Menachot Daf 108 (מנחות דף ק״ח)
Daf: 108 | Amudim: 108a – 108b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (108a)
Segment 1
TYPE: המשך משנה (Conclusion of Mishna)
Conclusion of the mishna from daf 107b listing the six collection horns (shofarot) in the Temple designated for communal gift offerings (nedava)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַכְּבָשִׂים, וְהַשְּׂעִירִים, וְהַמּוֹתָרוֹת, וְהַמָּעָה.
English Translation:
And one was for the value of the lambs brought as a nazirite’s or a leper’s guilt offering. And one was for the value of the goats brought as communal sin offerings on Festivals. And one was for the surplus coins of one who designated money to purchase one of those offerings and had money left over after purchasing the animal. And one was for the additional silver ma’a paid as a premium in a case when two people brought their half-shekel jointly as one shekel.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the mishna’s list of the six shofarot (collection horns) in the Temple: bulls, rams, lambs, goats, surpluses, and the ma’a premium. Each served as a designated repository for money brought by individuals for specific offering-categories, with leftover or misdirected funds ultimately used for communal nedava (voluntary burnt offerings) when the altar was idle. The list now sets up the extended Gemara debate on daf 108a about what exactly each horn was for, since the mishna’s terse listing leaves the precise allocation ambiguous.
Key Terms:
- שופרות (Shofarot) = Collection horns — horn-shaped receptacles in the Temple courtyard for depositing dedicated money
- מעה (Ma’a) = A small silver coin; here, the surcharge (kalbon) added when two people jointly paid a single shekel
- נדבה (Nedava) = Communal voluntary burnt offerings purchased when the altar was otherwise idle
Segment 2
TYPE: סוגיית הגמרא (Gemara Analysis)
The Gemara explains why the other Sages reject Ḥizkiyya’s rationale for the six horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כּוּלְּהוּ כְּחִזְקִיָּה לָא אָמְרִי, לְאִנְּצוֹיֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן, דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד יוֹמֵיהּ קָא עָבֵיד.
English Translation:
After citing these four opinions, the Gemara explains: All of the other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Ḥizkiyya that the six collection horns are to prevent quarrels between the families of priests, as they hold that we are not concerned about quarreling between the priests. There is no reason for them to fight, as each and every family serves on its own day and receives the hides of the animals sacrificed on that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ḥizkiyya (previous daf) had proposed that the six horns were needed to prevent priestly quarrels over which family received which hides and portions. The Gemara now begins a systematic rejection-series: each of the other four Sages (Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ze’eiri, bar Padda, and — later — Shmuel and Rabbi Oshaya) rejects Ḥizkiyya because the mishmarot rotation already prevents strife. Every kohanic family serves its assigned day and takes the hides from that day’s offerings, so no competing claims arise.
Key Terms:
- לאנצויי (Le’intzuyei) = To quarrel; the concern of inter-priestly disputes
- משמר (Mishmar) = A priestly watch or family rotation serving in the Temple for a given period
Segment 3
TYPE: סוגיית הגמרא (Gemara Analysis)
The Gemara explains why the other Sages reject Rabbi Yoḥanan’s rationale
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא אָמְרִי, לְאִיעַפּוֹשֵׁי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.
English Translation:
The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the six horns are to prevent the coins from decaying, as we are not concerned that the coins will decay.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan had suggested that the six separate horns prevented the coins from molding or decaying by ensuring frequent emptying and turnover. The other Sages reject this: coins that circulate through heavy Temple use do not decay in any significant way, so preservation is not a compelling reason for six separate receptacles. This rejection pattern continues the Gemara’s methodical survey of why no single rationale wins unanimous support.
Key Terms:
- לאיעפושי (Le’i’apushei) = To become moldy or decay; the concern that stagnant funds would spoil
Segment 4
TYPE: סוגיית הגמרא (Gemara Analysis)
The Gemara rejects Ze’eiri’s approach of aligning the mishna with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s individual view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּזְעֵירִי לָא אָמְרִי, כִּיחִידָאָה לָא מוֹקְמִי.
English Translation:
The other Sages do not say in accordance with the explanation of Ze’eiri that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because we do not interpret a mishna in accordance with an individual opinion against the majority opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ze’eiri had resolved an earlier difficulty by assigning our mishna to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rabbi), effectively making it an individual’s view. The other Sages reject this as a matter of interpretive policy: a stam mishna (unattributed) should not be reassigned to a single, non-majority Tanna unless there is compelling reason. Preserving the anonymous mishna’s standing as representing the majority is a foundational exegetical principle.
Key Terms:
- יחידאה (Yeḥida’ah) = An individual (minority) view, as opposed to the majority
- סתם משנה (Stam Mishna) = An unattributed mishna, presumed to carry halakhic authority
Segment 5
TYPE: סוגיית הגמרא (Gemara Analysis)
The Gemara rejects bar Padda’s scheme of animal-value categories plus surplus and ma’a
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּבָר פְּדָא נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי. מוֹתָרוֹת – כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי מוֹתָרוֹת.
English Translation:
The other Sages also do not say in accordance with the explanation of bar Padda that the six collection horns were for the value of bulls, rams, lambs, and goats that had been lost, for the surplus coins left over after purchasing an offering, and for the ma’a paid as a premium in addition to the half-shekel of two people. This is because they hold that there is no reason to differentiate between the surplus and the value of specific animals, as all of the animals that were lost and another offered in their place are also surplus, and their value is surplus after the replacement offering was purchased.
קלאוד על הדף:
Bar Padda had identified the six horns with four animal-value categories (bulls, rams, lambs, goats) plus mot’arot (surplus) and ma’a. The other Sages object: the animal-value categories are themselves a form of surplus — when the original animal is lost and a replacement is purchased, any remaining funds are surplus — so bar Padda is really cramming “surplus” into five separate horns without distinction, collapsing his own scheme.
Key Terms:
- מותרות (Mot’arot) = Surpluses — leftover funds after an offering’s purchase
- בר פדא (Bar Padda) = An earlier Amora whose scheme is being rejected
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא (Baraita)
A baraita on the destination of the kalbon surcharge — continuing the challenge to bar Padda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָעָה נָמֵי לִשְׁקָלִים אָזְלָא, דְּתַנְיָא: לְהֵיכָן קָלְבּוֹן זֶה הוֹלֵךְ? לִשְׁקָלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לִנְדָבָה.
English Translation:
The other Sages also do not agree with bar Padda’s explanation that the sixth collection horn was for the ma’a, because they hold that the ma’a goes toward the same purpose as the regular shekels, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the ma’a: Where would this premium [kalbon] go, i.e., what was done with it? It would be added to the shekels themselves, which would be used to buy the daily and additional offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer says: It would be used for communal gift offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second strike against bar Padda: his scheme needed a dedicated horn for the ma’a surcharge, but a baraita records that the kalbon was not separately allocated — Rabbi Meir folds it into the general shekel-fund, and Rabbi Eliezer redirects it to nedava. Either way, the ma’a did not need its own horn. This leaves bar Padda’s entire six-category scheme untenable for the majority.
Key Terms:
- קלבון (Kalbon) = The small premium/surcharge added when paying a half-shekel obligation
- תמידין ומוספין (Temidin u-Musafin) = The daily and additional public offerings funded by the shekel-trumah
Segment 7
TYPE: דעת שמואל (Shmuel’s Position)
A fresh proposal: the six horns correspond to surplus funds of six specific offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר חַטָּאת, וּמוֹתַר אָשָׁם, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם נָזִיר, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites two additional explanations for the purpose of the six collection horns. And Shmuel says: These six horns correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing six offerings, namely: The surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite’s guilt offering, brought if he comes into contact with a corpse during his term of naziriteship; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper’s guilt offering, brought as part of his purification process; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering sacrificed by the High Priest each day, half in the morning and half in the evening.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel steps in with his own six-horn scheme, one rooted entirely in “surplus”: ḥatat (sin offering), asham (guilt offering), nazir’s asham, metzora’s asham, minḥat ḥoteh (sinner’s meal offering), and the High Priest’s daily ḥavitin (tenth of an ephah). Unlike bar Padda, Shmuel avoids mixing animal-value categories with surplus — every horn is about residual funds. His inclusion of the High Priest’s ḥavitin will become a flashpoint later in the daf.
Key Terms:
- אשם (Asham) = Guilt offering
- אשם נזיר (Asham Nazir) = The guilt offering a nazirite brings if he becomes corpse-impure
- אשם מצורע (Asham Metzora) = The leper’s guilt offering, part of his purification
- חביתי כהן גדול / עשירית האיפה (Ḥavitei Kohen Gadol / Asirit Ha’eifah) = The High Priest’s daily griddle-cake meal offering of a tenth of an ephah
Segment 8
TYPE: דעת רבי אושעיא (Rabbi Oshaya’s Position)
A competing list: Rabbi Oshaya substitutes kinnin-surplus for the High Priest’s ḥavitin-surplus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: כְּנֶגֶד מוֹתַר חַטָּאת, וּמוֹתַר אָשָׁם, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם נָזִיר, וּמוֹתַר אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר קִינִּין, וּמוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Oshaya says that there is a different explanation for the six collection horns: They correspond to the surplus coins left over after purchasing a sin offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a nazirite’s guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a leper’s guilt offering; and the surplus coins left over after the purchase of pairs of doves or pigeons by women after childbirth, by zavim as part of their purification process, and others; and the surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering of a sinner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Oshaya shares five of Shmuel’s six categories but differs on the final one: instead of the High Priest’s ḥavitin, he lists surplus of kinnin (pairs of doves/pigeons brought by zavim, zavot, yoledet, and others). The switch is not arbitrary — Rabbi Oshaya holds the ḥavitin surplus cannot be nedava (it gets left to rot), so he refuses to let one of the six horns correspond to something never used. The coming segments probe why Shmuel and Rabbi Oshaya each reject the other.
Key Terms:
- קינין (Kinnin) = Pairs of birds (doves or pigeons) brought as sacrifices, especially by women after childbirth, zavim, zavot, and others
Segment 9
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Give-and-Take)
Why Shmuel doesn’t follow Rabbi Oshaya: kinnin already has its own horn in Shekalim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁמוּאֵל מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא? קִינִּין תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Shmuel does not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Oshaya that one of the collection horns was for the surplus coins left over after purchasing pairs of birds? The Gemara answers: A collection horn for coins for pairs of birds is already taught in the first clause of the mishna in tractate Shekalim (18a), among the list of seven collection horns that served purposes other than the communal gift offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel’s objection to Rabbi Oshaya: a kinnin-horn is already on the list of seven horns in m. Shekalim 6:5 (Bavli Shekalim 18a), which itemizes horns for purposes other than nedava. Since kinnin is accounted for there, Shmuel refuses to duplicate it among the six horns for nedava. This is a structural, bookkeeping-style argument — the horn-economy should have no double-counting.
Key Terms:
- שבעה שופרות (Shiva Shofarot) = The seven horns in m. Shekalim 6:5 for non-nedava purposes (including one for kinnin)
Segment 10
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Give-and-Take)
Reconciling Rabbi Oshaya’s version of the Shekalim mishna with his six-horn scheme: kinnin and motar kinnin are two separate horns
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא תָּנֵי, וְלָא תָּנֵי קִינִּין? וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא וְתָנֵי קִינִּין! חַד לְקִינִּין, וְחַד לְמוֹתַר קִינִּין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna without teaching that one of the collection horns was for pairs of birds? Does he have a different version of the mishna? But doesn’t Rabbi Oshaya teach the mishna explicitly, teaching in his version of the mishna that there was a collection horn for pairs of birds? The Gemara answers that one of the collection horns was for coins designated for purchasing pairs of birds, and one collection horn was for the surplus coins remaining after purchasing pairs of birds.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel’s earlier objection to Rabbi Oshaya was that kinnin is already listed in the Shekalim mishna and thus cannot be one of the nedava-horns. The Gemara now raises the reverse problem: Rabbi Oshaya’s own version of the Shekalim mishna does list kinnin — so how does he assign kinnin-surplus to one of the six nedava-horns? The answer distinguishes two separate categories: one horn for kinnin (the money designated for purchasing bird-pairs) and a second for motar kinnin (the surplus left over), each serving a distinct function.
Key Terms:
- מותר קינין (Motar Kinnin) = The surplus funds left after purchasing bird-pair offerings — distinct from the kinnin fund itself
Segment 11
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Give-and-Take)
Why Rabbi Oshaya rejects Shmuel: the High Priest’s ḥavitin surplus is left to rot, not used for nedava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כִּשְׁמוּאֵל? סָבַר לַהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹתָר שֶׁל עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יִרְקַב, דְּתַנְיָא: מוֹתַר מִנְחַת – נְדָבָה, מוֹתַר מִנְחָה – יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Oshaya does not say in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel? The Gemara answers that he holds like the one who says that the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are not used to purchase other offerings but are left to rot; as it is taught in a baraita: The surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over after purchasing a meal offering are left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Oshaya rejects Shmuel’s sixth category (surplus of ḥavitin) because in his view that surplus is not repurposed — it is left to decay (yirkav). To ground this, the Gemara cites a baraita whose two clauses appear self-contradictory: “surplus of minḥah → nedava” and “surplus of minḥah → yirkav.” The apparent paradox sets up the coming Amoraic reinterpretations of how to read both clauses.
Key Terms:
- ירקב (Yirkav) = “It shall rot” — the disposition for funds that cannot be redirected to any sanctified purpose
- מנחה (Minḥah) = Meal offering (generically); here the baraita uses the word twice with different intended referents
Segment 12
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav Ḥisda’s Reading)
Rav Ḥisda resolves the baraita: the first “minḥah” = minḥat ḥoteh (→ nedava); the second = ḥavitin (→ rot)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָכִי קָאָמַר – מוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא נְדָבָה, מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies the opaque wording: What is the baraita saying? Rav Ḥisda said that this is what the baraita is saying: The surplus coins left over from the purchase of a meal offering of a sinner are used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ḥisda dissolves the contradiction by distinguishing the two referents: the first clause speaks of minḥat ḥoteh (the sinner’s tenth-of-an-ephah meal offering), whose surplus is redirected to nedava; the second clause speaks of the High Priest’s daily ḥavitin (also a tenth-of-an-ephah offering), whose surplus must rot. Under this reading, the baraita directly supports Rabbi Oshaya’s refusal to include ḥavitin surplus in his six-horn scheme.
Key Terms:
- מנחת חוטא (Minḥat Ḥoteh) = The “sinner’s meal offering” — a tenth of an ephah of flour brought by one who cannot afford animal or bird offerings
- חביתין / עשירית האיפה של כהן גדול (Ḥavitin / Asirit Ha’eifah shel Kohen Gadol) = The High Priest’s daily griddle-cake offering of a tenth of an ephah
Segment 13
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rabba’s Reading)
Rabba’s alternative: even ḥavitin surplus goes to nedava; it is laḥmei todah surplus that is left to rot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – נָמֵי נְדָבָה, אֶלָּא מוֹתַר לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה – יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
Rabba offered an alternative interpretation of the baraita and said: Even the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are also used for the purchase of a communal gift offering. Rather, the surplus coins left over from purchasing the loaves accompanying a thanks offering are left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba rejects Rav Ḥisda’s scheme: even the ḥavitin surplus goes to nedava, so both halves of the baraita cannot be about meal offerings of the High Priest. Instead, Rabba reads the second “minḥah” as laḥmei todah — the forty loaves accompanying a thanks-offering — whose surplus uniquely has no analogous redirection and must rot. This reading aligns the baraita with the view that even ḥavitin surplus is useful (i.e., with Shmuel’s scheme).
Key Terms:
- לחמי תודה (Laḥmei Todah) = The forty loaves (ten each of four types) brought alongside the todah (thanks-offering) animal
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים (Amoraic Dispute)
The Rav Ḥisda / Rabba split maps onto an earlier dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּפְלוּגְתָּא: מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: נְדָבָה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
The Gemara points out that the opinions of Rav Ḥisda and Rabba correspond to opinions raised in the dispute among earlier amora’im, as with regard to the surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that they are used to buy a communal gift offering, while Rabbi Elazar says that they must be left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now shows that the Rav Ḥisda / Rabba dispute is not a new one but reproduces an earlier Amoraic machloket: Rabbi Yoḥanan held ḥavitin surplus goes to nedava (= Rabba, = Shmuel), while Rabbi Elazar held it rots (= Rav Ḥisda, = Rabbi Oshaya). Identifying a sugya’s dispute with a prior one (בפלוגתא) is a standard Talmudic move that clarifies authority-lines and removes the appearance of local innovation.
Key Terms:
- בפלוגתא (Bi-pelugta) = “In [a known] dispute” — a Talmudic formula noting that current disagreement tracks an earlier recognized one
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge from a Mishna)
An objection to Rabbi Elazar from m. Shekalim 6b, which lists surplus of “asirit ha’eifah” as going to nedava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים – חוּלִּין, וּמוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וּמוֹתַר קִינֵּי זָבִין וְקִינֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת וְחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת – מוֹתְרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a mishna (Shekalim 6b): The surplus coins that had been designated for shekels are non-sacred property; but with regard to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the tenth of an ephah meal offering, and the surplus money that had been designated to purchase offerings that are brought due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as the pairs of birds of zavim, the pairs of birds of zavot, the pairs of birds of women after childbirth, and sin offerings, and guilt offerings, in these cases, the surplus coins must be used for a communal gift offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now challenges Rabbi Elazar (and by extension Rabbi Oshaya and Rav Ḥisda) from an authoritative mishna in Shekalim that lists “surplus of asirit ha’eifah” among the surpluses that go to nedava. If this surplus refers to ḥavitin, the mishna directly contradicts Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that such surplus rots.
Key Terms:
- מיתיבי (Meitivei) = “They raise an objection” — the classic formula introducing a challenge from an earlier authoritative source
- זבים / זבות / יולדות (Zavim / Zavot / Yoledot) = Categories of ritually impure persons (male and female flux-sufferers; women after childbirth) who bring bird-pair offerings for purification
Segment 16
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Give-and-Take)
Pressing the challenge: isn’t “asirit ha’eifah” in the mishna the High Priest’s ḥavitin?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו: מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה – שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל?
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the objection: What is the meaning of the phrase: The tenth of an ephah meal offering? Is it not referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the High Priest’s tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara sharpens the challenge by forcing the question: what else could “surplus of asirit ha’eifah” mean if not the ḥavitin of the High Priest, given that the ḥavitin is the paradigmatic tenth-of-an-ephah offering? On this reading, the mishna would rule decisively against Rabbi Elazar.
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
The Gemara defuses the challenge: the mishna means minḥat ḥoteh, which is also a tenth of an ephah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא, מוֹתַר מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the surplus coins left over after purchasing the meal offering of a sinner, which is also brought from a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Leviticus 5:11).
קלאוד על הדף:
The tirutz exploits the fact that “asirit ha’eifah” is not uniquely the ḥavitin — the minḥat ḥoteh of Leviticus 5:11 is likewise a tenth of an ephah. Reading Shekalim as referring to minḥat ḥoteh leaves Rabbi Elazar’s ruling on ḥavitin-surplus untouched. This lexical maneuver preserves both the authoritative mishna and the Amoraic view.
Segment 18
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav Naḥman bar Rav Yitzḥak’s Position)
Rav Naḥman argues that the “yirkav” view on ḥavitin surplus is the more reasonable one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to accept the opinion of the one who said: The surplus coins left over from purchasing the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest are left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman bar Rav Yitzḥak weighs in on the dispute itself, ruling that “yirkav” is the more logically defensible position. He will now ground his preference in Rabbi Yehuda’s reading of Leviticus 5:11, which formally excludes ḥavitin from the category of ḥatat and therefore from the ḥatat-style redirection to nedava.
Key Terms:
- מסתברא (Mistabra) = “It stands to reason” — a formula used by an Amora to endorse one side of a dispute as more cogent
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא (Baraita — Rabbi Yehuda’s Derashah)
Rabbi Yehuda’s midrash on Leviticus 5:11: minḥat ḥoteh alone is called “ḥatat,” excluding ḥavitin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא״, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הִיא קְרוּיָה ״חַטָּאת״, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת קְרוּיָה ״חַטָּאת״. לִימֵּד עַל עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״חַטָּאת״, וּטְעוּנָה לְבוֹנָה.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a sinner’s meal offering: The verse states: “But if his means are not sufficient for two doves or two pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, nor shall he put any frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). Rabbi Yehuda said that the phrase “it is a sin offering” is interpreted as a restriction: It is called a sin offering, and no other meal offering is called a sin offering. This taught that with regard to the tenth of an ephah griddle-cake meal offering of the High Priest, it is not called a sin offering, and consequently it requires frankincense.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda treats the words “כי חטאת היא” (“for it is a sin offering”) as a particularizing ריבוי: this — minḥat ḥoteh — and only this qualifies as a “ḥatat” in the flour-offering family. The immediate halakhic payoff is that ḥavitin, not being a “ḥatat,” does NOT share the ḥatat-exclusions (no oil, no levonah) and therefore requires frankincense.
Key Terms:
- חטאת (Ḥatat) = Sin offering — here applied by Rabbi Yehuda as a narrow title reserved for the sinner’s meal offering alone
- לבונה (Levonah) = Frankincense; present on most meal offerings but specifically excluded from ḥatat
Segment 20
TYPE: מסקנת רב נחמן (Rav Naḥman’s Inference)
Since ḥavitin is not called ḥatat, its surplus is not redirected like ḥatat surplus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִדְּאֵינָהּ קְרוּיָה ״חַטָּאת״, מוֹתָרָהּ יִרְקַב.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman inferred: And since it is not called a sin offering, its surplus coins should not be used to buy communal gift offerings like the surplus coins of sin offerings; rather, they should be left to rot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman bar Rav Yitzḥak extends Rabbi Yehuda’s derashah: if ḥavitin is not subsumed under the ḥatat-category, then its surplus likewise cannot ride the standard ḥatat-surplus track into nedava. Lacking any alternative disposition, the only remaining option is yirkav. This formally supports Rabbi Oshaya, Rav Ḥisda, and Rabbi Elazar against Shmuel, Rabba, and Rabbi Yoḥanan.
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
New mishna: redeeming blemished consecrated bulls — one may split or consolidate, but Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi restricts consolidation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, וְנִסְתָּאֵב – אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו שְׁנַיִם. ״שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִים אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה״, וְנִסְתָּאֲבוּ – רָצָה יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן אֶחָד, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to one who said: This bull is hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently it became blemished [venista’ev] and was disqualified from sacrifice, he should redeem the bull and with that money purchase another bull as an offering in its stead. If he wishes, he may bring two bulls with its redemption money instead of one. If one says: These two bulls are hereby a burnt offering, and subsequently they became blemished, if he wishes he may bring one bull with their redemption money. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems this prohibited, and holds that he must bring two bulls.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna shifts to a new sugya on blemished consecrated animals. Its basic principle is that when “this bull” becomes blemished, the vow’s specificity is exhausted and the redemption funds may be used flexibly — one bull’s redemption may purchase two, and two bulls’ redemption may purchase one. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees on the consolidation case: once a person consecrated two bulls, bringing only one resembles vowing large and offering small — a shortfall that he treats as prohibited even ab initio.
Key Terms:
- נסתאב (Nista’ev) = Became blemished; disqualified from being sacrificed and requiring redemption
- דמים (Damim) = Redemption value/money of a consecrated animal rendered unfit for the altar
Segment 22
TYPE: המשך משנה (Continuation of Mishna)
Species-switching: ram↔lamb is allowed by the Rabbis but forbidden by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אַיִל זֶה עוֹלָה״, וְנִסְתָּאֵב – אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו כֶּבֶשׂ. ״כֶּבֶשׂ זֶה עוֹלָה״, וְנִסְתָּאֵב – אִם רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר.
English Translation:
In a case where 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 redemption money from another type of animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna extends the principle to species-switching: once the consecrated ram or lamb is blemished, the Rabbis allow its redemption funds to buy an animal of a different species (ram↔lamb). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi again forbids this ab initio — in his view, diverging from the vowed species is itself impermissible, even though redemption has technically released the vow’s force.
Key Terms:
- איל (Ayil) = Adult ram (male sheep over one year)
- כבש (Keves) = Lamb (male sheep under one year)
Amud Bet (108b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge)
The Gemara opens by contrasting our mishna with the previous mishna (107b): there, two bulls for one hundred dinars did not fulfill the vow
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא: ״שׁוֹר בְּמָנֶה״ וְהֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם בְּמָנֶה – לֹא יָצָא.
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens with an apparent contradiction between adjacent mishnayot. The previous mishna (107b) taught that one who vowed “a bull for 100 dinars” and brought two bulls with that combined value has NOT fulfilled the vow — one bull is required. How then does our mishna permit two bulls to be brought from the redemption value of one? This sets up a fundamental distinction about the scope of personalized (“zeh”) vows versus generic value-pegged ones.
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
“This bull” + blemished is a distinct case: the vow’s specificity is exhausted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שׁוֹר זֶה״ וְנִסְתָּאֵב שָׁאנֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The four-word answer distinguishes decisively: “shor zeh” + nista’ev is a different case. When one designates a specific animal (“this one”), the vow is tethered to that animal alone; once it becomes blemished, the vow as such has run its course, and the redemption money is merely the proceeds of a specified-but-now-unavailable item — free to be used for one or more substitutes. The previous mishna by contrast concerned an unfixed value-vow where the terms of the vow remain in force.
Segment 3
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (Give-and-Take)
The Gemara isolates Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s dissent on the seifa and asks for its reason
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שְׁנֵי שְׁוָורִין אֵלּוּ עוֹלָה״ וְנִסְתָּאֲבוּ, רָצָה יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן אֶחָד, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s dissenting view in the seifa: if two consecrated bulls became blemished, why does he forbid consolidating them into one bull via redemption? The question “mai ta’ama” presumes the dispute requires a principled rationale, since in theory the redemption-logic that frees “this bull” should equally free “these two bulls.”
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s rationale: consolidation resembles vowing-large-bringing-small, which he forbids ab initio even after redemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ גָּדוֹל וְהֵבִיא קָטָן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִסְתָּאֵב, לְכִתְחִילָּה לָא שָׁרֵי רַבִּי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi assimilates two→one consolidation to the prohibited pattern of “vowing large, bringing small”: the quantitative contraction resembles a breach of vow. Even though the redemption technically exhausts the force of the vow (as in the reisha’s one→two case), Rabbi forbids the contraction ab initio as a matter of kavod ha-neder.
Key Terms:
- לכתחילה (Lekhatḥilla) = Ab initio, the preferred manner; distinguished from b’diavad (after the fact)
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא (Counter-Challenge)
If Rabbi’s principle is so broad, why doesn’t he also disagree with the reisha (one bull → two)?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִפְלוֹג נָמֵי בְּרֵישָׁא?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge presses the logic: if Rabbi holds that quantitative mismatch between vow and offering is forbidden ab initio even after redemption, he should also forbid the reisha’s one→two expansion (analogous to vowing-small-bringing-large). Why does the mishna record his dissent only on the seifa?
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
Rabbi actually disputes the whole mishna; he courteously withheld until the Rabbis finished before voicing his dissent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַכּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא פְּלִיג, וְנָטַר לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן עַד דְּמַסְּקִי מִילְּתַיְיהוּ, וַהֲדַר מִיפְּלִיג עֲלַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is dialogical rather than substantive: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually rejects both halves of the mishna but, as a matter of courtesy, let the Rabbis complete their whole position before registering his objection. The placement of “ve-Rabbi oser” at the end should therefore be read as a comprehensive dissent, not a local one.
Key Terms:
- נטר להו (Natar lehu) = “He waited for them” — Aramaic idiom for forbearing until an interlocutor finishes speaking
Segment 7
TYPE: ראיה (Proof)
Proof: the ram↔lamb clause shows Rabbi forbids even small→large, so his objection reaches the whole mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תֵּדַע, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אַיִל זֶה עוֹלָה״ וְנִסְתָּאֵב – רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו כֶּבֶשׂ; ״כֶּבֶשׂ זֶה לְעוֹלָה״ וְנִסְתָּאֵב – רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof emerges from the ram↔lamb clause: in “keves zeh” → ayil, the offerer is UPGRADING from lamb to ram, yet Rabbi still forbids. That means Rabbi disputes even small→large substitution, and — by inference — surely disputes the reisha’s one→two expansion as well. The latter-stated “ve-Rabbi oser” therefore reaches the entire mishna.
Key Terms:
- תדע (Teida) = “Know [that this is the case]” — a Talmudic formula introducing supporting evidence
- שמע מינה (Shema Minah) = “Infer from this” — concluding a derivation
Segment 8
TYPE: בעיא (She’eilah)
What about switching species (e.g., bull → ram) with the redemption funds?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִמִּינָא לְמִינָא מַאי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna covered within-species cases (bull↔bull, ram↔lamb where ram and lamb are actually related sheep categories). The she’eilah opens the broader question: may the redemption of “this bull” purchase an offering of a wholly different species (ram, lamb)? This is a question about the scope of the “shor zeh + nista’ev shani” principle.
Key Terms:
- איבעיא להו (Ibaya lehu) = “They raised a dilemma” — a formula introducing an unresolved question before the Sages
- מין (Min) = Species/kind; in sacrificial law, bulls, rams, lambs, and goats are distinct minim
Segment 9
TYPE: תא שמע (Come and Hear — Proof from a Baraita)
A baraita shows the Rabbis permit cross-species substitution; Rabbi forbids only because of the bilah issue
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה, וְנִסְתָּאֵב – לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל, אֲבָל מֵבִיא בְּדָמָיו שְׁנֵי אֵילִים, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בִּילָּה. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita answers the she’eilah: the Rabbis permit cross-species substitution (shor → two eilim) and Rabbi only forbids because of “ein bilah” — since each ram’s accompanying meal offering must be in its own vessel, the two offerings cannot be “mixed,” making the switch feel like a structural departure from a one-meal-offering vow. The Rabbis’ permission of cross-species substitution is the resolution.
Key Terms:
- בילה (Bilah) = “Mixing” — the requirement/possibility that accompanying meal-offerings combine in a single vessel; “ein bilah” means no such mixing is permitted
- מנחה הבאה עם הזבח (Minḥah ha-Ba’ah im ha-Zevaḥ) = The grain offering accompanying an animal sacrifice, whose volume varies by species
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge)
Why does the baraita specify two rams — even one should work, since the Rabbis don’t distinguish big from small when blemished
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא תְּרֵי? אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי! דְּהָא בְּנִסְתָּאֵב, לְרַבָּנַן לָא שָׁנֵי לְהוּ בֵּין גָּדוֹל לְקָטָן!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
If our mishna’s Rabbis allow downshifting from ram to lamb after redemption, then by the same logic the baraita’s Rabbis should let a single (smaller) ram substitute for a blemished bull. Why does the baraita specify “two rams”? The question exposes a tension between the two sources’ assumed scope of the Rabbis’ leniency.
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
Two tanna’im within the Rabbis’ camp — the mishna’s Rabbis and the baraita’s Rabbis differ
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer bifurcates the Rabbis: two tannaitic camps each claim to transmit the Rabbis’ view, and they disagree over whether size-mismatch is permitted after redemption. Our mishna’s tanna is lenient across the board, while the baraita’s tanna permits only multi-animal (equal-value) substitution. “Trei tanna’ei aliba de-Rabbanan” is a standard Talmudic move used to harmonize conflicting reports of a majority view.
Key Terms:
- תרי תנאי ואליבא ד… (Trei Tanna’ei Aliba De-…) = “Two tanna’im within [a school]” — a device for reconciling two reports attributed to the same authority
Segment 12
TYPE: דיוק (Inference from the Baraita)
Rabbi’s reasoning implies that if bilah were possible, he would permit the switch
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אוֹסֵר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בִּילָּה; טַעְמָא דְּאֵין בִּילָּה, הָא יֵשׁ בִּילָּה – שְׁרֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extracts a diyyuk: if Rabbi’s prohibition rests specifically on “ein bilah” (the two accompanying minḥot cannot combine), then he should permit cross-species substitution in any case where bilah IS available. This inferred leniency for Rabbi will generate its own tension with our mishna, where Rabbi forbids ram↔lamb even though their meal offerings do admit bilah.
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge from the Mishna)
But in our mishna Rabbi forbids ram↔lamb even though bilah is available (ram 2/10, lamb 1/10) — different meal-offering volumes could combine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: ״אַיִל זֶה עוֹלָה״ וְנִסְתָּאֵב, רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו כֶּבֶשׂ. ״כֶּבֶשׂ זֶה עוֹלָה״ וְנִסְתָּאֵב, יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו אַיִל, וְרַבִּי אוֹסֵר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Our mishna explicitly has Rabbi forbid even ram↔lamb (single-for-single substitution), where the accompanying meal offerings (2/10 for ram, 1/10 for lamb) are each single-vessel offerings that could in principle mix. If Rabbi’s objection were really about bilah, he should permit here. The challenge pressures the diyyuk of the previous segment.
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
Two tanna’im within Rabbi’s camp: they disagree over whether bilah is Rabbi’s true criterion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mirroring the earlier split on the Rabbis’ view, the Gemara now posits two tanna’im on Rabbi’s view: the baraita’s tanna limits Rabbi’s objection to bilah concerns, while our mishna’s tanna generalizes Rabbi’s objection to ANY species or size change. The sugya thus registers disagreement on both sides of the mishna’s machloket over what precisely Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds.
Segment 15
TYPE: המשך ברייתא (Continuation of the Baraita)
With unblemished animals, “calf” → bull and “lamb” → ram is valid; the anonymous clause is the Rabbis’ view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבִטְהוֹרִים, ״עֵגֶל״ וְהֵבִיא פַּר, ״כֶּבֶשׂ״ וְהֵבִיא אַיִל – יָצָא. סְתָמָא – כְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s final clause treats a different scenario entirely — unblemished animals where the vow was for a smaller grade (calf, lamb) but the offerer brings a larger one (bull, ram). Here, size-upgrade is valid and the obligation is fulfilled. The Gemara reads this unattributed ruling as representing the Rabbis; Rabbi, consistent with his broader posture, would dispute this leniency as well.
Key Terms:
- טהורים (Tehorim) = “Pure” animals — here meaning unblemished, as opposed to those disqualified (nista’ev)
- עגל / פר (Egel / Par) = Calf / mature bull — the cattle-pair corresponding to keves/ayil in sheep
Segment 16
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav via Rav Menashya bar Zevid)
Rav restricts the mishna’s leniency: “shor zeh olah” allows two, but “shor zeh alai olah” fixes him to one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָצָה יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו שְׁנַיִם [כּוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר זְבִיד אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – הוּקְבַּע.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav, as transmitted by Rav Menashya bar Zevid, introduces a verbal distinction that will shape the sugya: “shor zeh olah” (this bull is a burnt offering) leaves the vow exhaustively tied to this animal, but “shor zeh alai olah” (this bull is incumbent upon me as a burnt offering) adds personal responsibility that outlives the animal’s disqualification. On the latter formula, the vower is “locked in” (hukba) and must bring only one replacement.
Key Terms:
- הוקבע (Hukba) = “Fixed” — the obligation has been pinned to a specific measure that cannot be expanded or contracted
- עלי (Alai) = “Incumbent upon me” — a formulation that adds personal obligation to a vow, distinct from a mere designation
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא (Challenge)
Perhaps “alai” means “it is my obligation to bring it” — not an acceptance of responsibility if it becomes blemished
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא ״עָלַי לַהֲבִיאוֹ״ קָאָמַר?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara contests Rav’s reading of “alai”: maybe the speaker intends only a narrow obligation to bring this specific bull, not a broad acceptance of substitution liability. On this weaker reading, “alai” alone would not lock him in when the bull is blemished, since the obligation itself was to bring the now-unavailable animal.
Segment 18
TYPE: גרסה חדשה (Revised Statement of Rav)
The locked-in case is only “shor zeh u-damav alai olah” — where he explicitly subsumes the redemption value itself under the vow
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר זְבִיד אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עוֹלָה״, אִי נָמֵי אָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה עָלַי עוֹלָה״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״שׁוֹר זֶה וְדָמָיו עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – הוּקְבַּע.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s statement is reformulated: only the explicit “shor zeh u-damav alai olah” — where the vower’s words name both the bull AND its value as “upon me” — fixes him to bringing one. Mere “shor zeh olah” or even “shor zeh alai olah” still leaves open the mishna’s leniency (two-for-one). By verbally annexing the redemption money to the vow, the speaker freezes the obligation in quantity as well as substance.
Key Terms:
- שור זה ודמיו עלי עולה (Shor Zeh u-Damav Alai Olah) = “This bull and its value are upon me as a burnt offering” — the locked-in formula
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה (Mishna)
New mishna: “one of my lambs / bulls” — with two the larger is consecrated, with three the middle; forgotten cases take the largest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר ״אֶחָד מִכְּבָשַׂי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ וְ״אֶחָד מִשְּׁוָרַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וְהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם – הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ. שְׁלֹשָׁה – בֵּינוֹנִי שֶׁבָּהֶם הֶקְדֵּשׁ. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה שֶּׁפֵּירַשְׁתִּי״, אוֹ שֶׁ״אָמַר לִי אַבָּא, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה״ – הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The new mishna addresses indeterminate consecration language. When the vower says “one of my lambs” and owns two, the larger is consecrated; when three, the middle. When the person forgot what he specified or inherited an unclear report from his father, the largest is consecrated as a safeguard. The mishna’s oscillation between “largest” and “middle” creates the presenting tension that the Gemara will soon interrogate.
Key Terms:
- פירשתי ואיני יודע (Peirashti ve-Eini Yode’a) = “I specified [which one] but I don’t know [what I specified]” — a case of forgotten particularization
- הקדש (Hekdesh) = Consecration; property transferred from mundane to sacred ownership
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא (Internal Contradiction)
The mishna’s reisha assumes ayin yafah (generous) but seifa assumes ayin ra’ah (sparing) — how?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ אַלְמָא מַקְדִּישׁ – בְּעַיִן יָפָה מַקְדִּישׁ, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: בֵּינוֹנִי שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אַלְמָא מַקְדִּישׁ – בְּעַיִן רָעָה מַקְדִּישׁ!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extracts opposing principles from the mishna’s halves. The reisha (two animals, largest consecrated) implies “ayin yafah” — we presume the consecrator intended generosity. The seifa (three animals, middle consecrated) implies “ayin ra’ah” — that he meant to dedicate only something middling. The mishna as written cannot speak with both voices simultaneously.
Key Terms:
- עין יפה (Ayin Yafah) = “Generous eye”; a presumption that a dedicator intends the most generous construction of his vow
- עין רעה (Ayin Ra’ah) = “Stingy eye”; the opposite presumption
Segment 21
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Shmuel’s Resolution)
The largest is consecrated, but we are also concerned for the middle — since relative to the small, middle is still “yafah”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חוֹשְׁשִׁין אַף לְבֵינוֹנִי, דִּלְגַבֵּי קָטָן – עַיִן יָפָה הוּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel preserves “ayin yafah” throughout. The seifa’s “middle” is not an absolute ruling but a zone of doubt: the largest is definitely consecrated, yet we must still account for the possibility that the vower’s “yafah” meant middle relative to the small. The apparent contradiction dissolves into a single principle operating across two scenarios, with the middle case creating spreading uncertainty rather than a new rule.
Key Terms:
- חוששין (Ḥosheshin) = “We are concerned for” — a halakhic term indicating we must treat a possibility as legally live
Segment 22
TYPE: הוראה מעשית (Practical Instruction)
How he handles the uncertainty: wait until the middle animal becomes blemished, then transfer its sanctity onto the large
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר רַב: מַמְתִּין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוּמַם, וּמַחֵיל לֵיהּ לִקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ בַּגָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav offers a practical path through Shmuel’s double sanctity: wait for the middle animal to acquire a blemish (which will eventually happen naturally), then perform ḥillul (desacralization/transfer) of its sanctity onto the already-definitively-consecrated large animal. The large is then sacrificed, and both strands of doubt are discharged through a single fit offering.
Key Terms:
- מחיל לקדושתיה (Maḥil Likedushtei) = Transferring sanctity off an animal, typically by redemption onto another already-consecrated animal
- יומם (Yumam) = “It becomes blemished” — the animal develops a disqualifying defect
Segment 23
TYPE: דעת אמורא (Rav Naḥman citing Rabba bar Avuh)
Distinction in language: “eḥad mi-shevarai” → middle (via the mishna); “shor bi-shevarai” → the largest, since he effectively said “the prime bull”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״אֶחָד מִשְּׁוָורַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, אֲבָל אָמַר ״שׁוֹר בִּשְׁוָורַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״ – הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״תּוֹרָא בְּתוֹרַאי״ קָאָמַר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman introduces a linguistic nuance: “eḥad mi-shevarai” (“one of my bulls”) is the indefinite formulation the mishna addresses, which allows the middle-sized ambiguity. But “shor bi-shevarai” (“a bull from among my bulls”) — with the definite-sounding “shor” — is read as “tora be-torai,” meaning THE prime bull. On this formulation, the largest is unambiguously consecrated.
Key Terms:
- תורא בתוראי (Tora Be-Torai) = Aramaic: “THE bull among my bulls” — i.e., the choicest/prime bull
Segment 24
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (Challenge and Answer)
Challenge from Rav Huna/Ulla: “bayit be-vatai” → show him an aliyya — doesn’t that imply the WORST? Answer: no, “me’uleh” — the best
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״בַּיִת בְּבָתַּי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״ – מַרְאֵהוּ עֲלִיָּיה, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּגְרִיעַ? לָא, מְעוּלֶּה שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים.
English Translation:
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 an 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses Rabba bar Avuh’s ruling by citing a parallel case about real estate: if “bayit be-vatai” (“a house among my houses”) means “show him an aliyya (loft),” that seemingly implies the SELLER gives the buyer the worst — contradicting the “tora be-torai = the best” reading. The Gemara rereads Ulla: the word was not “aliyya” (loft, presumed inferior) but “me’uleh” (the best of the houses). The two sources now align: indefinite-with-article language means “the prime one.”
Key Terms:
- עליה / מעולה (Aliyya / Me’uleh) = A pun/ambiguity: “aliyya” = loft (often inferior); “me’uleh” = the most excellent. The sugya distinguishes them
- גריע (Gari’a) = Inferior, of lesser quality
Segment 25
TYPE: קושיא מברייתא (Challenge from a Baraita)
Baraita: “shor bi-shevarai hekdesh” + mixed consecrated bull cases — all must be sold for burnt offerings, proceeds non-sacred. Evidently all carry uncertain sanctity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: ״שׁוֹר בִּשְׁוָורַי הֶקְדֵּשׁ״, וְכֵן שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים – הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְכוּלָּם יִמָּכְרוּ לְצׇרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּדְמֵיהֶן חוּלִּין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita challenges Rabba bar Avuh: it treats “shor bi-shevarai hekdesh” as a case where the largest is consecrated but ALL remaining bulls retain uncertain-sanctity status (hence they must be sold only to those bringing olot, and their proceeds are ḥullin). That implies “shor bi-shevarai” is NOT a clear “tora be-torai”; rather, there is a real doubt across the whole herd, contradicting Rabba bar Avuh’s decisive reading.
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ (Answer)
Reinterpret the baraita: the “uncertain status” clause refers only to “mixed with others”; the “ve-khen” reaches only to “largest is consecrated”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְגּוּמָא: אַשּׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּאֲחֵרִים. וְהָא ״וְכֵן״ קָאָמַר? תַּרְגְּומַאּ: אַגָּדוֹל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara defuses the challenge by narrowing the baraita’s scope: the “uncertain sanctity requires selling to olot-bringers” rule applies specifically to the mixing case, where real doubt exists. The “ve-khen” (“and likewise”) linking the two cases extends only to “the largest is consecrated,” not to the ḥullin-proceeds procedure. Under this reading, “shor bi-shevarai” remains a clean “tora be-torai” (Rabba bar Avuh is preserved), while the mixing case retains its doubt.
Key Terms:
- תרגומא (Targuma) = “Interpret it as…” — a formula used to narrow or contextualize an earlier source
- נתערב (Nitarev) = “Became mixed” — a standard case-type in kodashim involving two or more indistinguishable animals
Segment 27
TYPE: קושיא נוספת (Further Challenge)
Another baraita: “a house from my houses” — if one fell, he shows him the fallen one; “a slave from my slaves” — if one died, he shows him the dead one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: ״בַּיִת בְּבָיתַּי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, וְנָפַל – מַרְאֵהוּ נָפוּל, ״עֶבֶד בַּעֲבָדַיי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, וָמֵת – מַרְאֵהוּ מֵת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita presses Rabba bar Avuh from the opposite direction: in commercial “bayit be-vatai” or “eved ba-avadai” cases, the seller can point to whatever fell or died and declare that was the sold item — implying that the seller retains discretion to identify the inferior item, not that “the prime one” is automatically implied. The challenge (with its resolution extending into daf 109) probes whether the kodashim context really follows the “me’uleh” presumption or whether it too leaves the identification open.
Key Terms:
- נפל (Nafal) = “It fell” — said of a building collapsing
- עבד (Eved) = Canaanite slave; transferable like real estate