מנחות 108 — Soncino English Talmud

¹lambs, goats, surplus moneys, and the ma'ah. They all do not agree with Hezekiah's answer, because there is no reason to apprehend any strife, since each [priestly group] served on its own day. Neither do they agree with R. Johanan's answer, because there is no fear of the money becoming mouldy. Nor do they agree with Ze'iri's answer, because they do not wish to interpret it in accordance with the view of an individual. Nor do they agree with Bar Padda's answer, [for why have a separate chest for] surplus moneys? Were not all the other moneys surplus moneys? Moreover the ma'ahs went in the shekel [chamber]! For it was taught: Where did the surcharge go? Into the shekel [chamber]. So R. Meir. R. Eleazar says, Into the freewill-offering [chests]. Samuel said, They served for the surplus of the sin-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the leper, the surplus of the sinner's meal-offering, and the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering. R. Oshaia said, They served for the surplus of the sin-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, the surplus of the guilt-offering of the leper, the surplus of the bird-offerings, and the surplus of the sinner's meal-offering. Why does not Samuel accept R. Oshaia's answer? — Bird-offerings have already been stated. [Can it then be suggested that] R. Oshaia learnt that Mishnah and did not include bird-offerings? But we know that R. Oshaia learnt it and included bird-offerings! — One [chest] was for [the money for] the bird-offerings and the other for the surplus money of the bird-offerings. And why does not R. Oshaia accept Samuel's answer? — Because he agrees with him who says that the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering must be left to rot. For it was taught: The surplus of the meal-offering was for freewill-offerings, and the surplus of the meal-offering was left to rot. What does this mean? — R. Hisda said, It means this: The surplus of the sinner's meal-offering was for freewill-offerings, and the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering was left to rot. Rabbah said, Even the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering was for freewill-offerings, but [the Baraitha teaches that] the surplus of the cakes of the thank-offering was left to rot. There is also the following dispute [on the matter]: As for the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering. R. Johanan said, It was to go for freewill-offerings. R. Eleazar said, It was to be left to rot. An objection was raised: [We have learnt:] The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is free for common use, but the surplus of [money set aside for] the tenth of an ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] the bird-offerings of men who had an issue, for the bird-offerings of women who had an issue, for the bird-offerings of women after childbirth, or for sin-offerings or guilt-offerings-their surplus is for freewill-offerings. This refers, does it not, to the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering? — No, it refers to the surplus of the sinner's meal-offering. R. Nahman b. R. Isaac said, The most reasonable view is that of him who holds that the surplus of the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering was left to rot. For it was taught: [It is written,] He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering. R. Judah said, ‘It’ is called a sin-offering, but no other is called a sin-offering; this teaches us that the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering is not called a sin-offering and that it requires frankincense. Now since it is not called a sin-offering the surplus thereof must be left to rot. MISHNAH. [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘THIS OX SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING TWO WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THESE TWO OXEN SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING ONE OX WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS RAM SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A LAMB WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS LAMB SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’. AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A RAM WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:The money obtained for the lamb which had originally been set aside for the guilt-offering of a Nazirite or of a leper was put into a third chest and not confused with the money obtained from the guilt-offerings that was placed in the second chest, for the latter guilt-offerings were brought in order to obtain atonement whilst the former were brought in order to render the person fit.
^ᵇnote:Sc. the he-goats offered as sin-offerings on behalf of the community on the Festivals. The money obtained for these he-goats (in the circumstances described supra n. 1) was put into a fourth chest.
^ᶜnote:Where a sum of money had been set aside for any of the offerings mentioned and the price of animals fell, the surplus money was put into a fifth chest set there for this purpose.
^ᵈnote:A small silver coin, equal to the sixth part of a zuz or denar. This was the amount of surcharge (Heb. iuckue) which every Israelite had to add to his annual half-shekel contribution to the Temple as compensation to the Temple treasury for any loss incurred in exchanging the half-shekels into other coinage. These ma'ahs were put into a sixth chest and the money was expended on free-will burnt-offerings on behalf of the community.
^ᵉnote:Hence one chest would have sufficed. And if on any day the altar was idle the priests serving on that day would draw money from the chest for burnt-offerings and benefit from the skins. This could equally happen to any priestly group on any day, so that there are no grounds for quarrels.
^ᶠnote:Sc. Rabbi. According to the Sages the money for all offerings could be put into one chest and the priests would spend it on bullocks for burnt-offerings.
^ᵍnote:V. supra nn. 1 to 4. All these come under the heading of surplus money.
^ʰnote:In accordance with the view of R. Meir, and not into the chest of freewill-offerings.
^ⁱnote:Arising when money had been set aside for a particular offering and the price thereof fell.
^ʲnote:Sc. the guilt-offering for theft and the guilt-offering for sacrilege. These required a separate chest and could not be mixed with the moneys of other guilt-offerings, for the former were rams brought for atonement whilst the latter were lambs brought in order to render the person fit.
^ᵏnote:The surplus money of the guilt-offering of the leper could not be mixed with that of the guilt-offering of the Nazirite, for the offering rites of the former differed greatly from the latter. The former offering required the application of its blood on the right thumb and right great toe of the leper whereas the latter did not; the former required drink-offerings whereas the latter did not, moreover the former rendered the leper clean to enter the camp, whereas the latter rendered the Nazirite fit to resume his Nazirite vow.
^ˡnote:This was exceptional, for the surplus of all other meal-offerings was used by the offerer for another meal-offering and was not used for communal freewill-offerings.
^ᵐnote:Which the High Priest offered daily, half of it in the morning and half in the evening; v. Lev. VI, 13.
^ⁿnote:V. Supra 104a.
^ᵒnote:Among the seven chests reserved for special purposes was one whereon was inscribed ‘Bird-offerings’. V. Shek. VI, 5.
^ᵖnote:Into this chest those who but needed an offering for the completion of their purification put their money for bird-offerings, and when evening came they could eat consecrated food, resting assured that the priests had of a certainty offered their bird-offerings during the day.
^ᵠnote:Shek. II,5.
^ʳnote:Which was also a tenth of an ephah of fine flour.
^ˢnote:Lev. V, 11 referring to the sinner's meal-offering.
^ᵗnote:Sc. the tenth of an ephah of the High Priest's meal-offering.
^ᵘnote:It is no more fit for sacrifice but it must be sold and another burnt-offering brought with the price thereof.
^ᵛnote:In the first instance; if, however, he did bring two, even Rabbi agrees that it is valid.

²GEMARA. But have you not stated in the earlier [Mishnah]: [If a man said, ‘I take upon myself to offer] an ox valued at a maneh’, and he brought two together worth a maneh, he has not fulfilled his obligation? — It is different here where he said ‘THIS OX’, and it suffered a blemish. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THESE TWO OXEN SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING, AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING ONE OX WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. Why? — Because it is like the case where he vowed a large animal and he brought a small one. For even though they have suffered a blemish. Rabbi does not permit it in the first instance. Should he not then differ in the first case too? — Rabbi indeed disagrees with the whole teaching, but he waited until the Rabbis had stated their view in full and then expressed his dissent. This can also be proved, for [the Mishnah] states: [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS RAM SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A LAMB WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS LAMB SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A RAM WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. This proves it. The question was raised: What is the rule where a different kind is brought for the original kind? — Come and hear: [If a man said,] ‘This ox shall be a burnt-offering’, and it suffered a blemish, he may not bring a ram with the price thereof, but he may bring two rams with the price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it, for one may not mix them. This proves it. But if that is the case, why two [rams]? [They should also permit him to bring] one, since according to the view of the Rabbis, where the original offering suffered a blemish, it makes no difference whether a large or a small animal [is brought with the price thereof]! — Two Tannaim differ as to the view of the Rabbis. ‘Rabbi forbids it, for one may not mix them’. Now the reason [for Rabbi's view] is that one may not mix them, but if one were allowed to mix them it would be permitted; but we have learnt: [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS RAM SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A LAMB WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THIS LAMB SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING A RAM WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. BUT RABBI FORBIDS IT. — Two Tannaim differ as to the view of Rabbi. As for unblemished animals, [if a man vowed] a calf and he brought a bullock, or a lamb and he brought a ram, he has fulfilled his obligation. This is an anonymous teaching in accord with the view of the Rabbis. HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING TWO WITH THE PRICE THEREOF etc. R. Menashya b. Zebid said in the name of Rab, This rule applies only where the man said, ‘This ox shall be a burnt-offering’; but if he said, ‘I take upon myself that this ox shall be a burnt-offering’, there is a definite obligation. Perhaps he only meant: ‘I take upon myself to bring [this ox]’! — The fact is that if such a statement was at all made it was made in these terms: R. Menashya b. Zebid said in the name of Rab, This rule applies only where the man said, ‘This ox shall be a burnt-offering’. or where he said, ‘I take upon myself that this ox shall be a burnt-offering’; but if he said, ‘I take upon myself that this ox or its value shall be a burnt-offering’, there is a definite obligation. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID, ‘ONE OF MY LAMBS SHALL BE HOLY’, OR ‘ONE OF MY OXEN SHALL BE HOLY’, AND HE HAD TWO ONLY, THE LARGER ONE IS HOLY. IF HE HAD THREE, THE MIDDLE ONE IS HOLY. [IF HE SAID,] ‘I SPECIFIED ONE BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH IT WAS I SPECIFIED’, OR [IF HE SAID,] ‘MY FATHER TOLD ME [THAT HE HAD SPECIFIED ONE] BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHICH IT IS’, THE LARGEST ONE AMONG THEM MUST BE HOLY. GEMARA. [THE LARGER ONE IS HOLY.] We thus see that he that sanctifies sanctifies in a liberal spirit. Now turn to the next clause: THE MIDDLE ONE IS HOLY, which shows that he that sanctifies sanctifies in an illiberal spirit! — Samuel said, It means that we must take into account the possibility of the middle one also [being holy], for that shows a liberal spirit as compared with the smallest. What then should [this man] do? — Hiyya b. Rab said, He must wait until the middle one suffers a blemish and then transfer its sanctity to the largest one. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, This applies only where a man said, ‘One of my oxen shall be holy’. but if he said, ‘An ox among my oxen shall be holy’, then the largest among them is holy, for he meant thereby: the [finest] ox among my oxen. But surely this is not right, for R. Huna b. Hiyya said in the name of ‘Ulla, If a man said to his fellow, ‘I sell you a house among my houses’, he may show him an attic [‘aliyyah]! Is it not because this expression implies the worst? — No; [‘aliyyah means] the finest of his houses. An objection was raised: If a man said, ‘An ox among my oxen shall be holy’, and so, too, if an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with other [unconsecrated oxen], the largest one among them must be holy, and all the others must be sold to be used for burnt-offerings, but the price thereof is free for common use? — This refers only to the case where an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with others. But it says here ‘and so too’! — That refers only to the ruling that the largest one [must be holy]. A further objection was raised: If a man said, ‘I sell you a house among my houses’, and one [of his houses] fell down, he may show him the fallen house; or if he said, ‘I sell you a slave among my slaves’, and one [of his slaves] died, he may show him the dead slave.^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ

^ʷnote:Since he specified the ox, as soon as it became unfit for sacrifice the obligation of his vow has come to an end, and he is not bound to replace it by another; accordingly when it is sold and another offering brought with the price thereof it need not be quite the same as the original offering.
^ˣnote:Why does Rabbi forbid it?
^ʸnote:For generally speaking two oxen, even though together only equal in price to one, are more profitable than one.
^ᶻnote:So that the obligation of this man's vow has come to an end.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sc. the first clause of our Mishnah which reads: [IF A MAN SAID,] ‘THIS OX SHALL BE A BURNT-OFFERING’, AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY, IF HE SO DESIRES, BRING TWO WITH THE PRICE THEREOF. According to Rabbi this, too, should be forbidden, for it is like the case where a man vowed a small animal and he brought a large one.
^ᵃᵇnote:For the last clause of the Mishnah, viz., the offering of a ram with the price of the blemished lamb, is on all fours with the first clause, viz., the offering of two oxen with the price of the blemished one; and as Rabbi expressly differs with the Rabbis in the last clause, he obviously differs with them in the first clause too.
^ᵃᶜnote:Where, e.g., an ox which had been assigned for an offering had suffered a blemish, may one bring rams with the price of the blemished ox or not?
^ᵃᵈnote:Sc. the two meal-offerings which must accompany the two rams. Each meal-offering must be brought in a separate vessel, accordingly the present offering with its two meal-offerings is quite different from the original offering which required but one meal-offering.
^ᵃᵉnote:That one may bring a different kind (rams) with the price of the original blemished animal (the ox).
^ᵃᶠnote:And the obligation of this man's vow has then come to an end.
^ᵃᵍnote:And one Tanna is of the opinion that even according to the Rabbis it is forbidden in the first instance to bring a smaller animal with the price of the larger blemished animal.
^ᵃʰnote:To bring a different kind of animal for an offering with the price of the blemished animal.
^ᵃⁱnote:Notwithstanding that the present offering and the original offering are alike in that each requires but one meal-offering.
^ᵃʲnote:One Tanna maintains that Rabbi insists only upon the present and the original offering being alike in the number of vessels required for the accompanying meal-offering; but the other Tanna holds that Rabbi insists upon the animals being identical.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘clean animals’. This is a continuation of the Baraitha quoted above in answer to the question that was raised.
^ᵃˡnote:That with the price of the blemished ox he may bring two.
^ᵃᵐnote:For in truth the obligation of this man's vow came to an end when the ox suffered a blemish.
^ᵃⁿnote:To bring one burnt-offering. The use of the expression ‘I take upon myself’ imposes an obligation upon the man to bring the offering according to the terms of his vow which was here one burnt- offering and not two.
^ᵃᵒnote:With the emphasis upon ‘this’. Therefore if the ox became unfit that discharges his vow.
^ᵃᵖnote:That with the price of the blemished ox he may bring two.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., if the ox suffers a blemish and is sold.
^ᵃʳnote:V. p. 668, n. 8.
^ᵃˢnote:Before he died.
^ᵃᵗnote:Thus both the largest animal and the middle one might be the one that was sanctified, for each can be regarded as a liberal offering as compared with the smallest animal.
^ᵃᵘnote:In order to be allowed to use one of these two animals.
^ᵃᵛnote:So according to MSS. and Sh. Mek. Cur. edd. read: R. Hiyya.
^ᵃʷnote:So that now the largest animal is the holy one without any shadow of doubt, for it was either holy in the first place or it has now become holy; on the other hand the middle one is now free for common use.
^ᵃˣnote:That we must consider the possibility of the middle one also being holy.
^ᵃʸnote:For so is the superlative degree expressed in Hebrew; cf. ohrhav rha ‘the song of songs’, the finest song, ohasev ase, the holy of holies’, the most holy.
^ᵃᶻnote:As the subject matter of the sale. Heb. vhhkg, ‘an upper room, an attic’.
^ᵇᵃnote:Similarly the expression ‘an ox among my oxen would imply the smallest animal, contrary to R Nahman.
^ᵇᵇnote:The word vhhkg is here taken in the sense of ‘the finest’, ‘the most distinguished’.
^ᵇᶜnote:For we take into account the possibility of any one of the others being the holy one, thus contrary to R. Nahman who ruled that the expression an ox among my oxen’ definitely indicates the largest one.
^ᵇᵈnote:The ruling that all must be sold for burnt-offerings.
^ᵇᵉnote:But where a man said, ‘An ox among my oxen shall be holy’, there is no doubt at all that no other than the largest one was intended.
^ᵇᶠnote:As the one that was sold.