Menachot — Daf 103a

אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא

(דברים כג, כד) כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת

איתמר נמי אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת:

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי מנחה מן השעורים יביא מן החטים קמח יביא סולת בלא שמן ובלא לבונה יביא שמן ולבונה

חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבין:

גמ׳ אמאי נדר ופתחו עמו הוא

אמר חזקיה הא מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי תפוס לשון ראשון דתנן הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה בית שמאי אומרים נזיר ובית הלל אומרים אינו נזיר

ר' יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בית הלל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך

אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא דאמר מנחה מן השעורים אבל אמר מנחה מן העדשים לא

מכדי חזקיה כמאן אמר לשמעתיה כבית שמאי ובית שמאי משום תפוס לשון ראשון הוא מה לי מן השעורין מה לי מן העדשים הדר ביה

ומאי טעמא הדר ביה אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני מנחה מן השעורים ליתני מן העדשים

אלא שמע מינה משום דטעי הוא בשעורים טעי בעדשים לא טעי

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מן העדשים מכדי ר' יוחנן כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה כבית הלל ובית הלל משום דטעי הוא בשעורין טעי בעדשים לא טעי

לדבריו דחזקיה קאמר ליה את מאי טעמא הדרת בך משום דלא קתני מן העדשים

דלמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא מן העדשים דאיכא למימר מהדר הוא דהדר ביה ותפוס לשון ראשון אלא אפילו מן השעורין נמי דאיכא למימר מיטעא הוא דקא טעי אפילו הכי תפוס לשון ראשון

only in the case where he determined [the kind of vessel] at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart,1 it is not [invalid]; [for Scripture says,] According as thou hast vowed,2 and not ‘according as thou hast set apart’. This has also been stated: R. Aha b. Hanina said in the name of R. Assi who said it in the name of R. Johanan, This has been taught only in the case where he determined the kind of vessel at the time of his vowing, but [where he determined the kind of vessel] at the time of his setting it apart, it is not [invalid]; [for Scripture says,] ‘According as thou hast vowed’, and not ‘according as thou hast set apart’. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID, ‘I TAKE UPON MYSELF TO BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF BARLEY’, HE MUST BRING ONE OF WHEAT;3 IF ‘OF COARSE MEAL’, HE MUST BRING IT OF FINE FLOUR; IF ‘WITHOUT OIL AND WITHOUT FRANKINCENSE’, HE MUST NEVERTHELESS BRING IT WITH OIL AND FRANKINCENSE; IF ‘HALF A TENTH, HE MUST BRING A WHOLE TENTH; IF A TENTH AND A HALF’, HE MUST BRING TWO. R. SIMEON DECLARES HIM EXEMPT, BECAUSE HE DID NOT MAKE HIS OFFERING IN THE MANNER IN WHICH PEOPLE USUALLY MAKE THEIR OFFERINGS. GEMARA. But why is this? Here is a vow and also its annulment!4 — The view [expressed in our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, Is that of Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding].5 For we have learnt: [If a man said,] ‘I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs’, Beth Shammai say, He becomes a Nazirite [in the ordinary sense];6 but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite.7 R. Johanan said, You may even say that it is the view of Beth Hillel too, for [we assume that] the man added,’ Had I but known that one may not vow a meal-offering in this manner, I should not have vowed in this manner but in that’. Hezekiah said, This8 was taught only in the case where he said a meal-offering of barley’, but where he said ‘a meal-offering of lentils’, he has not [to bring a meal-offering of wheat]. But let us consider: Hezekiah explained our Mishnah according to the view of Beth Shammai, did he not? But since Beth Shammai maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement] as binding then surely it is immaterial whether he said ‘of barley’ or ‘of lentils’! — He abandoned that view.9 But why did he abandon it? — Raba said, Because our Mishnah was to him difficult to understand. Why does it state ‘a meal-offering of barley’ and not ‘of lentils’?10 Obviously it is because of the man's error; now in regard to barley a man may err11 but surely not in regard to lentils.12 R. Johanan, however, said, Even [if he said] ‘of lentils’,13 But consider: R. Johanan explained our Mishnah in accordance with the view of Beth Hillel, did he not? And Beth Hillel's view is based upon the man's error; now [I grant you that] a man may err in regard to barley, but surely he would not err in regard to lentils!14 — He15 said so only as the result of Hezekiah's argument. [For he reasoned with him thus:] Why did you abandon your view? Because our Mishnah does not state ‘of lentils’. But it may be that [that was so obvious that] it was not even necessary to be stated! Thus not only where he said ‘of lentils’,in which case it can only be said that he is revoking his vow,16 do we hold that we must adopt the first words [of his statement]; but even where he said ‘of barley’, in which case it might be said that he has erred,17 we still say that we must adopt the first words [of his statement]. only later when setting apart the flour for his meal-offering he mentioned the vessel in which it was to be prepared. If then he actually prepares it in a vessel different from that mentioned by him previously, it is still valid. Cf. Lev. II, 1. only wheat may be offered as a meal-offering and not barley. subsequent words ‘of barley’ cannot nullify the effect of his opening words. he should also be liable to bring a meal-offering of wheat. The fact that our Mishnah implies a distinction between barley and lentils proves that Beth Shammai's view is not upheld. e.g., the meal-offering of jealousy (cf. Num. V, 15). His intention, however, was to bring a proper meal-offering, and therefore in place of the meal-offering of barley he must bring one of wheat. accept the view that a man is bound by his first words. retracting his vow, and this he cannot do since he is already bound by his first words. and since this cannot be brought he should be exempt entirely.