Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 106

1) MIXING FLOUR OF A "NEDER" WITH FLOUR OF A "NEDAVAH"

QUESTIONS: The Gemara discusses the argument between the Chachamim and Rebbi in the Mishnah (104b) regarding a person who pledged to bring a Korban Minchah in one vessel, but forgot exactly how many Esronim he pledged to bring. The Chachamim say that he must bring sixty Esronim, the maximum amount possible, to make sure that his pledge is included. Rebbi argues and says that the person must bring sixty different Menachos. The first should contain one Isaron, the second two Esronim, the third three, and so on. The Gemara records various opinions concerning the basis for the argument between the Chachamim and Rebbi. One opinion is that of Rav Chisda, who expl ains that Rebbi maintains that since it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah, one may bring only the amount that was pledged into the Azarah, and not any more than that. Only the amount that was pledged is actually Kodesh, while the rest is Chulin. The Chachamim maintain that it is permitted to bring Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore they allow the Minchah to be brought in one vessel, even though the rest of the flour (in a case where the actual pledge was less than sixty Esronim) is Chulin.

Rav Chisda's explanation is problematic. If Rebbi maintains that one may not bring a Minchah of sixty Esronim into the Azarah because of the prohibition to bring Chulin into the Azarah, then how can he say that one should bring an extra fifty-nine Menachos? RASHI (DH b'Mutar and DH v'Rebbi) addresses this question and says that, according to Rav Chisda, everyone agrees that one may not mix the flour of a Neder and the flour of a Nedavah in one vessel. Accordingly, Rebbi says that the Minchah which contains the right amount of flour fulfills the Neder, while all of the other fifty-nine Menachos are Nedavos. Rebbi maintains that one should not put sixty Esronim into one vessel, with part of it being a Neder and part being a Nedavah. Similarly, he maintains that one may not mix flour of one's Neder with flour of Chulin, because of the prohibition to bring Chulin into the Azarah. Although the Chachamim agree that one may not mix flour of a Neder and flour of a Nedavah in one container, they hold that one *may* bring Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore one may bring a vessel with sixty Esronim of flour, part of which will fulfill his Neder, and the other part will be Chulin.

(a) This explanation, though, seems illogical. How is possible that the Chachamim permit mixing Neder-flour with Chulin-flour and bringing the mixture as a Korban, but they prohibit mixing Neder-flour with Nedavah-flour? Why should the flour of a Nedavah, which is Kadosh like a Neder, be worse than Chulin?

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Menachos 29:14; see also 21:13) asks a similar question. There is a Halachah regarding Menachos (see Menachos 11a) that if there is more oil and flour than is required for the Minchah, the Minchah is Pasul. Why, according to the Chachamim, is a Minchah which contains both Neder-flour and extra Chulin-flour, not Pasul for this reason?

ANSWERS:

(a) The EIZEHU MEKOMAN answers the first question based on the Gemara in Zevachim (3a). The Gemara there quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav who says that a Chatas that is slaughtered with intention that it is an Olah is Pasul, while a Chatas that is slaughtered with intention that it is Chulin remains a valid Chatas. The Gemara presents a logical explanation for this. The only type of intent that invalidates the Korban is the intent of another type of Korban. Having intent that has nothing to do with Korbanos does not invalidate the Korban. The Eizehu Mekoman explains that the same applies to the flour of Menachos, according to the Chachamim. When flour of a Neder is mixed with that of a Nedavah, each one ruins the identity of the other.

(b) The CHAZON ISH explains that while, usually, adding extra oil and flour invalidates the Minchah, this is because the extra contents of Chulin cancel out the set amount of the Minchah. In the case of our Gemara, in contrast, it is possible that every bit of the flour *is necessary,* since it is possible that the person pledged to bring a Minchah of sixty Esronim. Therefore, the Chulin does not cancel out the Minchah (see Chazon Ish at length). (Y. Montrose)

106b

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the status of a pledge which did not specify an amount. The Mishnah says that one who pledged gold without specifying an amount should not give less than a Dinar of gold. One who pledged silver should not give less than a Dinar of silver. One who pledged copper should not give less than a Me'ah of *silver*.

TOSFOS in Shabbos (90a, DH Lo Yifchos) asks the obvious question. Following the logic of the first two cases, the Halachah should be that one who pledged copper should give at least a Me'ah of *copper*, just as one who pledged gold must give gold, and one who pledged silver must give silver! Why does the Mishnah say that one who pledged copper must give *silver*?

ANSWERS:

(a) The BEN ARYEH says that the Mishnah is referring to a person who lives in an area where small denominations of copper are not in circulation. The Gemara later (107a) gives a similar explanation regarding Perutos of silver. The Ben Aryeh explains that this is why this question is asked only by Tosfos in Shabbos, and not by Tosfos here in Menachos. Since the Gemara here gives this explanation for Perutos of silver, it explains the Mishnah as well. Tosfos in Shabbos asks the question because the Gemara there does not provide any possible explanation.

(b) The TZON KODASHIM answers based on the Gemara's explanation of the Mishnah. The Gemara asks how we know that the person's intention was to give a coin of gold or silver, and not to give a bar of gold or silver. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah's case is when the person specified that he is pledging a *coin* of gold or silver. The Tzon Kodashim explains that the Gemara cannot be interpreted literally, because if the Mishnah's case is when the person specified that he is pledging a coin of gold or silver, then why does the Mishnah not explicitly state that the person pledged a coin of gold or silver? He therefore understands that the Gemara means that the person did not mention a coin in his pledge, like the simple reading of the Mishnah. The Gemara is answering that *after* his pledge, the person explained that he meant a coin, and we believe him, because it makes sense that this was his intent. However, since most people can afford to give a bar of copper, we assume that when he made his pledge he meant a bar of copper, which is worth a Me'ah of Kesef, and not a coin of copper, and we do not accept his word when he later says that he meant a coin of copper.

(c) The SEFAS EMES answers simply that it is highly unusual for a person to make a pledge to Hekdesh of such an insignificant amount of money. Therefore, we assume that his intention was to give a larger amount of copper, equaling the value of a Me'ah of silver. (Y. Montrose)