## Menachot Daf 103a

###### Menachot 103a:1
[Menachot 103a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:1)

אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**only when he assigned it at the time of the vow. But** if at the time of the vow he simply said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, and **at the time of the designation** of the fine flour as a meal offering he specified a particular type of meal offering, he is **not** obligated to bring that type, and if he brought a different type, he has still fulfilled his obligation.


###### Menachot 103a:2
[Menachot 103a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:2)

״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״, וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The reason for this is that the Torah states: “That which has emerged from your lips you shall observe and do; **according to what you have vowed** freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: “According to what you have vowed,” **and not: According to what you have designated** to fulfill your vow, only matters specified as part of the vow are essential to its content.


###### Menachot 103a:3
[Menachot 103a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:3)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי: אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁקְּבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת נֶדֶר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – לֹא, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ״ וְלֹא ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was also stated** that **Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says** that **Rabbi Asi says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The *tanna’im* **taught** in the mishna that meal offerings are not valid **only** when **he established their** type **at the time of the vow** and subsequently brought a different type of meal offering. **But** if he mentioned one type of meal offering **at the time of the designation** of the flour, and then brought it differently, it is **not** invalid, as the Torah states: **“According to what you have vowed,” and not: According to what you have designated** for your vow.


###### Menachot 103a:4
[Menachot 103a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״ – יָבִיא מִן הַחִטִּים. ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת. ״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּבְלֹא לְבוֹנָה״ – יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who says:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a meal offering from barley, should bring** the meal offering **from wheat,** as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from **flour, should bring** the meal offering from **fine flour,** as it is written: “His offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering **without oil and without frankincense, he should bring** it with **oil and frankincense,** as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense.


###### Menachot 103a:5
[Menachot 103a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:5)

״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, ״עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר, שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one vows to bring as a meal offering **half a tenth** of an ephah, **he should bring a complete tenth** of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of **a tenth and a half** an ephah, **he should bring two** tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. **Rabbi Shimon deems** one **exempt** from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, **as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.**


###### Menachot 103a:6
[Menachot 103a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אַמַּאי? נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why** is the vow to bring a meal offering from barley valid? **It is** seemingly a case of **a vow and its extenuation together.** The statement: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, is a valid vow, while the next term: From barley, constitutes a retraction, as the speaker knows that a meal offering may not be brought from barley.


###### Menachot 103a:7
[Menachot 103a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:7)

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הָא מַנִּי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵילָה״ – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ḥizkiyya said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say:** In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, **attend** only to **the first statement. As we learned** in a mishna (*Nazir* 9a): If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from** pressed **figs,** which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, **Beit Shammai say:** He is a full-fledged **nazirite,** as one attends only to the first statement, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. **And Beit Hillel say:** The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore **he is not a nazirite,** as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.


###### Menachot 103a:8
[Menachot 103a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:8)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל, בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כָּךְ אֶלָּא כָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You** may **even say** that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Hillel.** It is referring **to** one who, upon being informed that such a vow is not effective, **says: Had I known that** one **cannot vow** in **this** manner to bring barley for a meal offering, **I would not have vowed** in **this** manner **but rather** in **that** manner, by vowing to bring wheat instead.


###### Menachot 103a:9
[Menachot 103a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:9)

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״מִנְחָה מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another disagreement between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan about the mishna: **Ḥizkiyya says** that the Sages **taught** in the mishna **only** that **where he says:** It is incumbent upon me to bring **a meal offering from barley,** he can bring a meal offering from wheat instead, **but** if he **says:** It is incumbent upon me to bring **a meal offering from lentils,** the vow is **not** valid.


###### Menachot 103a:10
[Menachot 103a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:10)

מִכְּדִי חִזְקִיָּה כְּמַאן אָמַר לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִשּׁוּם תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן הוּא. מָה לִי מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, מָה לִי מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים? הֲדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now, Ḥizkiyya said** that **his tradition** of interpreting the mishna is that it is **in accordance with whose** opinion? It is **in accordance with Beit Shammai’s** opinion, **and Beit Shammai’s** ruling is **due to** the principle that one should **attend** only to **the first statement.** If so, **what** is the difference **to me** whether he vowed to bring a meal offering **from barley** or **from lentils?** In either case, that principle should require him to bring a meal offering from wheat. The Gemara answers: Ḥizkiyya **retracted his** initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan.


###### Menachot 103a:11
[Menachot 103a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:11)

וּמַאי טַעְמָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ? אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּתָנֵי ״מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים״? לִיתְנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that **he retracted** his explanation? **Rava said: The mishna** posed **a difficulty for him: Why does** the *tanna* **specifically teach** this *halakha* using the example of **a meal offering from barley? Let it teach** the *halakha* using the example of a meal offering **from lentils,** which is a greater novelty.


###### Menachot 103a:12
[Menachot 103a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:12)

אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא, בִּשְׂעוֹרִים טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים לָא טָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, learn from** it that the reason the vow takes effect **is because** one may **err. With regard to barley,** it is reasonable that one may **err,** since one of the individual meal offerings, the meal offering of a *sota*, comes from barley. But **with regard to lentils,** one would **not err** in thinking that one may bring a meal offering from them. Therefore, one can presume that by saying: Lentils, he intended to negate his initial statement.


###### Menachot 103a:13
[Menachot 103a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:13)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים. מִכְּדֵי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּמַאן אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ? כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מִשּׁוּם דְּטָעֵי הוּא. בִּשְׂעוֹרִין – טָעֵי, בַּעֲדָשִׁים – לָא טָעֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** According to the mishna, **even** if he vowed to bring a meal offering **from lentils,** the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: **Now, Rabbi Yoḥanan states** that **his tradition** in interpreting the mishna is that it is **in accordance with whose** opinion? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel** understand that the reason the meal offering takes effect **is because** one may reasonably **err.** One may **err with regard to barley** being fit for a meal offering, but **with regard to lentils,** he will **not err** that they are fit. Why then, does Rabbi Yoḥanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?


###### Menachot 103a:14
[Menachot 103a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:14)

לִדְבָרָיו דְּחִזְקִיָּה קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, אַתְּ מַאי טַעְמָא הָדְרַתְּ בָּךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קָתָנֵי ״מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact hold that when he vows to bring a meal offering from lentils it is not valid. What he said was in response **to the statement of Ḥizkiyya.** Rabbi Yoḥanan is saying to him: **What is the reason** that **you retracted** your explanation of the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is **because** the mishna **does not teach** using the example of one who vowed to bring a meal offering **from lentils,** which would have been a greater novelty.


###### Menachot 103a:15
[Menachot 103a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/103a:15)

דִּלְמָא ״לָא מִיבַּעְיָא״ קָאָמַר, לָא מִיבַּעְיָא מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִהְדָּר הוּא דְּהָדַר בֵּיהּ, וּתְפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין נָמֵי, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִיטְעָא הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵי, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan questions this reasoning: **Perhaps** the mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to say that when one vows to bring a meal offering **from lentils,** the vow takes effect and he brings a meal offering from wheat. He brings it **because one has** reason **to say** that he in fact intended to vow and then **retracted** his initial statement, **and** yet the vow takes effect in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one should **attend** only to **the initial statement** and his retraction is disregarded. **But even** if he vowed to bring a meal offering **from barley, where one has** reason **to say he made an error,** and had he known that a meal offering is not brought from barley, he would not have vowed at all, **nevertheless,** the vow takes effect and he must bring a meal offering, due to the principle: **Attend** only to **the first statement.**