Talmud - Menachot 108b מנחות ק״ח ב׳

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering and it became blemished, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say in the first clause, i.e., in the previous mishna (107b), that if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bull with the value of one hundred dinars as a burnt offering or peace offering, and he brought two bulls with a combined value of one hundred dinars, he has not fulfilled his obligation? If so, why does the mishna here teach that one may bring two bulls with the redemption money of one bull?

The Gemara answers that these two cases are not comparable. The previous mishna was referring to a case where one vowed to bring a bull worth one hundred dinars, without referring to a specific bull. Therefore, he is obligated to fulfill the specific conditions of his vow. By contrast, this mishna is referring to a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and therefore, if the bull becomes blemished and disqualified as an offering the halakha is different. Since he was only ever obligated to sacrifice this bull, and is no longer able to sacrifice it, he is no longer obligated by his vow, and may bring any number of offerings with its value.

The mishna teaches that if one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring with the money of their redemption one bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring only one bull?

The Gemara answers: Because it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a large bull and he brought a small bull, in which case he has not fulfilled his vow. Similarly, in this case, he vowed to bring two bulls and brought only one. And although he is not actually obligated to bring two bulls, as the bulls that he consecrated became blemished and he needs only to bring an offering with their redemption money, nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not permit bringing two bulls instead of one ab initio.

The Gemara asks: But if so, let Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree in the first clause of the mishna as well, which states that if one consecrated a specific bull as a burnt offering and it subsequently became blemished, he may purchase two bulls with its redemption money. There, too, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should prohibit bringing two bulls ab initio, as it is similar to a case where one vowed to bring a small bull and brought a large one, in which case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also holds that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with this entire matter, both in the first and latter clauses of the mishna; but he waited until the Rabbis had completed their statement, and then disagreed with them with regard to both cases.

Know that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the statement of the Rabbis in the first clause of the mishna as well, as the mishna teaches that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. In a case where one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal, even if he wishes to bring a ram with the redemption money of a lamb. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the Rabbis even in a case where one consecrated a small animal and wishes to bring a large animal with its redemption money. Conclude from it that he also disagrees in a case where one vowed to bring a certain animal which subsequently became blemished; the person may not bring two animals with the redemption money.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the Rabbis, what is the halakha with regard to one who wishes to use the redemption money from an animal of one species which became blemished to purchase a different species of animal? For example, if one vowed to bring a bull which subsequently became blemished, may he bring rams with its value instead?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from that which is taught in a baraita: If one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may not bring a ram with its redemption money, as a ram is not worth as much as a bull. But he may bring two rams with its redemption money, if together they are equal in value to the bull. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, the reason being that one must bring two meal offerings to accompany his two rams. These meal offerings must be brought in two vessels, because there is no mixing permitted. Accordingly, bringing two offerings runs counter to the person’s vow, which involved bringing only one meal offering. Conclude from this baraita that according to the Rabbis it is permitted to use the redemption money from one species of animal to purchase a different species.

The Gemara asks: If so, if the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a different species of animal, why does the baraita specifically state that one may bring two rams in place of a bull? The same halakha would apply even for one ram, as although one ram is smaller than one bull, in a case where the animal became blemished, according to the Rabbis, there is no difference whether one brings a large animal or a small animal. If one vowed to bring a ram he may bring a lamb instead, so why not a ram in place of a bull?

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of the Rabbis. The tanna of the mishna holds that the Rabbis deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal that became blemished. The tanna of the baraita holds that the Rabbis do not deem it permitted to bring a small animal in place of a large animal.

The baraita states: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited to bring two rams with the redemption money of a bull, because there is no mixing. The Gemara infers: The reason that he deems it prohibited is because there is no mixing. But had there been mixing, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it would be permitted.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that if one said: This ram is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes he may bring a lamb with its redemption money. If one said: This lamb is hereby a burnt offering, and it became blemished, he may bring a ram with its redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems it prohibited for one to bring one type of animal with the redemption money of another type of animal. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prohibits any kind of divergence from the animal that was consecrated, regardless of whether mixing is permitted.

The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The tanna of the baraita holds that Rabbi Yehuda deems it prohibited to switch to a different type of animal only if it affects the accompanying meal offering, whereas the tanna of the mishna holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems any kind of change prohibited.

The Gemara cites the latter clause of the baraita: All of the cases in the mishna and baraita are referring to a case where the animal became blemished; and with regard to pure animals, i.e., those that are not blemished, if one vowed to bring a calf and brought a bull instead, or he vowed to bring a lamb and brought a ram instead, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara explains that the unattributed last clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would disagree in this case as well.

§ The mishna teaches that if one vows to bring a certain bull as a burnt offering, and it became blemished, if he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money. Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it became blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, not two.

The Gemara challenges Rav’s opinion: But perhaps when he said: This bull is incumbent upon me, he meant: It is incumbent upon me to bring it as an offering, but he did not intend to accept responsibility in case it becomes blemished.

Rather, if it was stated that there is a case where one is responsible if the animal becomes blemished, it was stated as follows: Rabbi Menashya bar Zevid says that Rav says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where one said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, or he said: This bull is incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering. But if he said: This bull and its value are incumbent upon me to bring as a burnt offering, his responsibility for it in a case where it becomes blemished is fixed, and he must bring one bull with its redemption money, and not two.

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: One of my lambs is consecrated, or: One of my bulls is consecrated, and he has two lambs or bulls, the larger of them is consecrated. If he has three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. If one says: I specified the lamb or bull that is to be consecrated but I do not know what animal I specified in my vow, or he says that: My father said to me before his death that he consecrated one of the lambs or the bulls, but I do not know what animal he consecrated, the largest of them is consecrated.

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna teaches that if one says: One of my lambs is consecrated, and he has two lambs, the larger one is consecrated. The Gemara infers: Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates generously. But say the latter clause of the mishna: If he has three lambs, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated. Apparently, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly. How can this contradiction be resolved?

Shmuel said: The presumption is that one who consecrates, consecrates generously. When the latter clause of the mishna states that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, it does not mean that only the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rather, the larger animal is consecrated, and additionally we are concerned, i.e., we must take in consideration the possibility, that the middle-sized animal is consecrated, as compared to consecrating the small animal, consecrating the middle-sized animal is generous. Therefore, the vow could have been referring to either the large animal or the middle-sized animal.

The Gemara asks: How should he act? He consecrated only one of them, and it is uncertain which animal should be sacrificed. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav said: He should wait until the middle-sized animal becomes blemished and then desacralize it by transferring its sanctity onto the large animal, which is then sacrificed on the altar.

§ The mishna teaches that if one had three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal is consecrated. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The Sages taught that the middle-sized animal is consecrated only when he said: One of my bulls is hereby consecrated. But if he said: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, only the largest of them is consecrated. It is as if he said: The most valuable bull from among my bulls [tora betorai] is consecrated.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Huna say that Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Ulla: One who says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, can show him a loft [aliyya], since he did not specify which house he is selling? Is this not because the loft is the worst of his houses? If so, when one says: A bull from among my bulls is hereby consecrated, he is presumably referring to the least valuable of his bulls. The Gemara answers: No, Ulla did not say that the seller gives the purchaser a loft, but rather the best [me’ula] of his houses.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one said: A bull from among my bulls is consecrated, or similarly if a consecrated bull became mixed with other non-consecrated bulls, the largest of them is consecrated, and all of the other bulls must be sold to people who vowed to bring burnt offerings, for the purpose of bringing them as burnt offerings, since it is uncertain which one of them was consecrated, and the payment for them is non-sacred. Evidently, if one says: I hereby consecrate a bull from among my bulls, all of his bulls have uncertain consecrated status.

The Gemara answers: Interpret this as referring only to a consecrated bull that became mixed with others. The Gemara challenges: But doesn’t the baraita say: And similarly, indicating that this halakha applies to both cases? The Gemara answers: Interpret it as referring to the halakha that the largest of the bulls is consecrated. That halakha does apply to both cases, but the halakha that the rest of the bulls have uncertain consecrated status applies only to the latter case.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rabba bar Avuh from a baraita: If one says to another: I am selling you a house from among my houses, and one of the houses subsequently fell, he can show him the fallen house, and say to him: This is the one I sold you. Similarly, if one says to another: I sell you a slave from among my slaves, and one of the slaves dies, he can show him the dead slave and say: This is the slave I sold you.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 108b explores redemption of blemished bulls vowed as burnt offerings, contrasting rules for a specific animal versus a general pledged value.