Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 104

1) ERRORS IN THE AMOUNTS OF THE CONTENTS OF "MENACHOS" AND "NESACHIM"

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when a person dedicates one, two, or five Lugin of wine to be used as a Korban Nesachim, his words are meaningless. The reason for this is that the amounts that are brought for Korbanos are either three Lugin (for a sheep), four Lugin (for a ram), or six (for a bull). An amount larger than these may be used for the Nesachim for a combination of Korbanos (for example, seven would be used for one sheep and one ram; see RASHI DH Ein Misnadvin).

TOSFOS (DH Ein Misnadvin) asks that this seems to contradict what we stated earlier (103a) regarding Menachos. The Mishnah says that when a person dedicates a half-Isaron of flour as a Minchah, he is obligated to bring a whole Isaron. If he dedicates one and a half Esronim, he must bring two. Why, for Nesachim, does his mistake invalidate his pledge, while it does not invalidate his pledge for Menachos, but rather it requires him to bring the next possible amount?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that it is possible that their is a common denominator between the two. If a person pledges to bring, for example, one Log, by saying (as in the case of the previous Mishnah regarding Menachos), "Harei Alai" -- "It is upon myself [an obligation to bring]," he must bring the next amount, which is that of the Nesachim of a sheep. Since the person is obligating himself to bring Nesachim, we move his obligation up to the appropriate level. However, our Mishnah is discussing a person who has a certain amount of Nesachim in front of him and he declares, "Harei Elu Nesachim" -- "These are Nesachim." Since the amount in front of him is not a proper amount for Nesachim, they cannot be called Nesachim. Tosfos notes that Rashi (DH Yesh Keva) obviously does not agree with this answer, because he explains that the Gemara's question is referring to a case of "Harei Alai," and not "Harei Elu."

(b) The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 17:14) answers that the case regarding a Minchah is where the person says that he wants to bring a "Minchah" of a half-Isaron. He clearly wants to bring a Minchah offering, as indicated by his words, but he does not know that he cannot bring a half-Isaron as a Minchah. When he clarifies his intentions (see Insights to 103a), we tell him to bring a whole Isaron. However, when a person says, "I am dedicating these Lugin," and he does not say that he is dedicating them in order that they should be Nesachim, if the Lugin are not the proper amount for Nesachim, we cannot say that his words should make him bring Nesachim, since he never specified his intention to bring a Korban. Only if his words match the requirements of the Korban do we say that his dedication is valid.

According to this approach, if a person says, "I am dedicating two Lugin *as Nesachim*," then we say that he wants to bring a proper amount for a Korban Nesachim, and we obligate him to bring three Lugin (the amount for a sheep). This is also the opinion of the RADVAZ .

(c) The KIRYAS SEFER (quoted by the Lechem Mishneh) answers that a Korban Minchah is fundamentally different, since we find a Minchah that is brought in half-Isaron portions -- the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (half of an Isaron is brought in the morning, and half at night). Therefore, when a person dedicates a half-Isaron, we tell him to bring the entire Isaron, similar to the entire amount of the Chavitei Kohen Gadol. However, there is no case in which one or two Lugin are brought by themselves. Since the person's dedication does not match any possible Nesachim offering, it is invalid. (See also MISHNEH L'MELECH, TZON KODASHIM, and TAHARAS HA'KODESH). (Y. Montrose)

104b

OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses one who made a pledge to bring a Minchah and did not specify what type of Minchah he wanted to bring. The Mishnah states that he must bring one Minchah, and he may choose whichever type of Minchah that he wants. The Mishnah continues and says that one who pledged to bring Menachos, without specifying how many nor what type, must bring two Menachos. In this case, though, must the person bring two of the same type of Menachos, or may he bring two different types of Menachos?

(a) RASHI (DH Menachos) says that in such a case, one must bring two Menachos of the same type. In fact, this seems to be view an explicit Beraisa in the Gemara later (105a). The Beraisa states that one who says, "Min Menachos Alai," is obligated to bring "two Menachos of one type."

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 17:5) writes that one who says, "Harei Alai Menachos," must bring "two types of Menachos." How does the Rambam understand the Beraisa that says that he must bring two Menachos of the same type?

1. The KESEF MISHNEH and MAHARI KURKAS write that the text of the Rambam must be an error, and the word "Minei" ("types of") should be omitted. The Rambam is saying that one must bring "two Menachos" (of the same type), and not that he must bring "two types of Menachos."

2. The RADVAZ answers that the Rambam's intention is to teach that there is a difference between the case of pledging "Menachos" and the case of pledging "a type of Menachos." The Rambam is discussing the first case, in which the person says that he will bring "Menachos." In this case, there is no reason he should not be able to bring any two types of Menachos that he wants. The Rambam agrees that one may also bring two of the same type, and he is just telling us that two different types are also allowed. This is in contrast to the case in which the person says that he will bring "*a type of* Menachos." In such a case, the Rambam agrees with the Beraisa that a person must bring two of the same type of Minchah. This is because the person limits himself in his statement to *one type* of Menachos.

The SEFAS EMES concurs with the understanding of the Radvaz. He suggests further that Rashi actually agrees with the Rambam, and Rashi is telling us that a person may *also* fulfill his obligation if he brings two Menachos of one type, but not that he may *only* fulfill his obligation with one type. This seems logical, since there does not seem to be any implication in the statement of "Menachos" that should require one to bring two Menachos from only one type of Menachos, as the person did not discuss the type at all. On the contrary, all we have is his statement in a plural form, "I will bring Menachos," and thus it might even be preferable that he bring different types of Menachos. This point is also suggested by the LIKUTEI HALACHOS and YAD BINYAMIN. (Y. Montrose)