Menachot

GEMARA. 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. 1 [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?2 — Because it is like the case where he vowed a large animal and he brought a small one.3 For even though they have suffered a blemish.4 Rabbi does not permit it in the first instance. Should he not then differ in the first case too?5 — 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.6 The question was raised: What is the rule where a different kind is brought for the original kind?7 — 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.8 This proves it.9 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,10 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.11 ‘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;12 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.13 — Two Tannaim differ as to the view of Rabbi.14 As for unblemished animals,15 [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 rule16 applies only where the man said, ‘This ox shall be a burnt-offering’;17 but if he said, ‘I take upon myself that this ox shall be a burnt-offering’, there is a definite obligation.18 Perhaps he only meant: ‘I take upon myself to bring [this ox]’!19 — 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 rule20 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 value21 shall be a burnt-offering’, there is a definite obligation. 22 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 ME23 [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.24 What then should [this man] do?25 — Hiyya26 b. Rab said, He must wait until the middle one suffers a blemish and then transfer its sanctity to the largest one. 27 R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha, This28 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.29 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]!30 Is it not because this expression implies the worst?31 — No; [‘aliyyah means] the finest of his houses.32 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,33 but the price thereof is free for common use? — This34 refers only to the case where an ox belonging to the Sanctuary was confused with others.35 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;36 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. 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. 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. 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. price of the blemished ox or not? vessel, accordingly the present offering with its two meal-offerings is quite different from the original offering which required but one meal-offering. smaller animal with the price of the larger blemished animal. meal-offering. vessels required for the accompanying meal-offering; but the other Tanna holds that Rabbi insists upon the animals being identical. bring the offering according to the terms of his vow which was here one burnt- offering and not two. liberal offering as compared with the smallest animal. or it has now become holy; on the other hand the middle one is now free for common use. ohasev ase, the holy of holies’, the most holy. who ruled that the expression an ox among my oxen’ definitely indicates the largest one. one was intended.