Comentario sobre Menajot 13:13

הרי עלי עשרון. פירשתי – I will bring several Esronim but I don’t know how many I stated.

Introduction The entire thirteenth and final chapter of Menahot is concerned with a person who obligates himself to bring something to the Temple. The issue at hand is how to interpret his words in order to ensure that he fulfills his pledge.

יביא ששים עשרונים – for if he vowed less than this, it does not matter to him, for it teaches [in the Mishnah] and he states: “What that I expressly said will be for my vow, and the rest will be for a free-will offering.” But more than this one does not have to supply, for one meal-offering is not larger than sixty Issarons (see Tractate Menahot, Chapter 12, Mishnah 4).

[One who says], “I take upon myself to bring a tenth,” he must bring one [tenth]. This is the general and a bit obvious introduction to the rest of the Mishnah. If someone pledges to bring a tenth of flour as a minhah to the Temple, then he must bring one tenth.

הרי עלי מנחה – a person who states, “I pledge myself to bring a mere grain-offering.”

“Tenths,” he must bring two [tenths]. If he uses the plural, “tenths,” then he must bring at least two tenths, because the minimum number of “tenths” is two.

יביא איזה שירצה – from the five meal offerings (explained in the Torah: choice flour, in a deep and covered pan, in a pan – without a lid, baked loaves and baked wafers).

[If he said,] “I specified [a certain number of tenths] but I do not know what number I specified,” he must bring sixty tenths In this case, he remembers having specified a certain number of tenths, but he doesn’t remember how many tenths he specified. We must be concerned that he pledged to bring the maximum number of tenths possible. Therefore, he must bring sixty tenths, which as we learned in 12:4, is the largest number of tenths that a person can bring in one vessel.

מיוחדת – which is called a mere meal/grain-offering, but it does not have a differentiating epithet, for all of the rest of the meal/grain-offerings have a differentiating epithet, the meal offering of the pan-without a lid, the meal-offering of the deep covered pan, the meal-offering that is baked. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to bring a minhah,” he may bring whichever kind he chooses. Rabbi Judah says: he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for that is the distinctive [one] among the menahot. In this case a person pledges to bring a minhah, but doesn’t specify what kind of minhah he intends to bring. As explained in the introduction, and as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah, there are five different kinds of menahot. According to the first opinion, the person can bring any minhah because we assume that he didn’t have any specific minhah in mind. In other words, he must have meant to just bring any minhah and therefore that is exactly what he can do. Rabbi Judah says that he must bring a minhah of fine flour, for the Torah calls the minhah of fine flour “a minhah” without any accompanying name (see Leviticus 2:1). When it comes to other types of menahot, they all have an accompanying name, for instance “a minhah baked in an oven” (Leviticus 2:4). We can assume that had he wanted to bring such a minhah, he would have been more specific.

מנחה מין המנחה – he who says, “I pledge myself to bring a meal-offering,” or a kind of meal-offering.

[If he said] “A minhah” or “a kind of minhah,” he may bring one [of any kind]. Again, this is a general introduction to the rest of the mishnah. If he pledges to bring a minhah or “kind of from the various types of menahot” he must bring one minhah.

יביא אחת – from the meal-offerings that are mentioned in the portion (i.e., choice flour, in a deep and covered pan, in a pan -without a lid, baked loaves and/or baked wafers).

[If he said] “Menahot” or “A kind from menahot,” he must bring two [of any one kind]. If he uses the plural, he must bring two, because the minimum of a plurality is two.

מנחות – are upon me [as a pledge to bring] or that he states: “from a kind/species of the meal offerings are upon me,” he would bring two meal-offerings from one kind.

[If he said,] “I specified [a certain kind], but I do not know what kind I specified,” he must bring the five kinds. There are five different kinds of menahot mentioned in Leviticus 2: 1) A minhah of choice flour. 2 + 3) A minhah baked in the oven. There are two kinds of such minhahs: loaves, and wafers. 4) A minhah cooked on a griddle. 5) A minhah cooked in a pan. If he remembers that he specified that he wished to bring a certain type of minhah, but he doesn’t remember what type he specified, he must bring one of each type, lest that is the type that he pledged.

פירשתי – kids of meal-offerings that I would bring, but I don’t know how many kinds they are that I vowed to bring.

Here he remembers what type of minhah he specified, but he does not remember how many tenths he pledged to put in the minhah. As we have seen, a minhah can have anywhere from 1-60 tenths of flour. According to the first opinion, he must bring one minhah of sixty tenths, because that is the maximum amount of tenths that a minhah can consist of. Rabbi works the math out differently. The problem with bringing one minhah of sixty tenths is that the one who made the pledge might have said a minhah with a lower amount, in which case the minhah with sixty tenths would not fulfill his pledge. What he must do is bring a minhah for every number from one to sixty. This way he can be covered for every possibility. I won’t do that math here, but suffice it to say that this forgotten pledge is going to cost him a bundle!

מביא חמשתן – a meal-offering of choice flour, a meal-offering in a deep and covered pan, a meal- offering in a pan-without a lid, a meal-offering of that which is baked in an oven and it comes from two kinds – loaves and wafers.

... 6) Rebbi says: Since it says 'mincha [shel esronim],' it means he specified one [amount]. Perhaps he specified to bring a mincha of one issaron; if he brings 60 issaron in place of [lit. 'in the vessel of] one issaron, it could be an extraneous mincha. Rebbi is of the opinion that since he specified exaclt how big the mincha will be, [he must bring that exact one], therefore he must bring 60 menachot from 1 through 60, one of 1 issaron, one of two issarons, one of three, one of four, until 60. He will find himself bringing in total 1830 issaron of flour, and for certain one of them will fulfill his vow, and it is not a Nedava. The halacha is not according to Rebbi. [If you specified, and forget what you specified, you bring only a 60 issaron mincha.]

יביא ששים עשרון – for more than this he is not able to supply. But if he vowed less than this, if does not matter to us, for he makes a condition and states how many he specified will be for my vow and the rest will be a free-will offering (see also, Mishnah 8 in this chapter).

רבי אומר – since he said “a meal-offering,” that implies one, so we see, he established it in one utensil, but if he would bring sixty in one utensil, perhaps he vowed less than this, it would be an additional meal-offering, for Rabbi holds that the appointment of a portion is substantial, therefore, he should bring sixty meal-offerings from one until sixty, one of one Isaron, and one of two {Esronim] and one of three [Esronim] and one of four [Esronim] until sixty. That it is found that he brings among them all one thousand eight hundred and thirty Esronim, for certainly vowed one of them, but it is not a free-will offering. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince].

לא יפחות משני זגירין – two large logs, for the least of wood is two.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring [pieces of] wood,” he must bring not less than two logs. If one volunteers to bring wood to use on the altar, he must bring two logs. This is the amount of wood they put on the altar at one time.

והמעלה את הקומץ בחוץ חייב – [is liable for] extirpation, for it is an offering on the altar. But with this general rule it is also offering up a handful inside for the burning on the altar is valid; therefore, five handfuls are considered and not any more, for the person who offers up a handful inside is not considered as a sixth handful.

“Frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. If one volunteers to bring frankincense he must bring at least a handful of frankincense.

ושני בזיכים – of shewbread.

There are five cases of [not less than] a handful: One who says, “I take upon myself to bring frankincense,” he must bring not less than a handful. One who voluntarily offered a minhah must bring a handful of frankincense with it. One who offered up the handful outside [the Temp] is liable. The two dishes [of frankincense] require two handfuls. The mishnah now lists five cases where the minimum amount is a handful. The first is the case we just encountered in section two. The second case is one who volunteers to offer a minhah. He must bring with the minhah a handful of frankincense, the amount that always accompanies the minhah. The third case is who offers up a handful of incense outside of the Temple. Since a handful is an amount of significance within the Temple, one who offers up this amount outside of the Tempe is liable. The fourth and fifth handfuls are those that accompany the showbread (see above 11:5). Each row of the showbread had a dish of frankincense into which was put a handful of frankincense.

לא יפחות מדינר זהב – and he that would state a gold coin. For if not, perhaps he states a piece of gold bar, that is a piece of gold.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a person who volunteers to bring an unspecified amount of money as a donation to the Temple.

נחושת לא יפחות ממעה כסף – that he should bring copper that is worth a Maah of silver (i.e., a Maah is a small silver coin worth thirty-two peruta or one-sixth of a dinar = the Biblical gerah).

“I take upon myself to offer gold,” he must bring not less than a golden denar. Since the smallest gold coin is a golden denar, the person who pledges to bring gold must bring at least a golden denar.

פירשתי – such and such [an amount of] gold.

“Silver,” he must bring not less than a silver denar. The same rule applies when it comes to silver.

ואיני יודע כמה פירשתי – he should bring so much until that he would himself would know that he never intended for so much.

“Copper,” he must bring not less than [the value of] a silver maah. If someone pledges to bring copper, he must bring copper that is equivalent in value to one silver maah. A maah is 1/24 of a sela, and a sela is equivalent to 4 denars, so a maah is 1/6 of a denar.

[If he said] “I specified [how much I would bring] but I do not know what I specified,” he must bring until he says, “I certainly did not intend to give so much!” In this case, the person doesn’t remember how much he pledged. He must therefore bring the maximum amount he might have possibly pledged. In other words, we might say to him, “Might you have pledged 10 denars?” If he says yes, then we would say, “Might you have pledged 100 denars?” If he says yes, then the number keeps going up until he hits a number that he knows he definitely didn’t pledge. We should note that in all of these cases we are dealing with a person who honestly wants to fulfill his vow. There is no concern that the person might lie and say “I could not have possibly pledged to bring such a large amount” when he really might have, because if we were concerned about him lying, he could have just lied and said that he remembered having pledged a lower amount. Rather, in all of these mishnayot we are dealing with a person who honestly wants to figure out how much money he owes to the Temple.

הרי עלי יין – for libations.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to bring wine,” he must bring not less than three logs.
“Oil,” he must bring not less than one log;
Rabbi says: not less than three logs.
[If one said,] “I specified [how much I would offer] but I do not know how much I specified,” he must bring that quantity which is the most that is brought on any one day.
Today’s mishnah deals with one who has volunteered to bring wine or oil.
Section one: If he volunteered to bring wine, he must bring at least three logs of wine, which is the minimum amount of any of the libation offerings that accompany animal sacrifices (see above 12:4).
Section two: There is a debate about one who volunteers to bring oil. According to the first opinion, he must bring at least one log because an unspecified minhah is one tenth of fine flour (see 12:3), which requires one log of oil (see 9:3).
However, Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says that he must bring three logs of oil, for that is the minimum amount of oil used in any of the libation offerings that accompany animal sacrifices (see 12:4). In other words, the first opinion holds that he might have referred to the oil that accompanies a minhah which is only a log, whereas Rabbi holds that we must be concerned lest he was volunteering the amount of oil that accompanies an animal sacrifice, which is three logs.

לא יפחות משלשה לוגין – for they are the least that are of the libations. A quarter of a Hin for a lamb are three Logs, for a Hin is twelve LOG.

שמן לא יפחות מלוג – that the least that is for a meal/grain-offering is an Issaron of choice flour, and it requires a LOG of oil.

רבי אומר שלשה לוגין – like the least that is in the meal/grain-offering is an Issaron for a lamb mixed with a quarter of Hin of oil. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince].

כיום מרובה – like the First Day of the Festival of the Sukkot holiday when it falls on the Sabbath. For on that day, there is an abundance of libations for the obligatory sacrifices of the day from the rest of the days of the year. For there were thirteen bulls and fourteen lambs and four additional sacrifices – two for the Additional Sacrifices of the Sabbath and two for the Additional sacrifices of the Festival [of Sukkot], and two rams and one goat (see Numbers 29:12-16). And the libations required for all of them one-hundred and forty LOG.

הרי עלי עולה יביא כבש. ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר או תור או בן יונה – in the place of the first Tanna/teacher (i.e., anonymous teacher), he would not call a mere burnt offering anything other than a burnt offering of cattle, and the least that is of the burnt offering of cattle is a lamb, therefore he would bring a lamb. But in the place of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah they would call a mere burnt offering also for the burnt offering of birds, therefore, he would bring a turtle dove or a pigeon. And the [one] Master according to his place and the [other] Master according to his place.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a person who pledges to bring an olah, a wholly burnt offering, but does not clarify what type of animal he wishes to bring. The laws of the olah are found in Leviticus 1.

יביא פר ועגל – male [bulls and calves] but not females, for a burnt offering is not furnished other than with males. But our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who states further on (see the conclusion of Tractate Menahot, Chapter 12, Mishnah 8) that a person who vows a free-will offering of a small animal and he brings a large one has not fulfilled his religious obligation. But the Rabbis dispute him and state that one who vows a free-will offering and he brought a large one has fulfilled his religious obligation, for there is within the general category of that which is numerous that which is small in size. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must bring a lamb. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah say: [he may bring] a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. According to the first opinion in this section, if a person offers to bring an olah he must bring at minimum a lamb, which is the lowest level of olah that comes from a beast (a behemah). This opinion assumes that when he stated that he wished to bring an olah, he must have had a behemah in mind. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah believes that it is also possible that he had a bird olah in mind (see Leviticus 1:14ff). Therefore, he can bring a bird, either a turtle-dove (and a partridge in a pear tree, I can’t help it!) or a young pigeon, both of which are valid for bird olahs.

פירשתי – one of the sacrifices of cattle.

[If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a calf. In this case he knows that he specified a herd animal (and not a flock animal) but he is not sure which animal specified. Therefore he must bring both a bull (an adult of two or three years) and a calf (one year old). He can’t just bring one lest he volunteered to bring the other and he wouldn’t fulfill his obligation by bringing the other one. Note that he need not bring female animals because only male animals may be offered as an olah.

ואיני יודע מאיזה מהן פירשתי – he should bring from all the kinds of male cattle, large and small, which are a bull, a calf, a ram, a goat, a kid and a lamb.

[If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull, a bull calf, a ram, a he-goat, a he-kid, and a he-lamb. “Cattle” means in Hebrew domesticated animals. This is a broader category than “herd” because it includes flock animals. Therefore, it is possible that he pledged an animal either from the herd (bull or bull calf) or from the flock. These include the ram (two years old), the he-goat (two years old), a he-kid (one year old) or a he-lamb (one year old).

פירשתי – [I explicitly mentioned] the species. But I don’t know what I mentioned specifically. Whether it is a species of cattle or a species of bird.

[If he said,] “I specified [some kind] but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must add to these a turtle-dove and a young pigeon. If he has no idea what he pledged, then he must also bring bird offerings, both a turtle-dove and a pigeon. This poor shlepper is going to have to bring 8 animals! Let this be a warning if you pledge to bring an olah, try to remember what animal you pledged.

תודה ושלמים – either a thanksgiving offering or a peace-offering.

Introduction In this case he pledged to bring a todah (thanksgiving offering) or a shelamim (well-being offering). The difference between these and the olah that we learned about in yesterday’s mishnah is that these sacrifices can also be female. Therefore, in certain circumstances he may have to bring a lot more animals.

יביא כבש – which is the least that is of the thanksgiving and peace-offerings.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer a todah or a shelamim,” he must bring a lamb. This is the same rule as found in section one of yesterday’s mishnah.

יביא פר ופרה – for the thanksgiving offering and/or peace-offering can be furnished by [either] males or females.

[If he said,] “I specified a beast of the herd but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer. This is also the same as yesterday’s mishnah, except here he must be concerned lest he pledged to bring a female animal. Thus he must bring a bull and a cow (female) and he must bring a bull calf and a heifer (a young female).

ורחל – a female lamb/sheep which is two years old.

[If he said, “I specified] a beast of the cattle but I do not know what it was I specified,” he must bring a bull and a cow, a bull calf and a heifer, a ram and a ewe, a he-goat and a she-goat, a he-kid and a she-kid, a he-lamb and a ewe-lamb. So too here, where he might have pledged a flock or herd animal, he must bring female animals as well. This will be very expensive as he will have to bring 12 animals, any of which might have been his pledge.

גדי – [a kid] which is one year old from the goats.

שעיר – a goat which is two years old.

טלה – a lamb which is one year old.

יביא הוא ונכסיו במנה – such is explained its law in the Oral Tradition that the value of a bullock with its libations is a Maneh (i.e., 100 denar).

Introduction This mishnah establishes the minimum value of the animals that one has to bring when one has pledged to bring a specific animal.

עגל יביא הוא ונסכיו בחמש – [five] Selas (i.e., one Sela equals four Denars).

[If he said,] “I take upon myself to offer an ox,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of a maneh. “A calf,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of five selas. “A ram,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of two selas. “A lamb,” he must bring one with its drink-offerings to the value of one sela. This section sets standard values for animals that one might pledge to bring as a sacrifice. If he pledges to bring an animal without specifying an amount, then the mandatory value of the animal includes the value of the drink-offerings (wine, oil and grain) that must accompany the animal. Thus the ox and its drink-offerings must be worth a maneh, which is 100 denar. The calf and its drink-offerings must be worth only five selas which is equivalent to twenty denar. The ram must be worth ten denars, and the lamb must be worth only five denars.

אמר הרי עלי שור במנה – he should bring it for a Maneh (i.e., a Maneh equals twenty-five Selas), except for its libations, for such is what they (i.e., the Rabbis) established.

If he said “An ox valued at one maneh,” he must bring one worth a maneh apart from its drink-offerings. “A calf valued at five selas,” he must bring one worth five selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A ram valued at two selas,” he must bring one worth two selas apart from its drink-offerings. “A lamb valued at one sela,” he must bring one worth one sela apart from its drink-offerings. If he specifies the value of the animal, then he must bring an animal worth that amount and on top of that, the requisite drink-offerings.

שור במנה הביא שנים במנה לא יצא – for it was established that a bull is with a Maneh.

[If he 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, even if one was worth a maneh less one denar and the other also was worth a maneh less one denar. If he pledges to bring an ox worth a maneh, he cannot bring two oxen that together add up to one maneh. Even if each ox is worth 99 denar, he has not fulfilled his obligation because he stated that he would bring one ox worth one maneh (100 denar).

[If he said] “A black one” and he brought a white one, or “a white one” and he brought a black one, or “a large one” and he brought a small one, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he specified the color of the animal that he was going to bring, he cannot bring one of a different color. Similarly, if he pledges to bring a large animal, he cannot bring a smaller one.

קטן והביא גדול יצא. רבי אומר לא יצא – because of this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches the dispute of Rabbi [Judah the Prince] and the Rabbis here in the concluding clause, to explain, that the opening clause is not the opinions of all but rather that it is that of Rabbi [Judah the Prince] and not the Sages, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince].

[If he said] “a small one” and he brought a large one, he has fulfilled his obligation; Rabbi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation. However, if he pledges to bring a small one and he brings a larger one, there is a debate over whether he has fulfilled his obligation. According to the first opinion, he has fulfilled his obligation because the smaller ox is encompassed in the larger ox. This is akin to a situation in which he pledges to bring a small amount of money and he brings a larger amount of money. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] disagrees and holds that even in this situation he has not fulfilled his obligation. A small animal is qualitatively different from a large animal and therefore if he pledges to bring a small one, he must bring that type. This might be akin to promising to give a friend a small dog. The receiver might not be happier to get a larger one. Small things are perhaps not necessarily less than large ones [I wonder what would Rabbi Judah Hanasi have said about our SuperSize Me culture?]

ונסתאב – a blemish befell it, for a blemish is called impure, as it is written (Leviticus 27:11-12): “if [the vow concerns] any impure animal that may not be brought as an offering to the LORD, [the animal shall be presented to the priest. And the priest shall assess it whether high or low, whatever assessment is set by the priest shall stand],” and the Biblical verse speaks regarding [animals with] blemishes, as we explained in our chapter above (see the previous Mishnah).

[If one said,] “This ox shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring two with its price.
[If he said,] “These two oxen are for an olah,” and they become blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring one ox with their price. But Rabbi forbids it.
[If he said,] “This ram shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a lamb with its price.
[If he said,] “This lamb shall be an olah,” and it becomes blemished, he may, if he so desires, bring a ram with its price thereof. But Rabbi forbids it.
One who says, “One of my lambs shall be holy,” or “one of my oxen shall be holy,” and he had only two, 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.
Section one: An animal that has become blemished cannot be sacrificed. If someone sets aside a specific animal to be a sacrifice and it becomes blemished, he is not liable to bring another animal in its stead. The animal is redeemed for money and the money is holy and it can be used for any holy purpose. Therefore, he can bring two smaller oxen in place of the original one.
Section two: So too, if he originally dedicated two oxen to be sacrifices and both became blemished, he can redeem them both and use the money to buy one, more expensive oxen.
Rabbi forbids in both cases. It seems that Rabbi holds that once a person has dedicated a certain number of animals to the Temple he must bring that specific number of animals. As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi rules more strictly than the other sages.
Sections three and four: These sections teach basically the same rule, expect instead of one or two oxen the examples are a ram (two years old) or a lamb (one year old).
Section five: Since he didn’t specify that the smaller one of his lambs should be holy we can assume that he meant for the larger one to be holy and that is the one that he must bring.
Section six: In this case, where he doesn’t specify which lamb he wishes to dedicate, we assume that he didn’t want to be miserly and give the smallest one or be overly generous and give the largest one, but that he wanted to give the middle sized lamb.
Section seven: If he says that he did specify which lamb would be holy, but he doesn’t remember, then we must be concerned that he did dedicate the largest lamb. Similarly, if his father told him that he dedicated a lamb but he doesn’t remember which lamb his father told him, he must bring his largest lamb.

ואם רצה יביא בדמיו שמים – but it is not similar to the first clause where we said that for a bull, one brings a Maneh (i.e., 100 denar) but if he brought two [bulls] for a Maneh, he did not fulfill his religious obligation, for there when he said, “I pledge myself [to bring] an ox for a Maneh [to the value of a Maneh], he is liable until he brings it, but here, with this bull that developed a blemish is different, for since he said I will sacrifice this bull as a burnt offering and it became blemished, his vow is gone, and he is not able to further fulfill it.

רבי אוסר – [Rabbi Judah the Prince forbids it] ab initio. But if he brought it, he has fulfilled his religious obligation. For since that he stated this, he is not liable for them (or property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince].

הבינוני שבהם הקדש – even the middle-sized one of them is dedicated [to the Temple]. For if he has two, the large one is dedicated. For one who dedicates [to the Temple] dedicates generously, and for something undefined, the best of them is dedicated as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:11): “[then you must bring everything that I command you to the site where the LORD your God will choose to establish His name; your burnt offerings and other sacrifices, your tithes and contributions,] and all the choice votive offerings that you vow to the LORD.” And similarly, if he has three [lambs], we are concerning even for the middle-sized one , for we don’t know upon which of them occurs the dedication, if it is the large one which is done generally, or the middle-sized one which is generous [in comparison to] the small one. Therefore, both of them are forbidden. But however, if he did not make an offering to the altar of any other than one of them, and how do we act that he permits one of them and delays [the offering] of the middle-sized one until a blemish befalls it, and he redeems that one for the largest one. For whichever way you turn, if it is the middle-sized one upon which dedication occurs and not on the large one, indeed a blemish befell it and he redeemed it. But if it was on the large one upon which the dedication fell initially, and it is found that the middle-sized one was not consecrated from the outset.

פירשתי – [I explicitly expressed] which if them but I didn’t know which it is.

או שאמר לי אבא – [my father told me] at the time of his passing, one of my bulls I explicitly expressed for dedication but I don’t know on which of them he told me.

הגדול שבהן הקדש – for where that he stated that I explicitly expressed it there is no doubt that it is the largest one I expressed.

בבית חוניו – The Temple that Khonyo, the son of Shimon HaTzaddik built in Alexandria of Egypt. For when Shimon HaTzaddik (see Tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2 – one of the last of the generation of the Great Assembly who stated that the world stands on three “pillars”: Torah, Divine Service and Deeds of Loving Kindness) [was about] to die (see the Baraita in Tractate Menahot 109b), he said to them (i.e., his sons): Khonyo, my son will serve in my place, because he is an expert and familiar with the Divine Service more than Shimei his brother. But Khonyo did not accept upon himself to become the High Priest because Shimei his brother was two and half years older than him. And Shimei was appointed as High Priest in place of his father. Subsequently, Khonyo became jealous of Shimei his brother, he (i.e., Shimei) said to him: “Come and I will teach you the order/arrangement of the Divine Service. He dressed him in a thin, fine linen shirt/undercoat, that women wear upon their flesh and upon it a small, narrow belt/girdle and he placed him near the Altar; he went and said to his brethren the Kohanim: “See what this person vowed and fulfilled to his beloved,” that day when I will be appointed to be High Priest, I will wear your fine linen shirt and I will gird myself with your belt/girdle. His brethren the Priests desired to kill him, he recounted to him the entire event, they wished to kill Khonyo, he (i.e., Khonyo) ran from before them to the house of the King. And yet, everyone who sees him states that this is him, he went to Alexandria of Egypt where there were myriads of Jews and made there a Temple and built an altar and offered upon it in the name of God. And regarding that altar Isaiah prophesied (Isaiah 19:19): “In that day, there shall be an altar to the LORD inside the land of Egypt [and a pillar to the LORD at its border].” And this House (i.e., Temple) stood for close to two hundred years and is called “The House of Khonyo” in his name. And everyone agrees that the sacrifices that they would offer there were not a sacrifice. Therefore, whomever said, “May a burnt-offering sacrifice be upon me” – and he offered it there did not fulfill his vow.

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with a fascinating historical topic, the “Temple of Onias.” The Temple of Onias was a Jewish Temple built in Egypt, in Heliopolis, around 230 years before the destruction of the Temple, some time during the second century B.C.E. The Temple is mentioned by Josephus who relates that it was destroyed in 73 C.E., three years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rabbis did not look with favor upon the Temple of Onias, but neither did they completely reject it. It seems that the rabbis believed that such a Temple was not a valid form of worship, but that it was not an idolatrous shrine and that it was created with good, albeit mistaken, intent.

שאקריבנה בבית חוניו – it was made like one who says : “May a burnt-offering sacrifice be upon me on the condition that I will kill it and not be liable for it, therefore if he offered it in the House of Khonyo, he did not fulfill his vow, but he is liable for extirpation because he slaughters outside [the Temple courtyard], for he called upon it the designation of a burnt-offering.

[If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. If one offers to bring an olah, he must bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem. If he brings it to the Temple of Onias in Egypt, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he specifically states that he is going to bring it to the Temple of Onias, he should still bring it to the Temple in Jerusalem because for it to truly be an olah, it must be offered in Jerusalem. However, if he offers it in the Temple, he has fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon takes a stronger stance against the Temple of Onias. Vowing to bring an olah at the Temple of Onias does not make the animal an olah. Therefore, there is no validity to his vow and he need not bring a sacrifice at all.

רבי שמעון אומר אין זו עולה – and behold it is completely unconsecrated, for the designation of consecrated does not occur to it at all when he stated that I will offer it in the House of Khonyo. But the Halalkha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

[If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The same rules hold true for a nazirite with regard to completing his naziriteship which is performed in the Temple by shaving and bringing sacrifices.

ואם גלח בבית חוניו לא יצא – but rather, he should return and shave [at the conclusion of his period of Naziriteship] in the Temple in Jerusalem, and there he should bring his sacrifices.

The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices. Priests who serve in the Temple of Onias are penalized by not being allowed to subsequently serve in the Temple of Jerusalem. However, they still can receive their share of holy things, such as terumah and sacrificial meat. The mishnah compares them with priests with blemishes. In other words, priests remain priests no matter what they do. Their genealogy provides them with the right to eat priestly food. But to serve in the Temple one must be unblemished, both physically and spiritually. Serving in the Temple of Onias and all the more so serving in an idolatrous temple, called by the Mishnah “something else,” disqualifies one from serving in the Temple in Jerusalem.

שאגלח בבית חוניו אם גלח בבית חוניו יצא – that this man who took the vow of becoming a Nazirite in order that he could shave in the House of Khonyo, he intended to cause himself suffering, but because he was close to the House of Khonyo and far from the land of Israel, he stated, “If I can [offer it] in the House of Khonyo, I will go to the trouble of doing so. More than that he is not able to cause himself suffering, but the designation of being a Nazirite does not fall upon him but he becomes like a person who took an oath that he would not drink wine until a certain time.

רבי שמעון אומר – He is not a Nazirite at all and is permitted to drink wine. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

ואין צריך לומר לדבר אחר – if they served for idolatry, they would not serve [as priests] any longer in Jerusalem.

והרי הן כבעלי מומין (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 12, Mishnah 1) – that they take their portions and eat Sacred Things [but do not offer sacrifices].

It is said of the olah of cattle, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 1:9); and of the olah of birds, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the minhah, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs one’s heart to heaven. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that one’s intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what today’s mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple.
The final mishnah of Menahot contains what is perhaps one of the most important religious messages found in the entire Mishnah. Its final phrase is quoted quite frequently by Jewish thinkers, who employ it in many different contexts. I shall explain it here in the introduction.
The Torah uses the phrase “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” in reference to three different sacrifices: 1) the olah from cattle (herd or flock animals), which would cost a lot; 2) the olah of birds, which cost far less; 3) and the minhah, which would cost even less than birds. All three of these are pleasing to God, even though some cost far more than do the other. This teaches that God doesn’t care how much the sacrifice costs. What God cares about is that the person “directs his heart to heaven” meaning offers the sacrifice with the correct intention. If an expensive sacrifice helps one direct one’s heart to heaven, then it would be pleasing. But if it is offered for the wrong reason, then the mishnah seems to say that it is not actually pleasing to God.