Menachot

[IF HE SAID.] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM [SECOND] TITHE [MONEY]’. HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED.1 [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO. [IF HE SAID,] ‘BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO; BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY.2 GEMARA. R. Huna said, If a man said, ‘Behold I take upon myself [to bring] the bread of a thank-offering’, he must bring a thank-offering and its bread. For what reason? Since this man knows full well that bread alone cannot be offered he obviously meant a thank-offering together with its bread, and when he said, ‘The bread of a thank-offering’ he merely stated the final words [of the vow].3 We have learnt: [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO. Now why is this so? Surely since he said, ‘Its bread from what is unconsecrated’, he ought to bring both it [the thank-offering] and its bread from what is unconsecrated!4 — There it is quite different, for since he had already said, ‘The thank-offering from Second Tithe’, [when he next said, ‘Bread from what is unconsecrated’] it is to be taken as though he had said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to bring the bread for So-and-so's thank-offering’.5 If that is so, then in the first clause too which reads, [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY, HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED, it should also be taken as though he had said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to bring the thank-offering6 for So-and-so's bread’.7 — How can you compare [the two]? Bread might very well be brought for another's thank-offering; but is a thank-offering ever brought for another's bread?8 Come and hear: If a man said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to offer a thank-offering without the bread’, or ‘an animal-offering without the drink-offerings’, they compel him to bring the thank-offering with the bread or the animal-offering with the drink-offerings. Now this is so only where he said, ‘a thank-offering’, but where he did not say ‘a thank-offering’,9 he would not ‘[have to bring anything at all!]10 — [No.] it is just the same even though he did not say ‘a thank-offering’,11 but since the Tanna wished to state the case of an animal-offering without the drink-offerings, when he could not have stated [the reverse, viz..] drink-offerings without an animal-offering,12 he also stated the case of the thank-offering.13 Why is it so?14 Surely this is a vow that carries with it its annulment!15 — The authority for this [view of our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, is Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding].16 For we have learnt:17 If a man said, ‘I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs’,18 Beth Shammai say. He becomes a Nazirite;19 but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite.20 R. Johanan said, You may even say that this is in accordance with Beth Hillel, [only we must suppose that the man] said, ‘Had I but known that one cannot vow in this manner21 I should not have vowed in this manner but in that’.22 What [then means], ‘They compel him’?23 -That is if he wishes to change his mind now. Come and hear: If a man said, ‘I take upon myself to bring a thank-offering without bread’, or ‘an animal-offering without the drink-offerings’, and when they said to him, ‘You must bring a thank-offering with the bread’ or ‘an animal-offering with the drink-offerings’. he replied, ‘Had I but known this I would not have vowed at all’, they compel him none the less and say to him, ‘Observe and hear’.24 Now this is well according to Hezekiah,25 but it surely presents a difficulty to R. Johanan!26 — R. Johanan will reply, That [Baraitha] undoubtedly represents Beth Shammai's view. What is meant by ‘Observe and hear’?-Abaye said, ‘Observe’: bring the thank-offering, ‘and hear:’ bring its bread-offering. Raba said. ‘Observe’: bring the thank-offering with its bread-offering. ‘and hear’: be not in the habit of doing so. [IF HE SAID.] ‘BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE’. HE SHALL BRING IT SO. ‘HE SHALL BRING IT SO!’ Is he then bound to bring it so?27 — R. Nahman and R. Hisda explained, If he wishes he brings it [as he vowed]. and if not he need not bring it [as he vowed].28 BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY. R. Nahman and R. Hisda both said, They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat,29 but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money.30 R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera and recited as follows: They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat, but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money. [R. Zera] said to him, Master, you say so; but I say that even from wheat bought with Second Tithe money he may not bring it.31 And I will state my reason and I will state your reason. I will state your reason: Whence do you know this32 of the thank-offering? From peace-offerings.33 unconsecrated that included the bread too, and his subsequent words are of no consequence. so that he must bring both the thank-offering and the bread from what is unconsecrated. His opening words ‘the thank-offering from Second Tithe’ would be of no consequence. V., however, Tosaf s.v. htnt . bread from what is unconsecrated, whether that other's thank-offering was of Second Tithe or of what was unconsecrated. So too in the case of our Mishnah, this man meant to offer bread from what was unconsecrated to exempt his own thank-offering brought from Second Tithe from this obligation. bread from Second Tithe, as he had actually vowed. thank-offering also, in accord with R. Huna. realizing immediately that his promise of a thank-offering would also entail the bread-offering he immediately decided to annul his vow by adding the words ‘without bread’. only and the other is to be disregarded. Here, therefore, as soon as the man said ‘I take upon myself to bring a thank-offering’, that constituted a binding vow, and his subsequent words ‘without the bread’ cannot nullify the effect of his opening words. expression ‘I will be a Nazirite’ and his subsequent words are disregarded. to annul his vow of becoming a Nazirite. subsequent statement why should he be compelled to offer it? the bread of a thank-offering. which case our Mishnah clearly teaches that he may bring it from that.