libations].” That is, he explains his words: this was not a retraction, but rather he did not know that it was impossible to vow in this manner, and had he known, he would have obligated himself like the others who obligate themselves in a thanksgiving-offering and a sacrifice.

And we raise a difficulty on this:

And what

“they compel”

that we learned in the beraita—that is, he agrees to bring bread and libations after his error has become known, so why is coercion necessary!? And we answer:

for he seeks to retract

[he wishes to retract], and then they compel him, since it has become clear from his first words that this is not “a vow with its opening alongside it.”

Рассмотрим доказательство: тот, кто говорит «

Вот, на мне благодарственная жертва без хлебов» и «

жертва без возлияний»,

и ему сказали: «

Принеси благодарственную жертву и её хлебы, а также жертву и возлияния»,

а он говорит: «

Если бы я знал это, я вообще не дал бы обета»,

его принуждают и говорят ему: «

Соблюдай и слушай»

, то есть: исполни свой обет [далее Гемара объясняет формулировку барайты] —

Granted, according to Hezekiah—

who explains the first beraita as being in accordance with Beit Shammai—

it is satisfactory to him,

for this beraita, too, is in accordance with Beit Shammai—

But according to Rabbi Yohanan—

who explains the first beraita as referring to one who says, “Had I known, I would have vowed a thanksgiving-offering and a sacrifice with bread and libations”—

it is difficult,

for this beraita, since he did not say this, but rather, “I would not have vowed at all”!

Rabbi Yohanan could say to you: This—

this beraita—

is certainly in accordance with Beit Shammai.

And the Gemara explains the wording of the beraita: “They compel him and say to him, ‘Guard and you shall hear’”:

What is

“Guard and you shall hear”?

Said

explained

Abaye:

“Guard”

means:

bring a thanksgiving-offering—

“And you shall hear”

means:

bring

also

its bread.

Rava said,

to explain the wording of the beraita:

“Guard”

means:

bring a thanksgiving-offering and its bread.

“And you shall hear”

means:

that you should not be accustomed to do this,

to vow a thanksgiving-offering without bread and a sacrifice without libations. We learned in the Mishna: [the one who says]

“A thanksgiving-offering, it and its bread, from the tithe”

shall bring:

And we raise a difficulty against the wording

“shall bring,”

and is it not sufficient that he not bring

that is,

is he obligated to bring specifically in this manner

and cannot bring both of them from non-sacred produce, for certainly, if he wishes to bring everything from non-sacred produce, a blessing will come upon him!?

Rav Nahman and Rav Hisda said

[they answered]: This is the meaning of our Mishna:

if he wishes, he brings

from the tithe;

if he does not wish, he does not bring

from the tithe, but rather from non-sacred produce.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he shall not bring from the wheat of second tithe, but rather from money of second tithe”:

Rav Nahman and Rav Hisda both said:

They taught [this] only—

that he may not bring the bread of the thanksgiving-offering from second tithe itself—

but rather from wheat of second tithe,

that is, the wheat itself that was separated as second tithe,

but from wheat purchased with money of second tithe

that is, he redeemed the second tithe and bought wheat with it not for the purpose of the bread of the thanksgiving-offering, and now he wishes to make bread of the thanksgiving-offering from it—

he may bring.

Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying: They taught [this] only

that he may not bring

but from wheat of second tithe, but from wheat purchased with money of second tithe—

even though it was not purchased for the sake of the bread of the thanksgiving-offering—

he may bring;

and this is like Rav Nahman and Rav Hisda.

He said to him: Rabbi! You say this.

But

I say: even from wheat purchased with money of second tithe he may not bring,

unless he initially purchased wheat with the money of the tithe for the sake of the bread of the thanksgiving-offering.

And let me state my reason

and

let me state your reason

[and I shall explain my reason and your reason]:

Your reason:

“a thanksgiving-offering”—

that is, the bread of the thanksgiving-offering—

from where do you derive it

that he may bring it from money of second tithe [when he did not undertake to bring a thanksgiving-offering],

“repayments”

for the Torah called the thanksgiving-offering “the thanksgiving-offering of his peace-offerings,” and just as he may purchase peace-offerings with money of second tithe [as it explains below], so may he bring the bread of the thanksgiving-offering from it.