Commentaire sur Menachot 13:9
שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה, וְנִסְתָּאֵב, אִם רָצָה, יָבִיא בְדָמָיו שְׁנָיִם. שְׁנֵי שְׁוָרִים אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה, וְנִסְתָּאֲבוּ, אִם רָצָה, יָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם אֶחָד. רַבִּי אוֹסֵר. אַיִל זֶה עוֹלָה, וְנִסְתָּאֵב, אִם רָצָה, יָבִיא בְדָמָיו כֶּבֶשׂ. כֶּבֶשׂ זֶה עוֹלָה וְנִסְתָּאֵב, אִם רָצָה, יָבִיא בְדָמָיו אַיִל. רַבִּי אוֹסֵר. הָאוֹמֵר אַחַד מִכְּבָשַׂי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאַחַד מִשְּׁוָרַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם, הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שְׁלשָׁה, הַבֵּינוֹנִי שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. פֵּרַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה פֵּרַשְׁתִּי, אוֹ שֶׁאָמַר, אָמַר לִי אַבָּא וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה, הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ:
«Ce bœuf sera un olah » et il devient taché - s'il le veut, il peut en apporter deux avec son argent [de rachat]. «Ces deux bœufs sont pour un olah » et ils deviennent tachés - s'il le veut, il peut apporter un bœuf avec leur argent [de rachat]. Le rabbin [Yehudah Hanasi] l'interdit. «Ce bélier sera un olah » et il devient taché - s'il le veut, il peut apporter un agneau avec son argent [de rachat]. «Cet agneau sera un olah » et il devient taché - s'il le veut, il peut apporter un bélier avec son argent [de rachat]; Le rabbin [Yehudah Hanasi] l'interdit. Celui qui dit: «Un de mes agneaux sera sanctifié» ou «un de mes bœufs sera sanctifié», et il n'en avait que deux, le plus grand est sanctifié. S'il en avait trois, celui du milieu est sanctifié. «J'en ai spécifié un mais je ne sais pas lequel j'ai spécifié», ou [s'il a dit,] «Mon père m'a dit [qu'il en avait spécifié un] mais je ne sais pas lequel» - le plus grand d'entre eux est sanctifié.
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Menachot
[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.
[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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
פירשתי – [I explicitly expressed] which if them but I didn’t know which it is.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Menachot
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy