Talmud for Menachot 12:7

HALAKHAH: “I shall be a nazir [abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of the House of Shammai: because he mentioned the state of nazir²If he said “I shall be a nazir”, he became a nazir. The qualification he appended is irrelevant. (In the Babli, 9a, this argument is attributed to R. Meïr, who thinks that “people do not say nonsensical things.”). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, because of substitutes of substitutes⁵Since the House of Shammai accept very far-fetched comparisons and substitutes for a vow of nezirut; cf. Chapter 1, Note 19. In the Tosephta, 2:1, this is explicitly given as the reason of the House of Shammai. The Tosephta must have been unknown to the editors of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “So says the Eternal, as cider is found in the grape bunch, etc⁶Is. 65:8..” The Torah called a grape bunch “cider”. And people call a dried fig cider, because of substitutes of substitutes. What is the difference between them? If he said, “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from dried figs and fig cake.” In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion he is not a nazir⁷This is difficult since the House of Shammai declare in the Mishnah that he is a nazir and the entire discussion only proceeds according to the House of Shammai. One has to assume that the person making the vow was asked what he understood by “dried figs.” If he answered, dried figs, R. Simeon ben Laqish cannot consider this as substitutes of substitutes, but for R. Joḥanan he still pronounced the word nazir. (This interpretation is that of Tosaphot Menaḥot 103a, s.v. הריני in the name of Rabbenu Tam.). “I shall be a nazir[abstaining] from a loaf of bread,” in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is a nazir, in Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is not a nazir⁸A loaf of bread is not a grape derivative by any stretch of the imagination.. “From a loaf of bread,” he did not say anything⁹Since the word nazir was not used. One has to assume that the expression הֲרֵינִי was used, since הֲרֵי עָלַי כִכָּר would be a vow to abstain from bread as qorban (Chapter 1, Notes 44–45).. Rebbi Uqba asked before Rebbi Mana: The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted, as we have stated there¹⁰Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. A voluntary flour offering is prescribed as an offering of fine wheat flour. Barley is prescribed only for some purification offerings which cannot be voluntary.: “ ‘I take upon myself the obligation to bring a flour offering from barley.’ He shall bring from wheat.” And Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, because he mentioned “flour offering.¹¹One would have expected R. Simeon ben Laqish to hold that the vow of the offering was invalid since it was impossible. In the Babli, 9b, his opinion is quoted as generally accepted.” And here, he says so? He accepts one and he accepts the other. He accepts¹²He does not dispute the reason given by R. Joḥanan but only adds a second reason. because he mentioned the state of nazir, and he accepts because of substitutes of substitutes. You should know that it is so since we have stated¹³Mishnah 2:3. This discussion now also proceeds according to the House of Hillel.: “If he said, the cow said.” She did not say anything; it is because he mentioned the state of nazir, and here he mentioned the state of nazir.

There²⁸Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan²⁹A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel³⁰A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.³¹“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s³²Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose³³Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?³⁴If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind³⁵Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina³⁶It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around³⁵Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?³⁷Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally³⁸This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine³⁹If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine⁴⁰If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer..

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Does not a baraita disagree? “¹⁷⁴Tosephta Menaḥot12:7. lf somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim¹⁷⁵The flour offerings in the Temple were all multiples of the issaron, one tenth of an ephah, or 3/10 of a seˋah, approximately 3.6 liter. in two vessels, he shall bring 50 in one vessel each. But if he brought 60¹⁷⁶As quoted later in this paragraph, since flour offerings have to be brought mixed with oil, it is a rule (Mishnah Menaḥot12:4) that the maximum flour offering which can be brought in one vessel is 60 esronim. in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.” Somebody could say, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 100 esronim, simply, without specifying the number of vessels in which be brings them; why does he specify “to bring them in two vessels”? To bring them 50 in one vessel each/ And we have stated on this, if he brought 60 in one vessel and 40 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation¹⁷⁷This is the essence of R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection to Rebbi’s interpretation of the verse. Since even if it should be clear that the intent was to split evenly, it is not a strict condition, therefore Rebbi’s inference that the verse prescribes an even split between Aaron and his sons is not justified.! Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since up to 60 they can be mixed¹⁷⁸Mishnah Menaḥot12:4; Tosephta 12:8–9/, it is as if from the start he fixed it at 60. It would be necessary to say, “if somebody says, I am taking on me the obligation to bring 60 esronim in two vessels, he shall bring 30 in one vessel each. But if he brought 40 in one vessel and 20 in the other, he has fulfilled his obligation.¹⁷⁹R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection could only be substantiated by a baraita which does not involve 60 esronim.” It was found stated thus¹⁸⁰Therefore Rebbi’s argument has to be rejected..

The following is obvious: If her husband did not dissolve for the first [woman] and she transgressed her vow, she is whipped. Can the second be whipped⁵⁷If the second woman stated that “my intention was only to be like her, in her state,” and the first violated her vow and now cannot be a nezirah while she undergoes the purification rite, when the second also violated her vow.? Rebbi Yose said, since one is whipped, the other also is whipped. Rebbi La said, this⁵⁸R. Yose’s statement. follows Rebbi Simeon. Can the second not be considered like one who said, I am a nezirah after twenty days⁵⁹That the vow should count again after the first woman was purified.? Rebbi Simeon follows his own opinion; for Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the custom of offerers.⁶⁰Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3 (formulated in the masculine), cf. Halakhah 2:4, Note 66. There does not exist an intermittent vow of nazir; if the second woman’s vow was valid, it remains valid.

Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi Simeon⁶⁵Since R. Simeon is quoted as disagreeing in two of the three cases quoted in Mishnah 4, does one have to assume that he agrees in the first case?? For “Rebbi Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.⁶⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 12:3. If somebody vows an offering of barley flour (which cannot be a voluntary offering), the rabbis require him to bring an offering of wheat flour but “R. Simeon declares him free, because his offering was not according to the way of offerers.” One should assume that R. Simeon declares a person who wants to be nazir on condition that he may drink wine as “offering not according to the way of offerers.” Why does he not disagree in the first case?” And Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, there is a difference because he reserved shaving⁶⁷Since the person making the vow did not stipulate that he may shave, the vow is valid for the prohibition of shaving and a partially valid vow is valid.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If it is because he reserved shaving, does not the following state “it is forbidden to him, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” Did he not reserve shaving [and] impurity but Rebbi Simeon frees him⁶⁸The vow is partially valid; why is it not valid?? There is a difference, because of an opening for the vow⁶⁹Since he bases his vow on an argument which will automatically grant him a revocation of the vow (cf. Nedarim Chapter 9), the vow is automatically revoked. In the Babli, 11b, this argument is attributed to Rav Assi. In the Tosephta, 2:3, it is explicitly attributed to R. Simeon.. If it was because of an opening for the vow, does not the following state “he is permitted but Rebbi Simeon forbids”? Rebbi Simeon does not recognize it as an opening for the vow but the rabbis recognize it as an opening for the vow. Why? Because he connects his vow with his life⁷⁰If he needs wine for medical purposes, the use of wine must be permitted to him.. One understands, to drink wine. The defile oneself for the dead? It is his profession to bury the dead⁷¹The only person who can have a vow of nazir annulled because he has to defile himself for the dead is the undertaker..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The reason of Rebbi Eleazar: ¹³⁸Lev. 22:18–19.Speak to Aaron and to his sons, etc., who would sacrifice to the Eternal as elevation sacrifice; everything may be brought as elevation sacrifice, by your volition, unblemished, male. I could think that this includes birds. The verse says, in cattle, not birds¹⁴⁸Since the verse restricts elevation offerings from four-legged animals to unblemished males, it is inferred that the restriction does not apply to birds [Sifra Emor Parashah7(20), Wayyiqra I Parshata6(3)]. In addition, since Lev. 1:14–17 is addressed to the individual, but Lev. 22:18–19 to the public, it is inferred that birds as elevation offerings are possible only to the individual; the public is restricted to four-legged animals. Since a gift to the Temple is a gift to the public, birds given to the Temple as part of an estate may not be sacrificed.. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya were sitting and saying, there said Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon is that we find that a female is qualified as elevation offering of a bird¹²⁸Male animals are prescribed for four-legged elevation sacrifices, Lev. 1:3,10, but not for birds, 1:14 (Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata6(2,5). Argument missing in B.. And here, he¹⁴⁹Even though the statement is transmitted in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish, we do not hear that R. Joḥanan disagrees; the statement is coming from R. Joḥanan’s Academy. says so? Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it following what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira: Anything which could be sacrificed neither itself nor its money’s worth is sanctified only as money’s worth¹⁵⁰If an animal is not dedicated as sacrifice and if sold, the money cannot be used to buy an animal which can validly be dedicated (Note 119), the animal is given for the upkeep of the Temple, not to the gift account.. And you are saying, this is correct. You cannot sacrifice it, for it is written in cattle¹⁵¹And the public to whom the bird was given may not dedicate it as sacrifice.. You cannot redeem it since birds cannot be redeemed.¹⁵²Mishnah Menaḥot12:1. Not only birds, but also dedicated wine and flour cannot be redeemed since the rules of redemption in Lev. 27 are formulated referring to four-legged animals only.