THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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?
(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
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.
2) AN UNSPECIFIED PLEDGE TO BRING A KORBAN MINCHAH
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)