Menachos 107
Summary
- Today's *shiur* on Menachos 107 begins on 106b at *Tanu Rabbanan* and establishes how vague and specific *nedarim* are interpreted, repeatedly using the principle that fulfillment defaults to the clearest prototype or the minimum necessary unless the person had explicitly specified and later forgot. It explains why *levonah* is the default for “*harei alai lamizbe’ach*,” why other fully-offered items still fall short of *levonah* in some respect, and how forgetting a specification forces bringing multiple possible items. It then moves through the Mishnah’s minimum donations of gold, silver, copper, and iron, clarifying coin-versus-ingot assumptions and local currency norms, and elaborates on *tzinnora* and *klei orev* with Rashi, Tosafos, Rabbeinu Gershom, and the Aruch. It continues into donations of wine and oil, deriving independent wine donation from *ha’ezrach* and presenting a dispute about the minimum oil amount, framed through competing derivation models and Rav Papa’s rejection of one proposed explanation. It later shifts to a series of cases where a person specified an animal category or value and forgot the details, and to disputes about whether bringing a larger item satisfies a pledge for a smaller one, attributing the stricter view to Rebbi.
- A *beraisa* rules that if someone says “*harei alai lamizbe’ach*” without specifying, he brings *levonah* because it is wholly burned and not eaten by *kohanim*. Rashi lists *olas ha’of* and *minchas nesachim* as candidates, and the *Mishneh LaMelech* notes there are four total candidates, adding *olas behemah* and *nesachim*. The text states that these four are not as completely “on the *mizbe’ach*” as *levonah*, so the undefined pledge is interpreted as the epitome, *levonah*. A case of “*pirashti… v’eini yodei’a mah pirashti*” expands the obligation to bring “*mikol davar shekarev lamizbe’ach*,” including *olas ha’of*, *olas behemah*, *nesachim*, and *minchas nesachim*.
- A whole *olah* is rejected as the default because “*ika ora l’kohanim*,” since the hide goes to the *kohanim*. An *olas ha’of* is rejected because “*ika mor’ah v’notzah*,” which are placed at *Makom HaDeshen* and are not burned in the same way. *Nesachim* are rejected because “*lashisin azli*,” as the wine goes down into the *shitthin* rather than being burned atop the *mizbe’ach*. *Minchas nesachim* is described as fully consumed, but it is not the default because other *menachos* are eaten by *kohanim*, so “*lo pasika lei*” that “*lamizbe’ach*” would clearly mean this *minchah* without further clarification.
- The Mishnah’s rule for gold is “*lo yifchos midinar zahav*,” and the Gemara challenges that perhaps he meant a *neska* (bar) worth less than a *dinar*, following Tosafos’s principle that fulfillment follows the minimum that satisfies the pledge. Rav Elazar resolves the case by saying he meant “*matbe’a*,” making it a coin, and the Gemara asks whether it could be a tiny gold *perutah*. Rav Papa answers “*perutah d’dehava lo avdi inshi*,” so the smallest gold coin is a *dinar*. The same structure applies to silver, but Rav Shesh limits the Mishnah to a place “*d’lo sagi peruti d’chesef*,” where small silver coins are not used, so the minimum remains a silver *dinar* rather than a smaller denomination.
- For copper, the Mishnah requires not less than the value of a silver *ma’ah*, treating the donation as metal by value rather than necessarily as a coin. A *beraisa* cites Rebbi Elazar ben Yaakov requiring at least a “*tzinora ketanah shel nechoshes*,” which Rashi defines as a small fork. Abaye explains it is used to trim wicks and clean the lamps, with the Bach inserting “*es hapesilos*,” and Rashi frames it in relation to the *Menorah*. Tosafos rejects the *Menorah* application because there were gold *melkacha’yim* designated for wick-trimming, and instead assigns the copper fork to other lamps in the *Mikdash*.
- A *beraisa* teaches that one who pledges iron gives no less than *klei orev*. Rashi explains this as sharp nails embedded atop the roof of the *Heichal* to prevent crows from perching. Rabbeinu Gershom describes an iron plate one *amah* by one *amah* filled with nails placed on the roof, and he adds that the roof is sloped upward “*k’ein kov’a*,” a view the text notes other *Rishonim* reject. The Aruch gives a different explanation that it is a form like a scarecrow used to chase birds, and also claims the first *Beis HaMikdash* did not need *klei orev* because the *Shechinah* deterred birds, while the second did; Tosafos challenges this from *Moed Katan* and suggests it was initially installed and later removed when the sanctity proved sufficient. Rav Yosef sets the required measure at “*amah al amah*,” and an alternate version states the minimum directly as “*lo yifchos me’amah al amah*,” explaining its use as *klei orev*.
- The next Mishnah sets a minimum wine donation of three *login*, deriving independent wine donation from the extra verse “*kol ha’ezrach ya’aseh kachah…*” and tying the minimum to the smallest *nesachim* measure of three. It states that one may add more, derived from “*yihyeh*,” and that one may not reduce below the required pattern, derived from “*kachah*” as *l’ikuva*. The explanation uses the prior framework of “*ein keva l’nesachim*” so that a larger total like five can be apportioned into valid *nesachim* units. Oil donation is presented as a dispute: the first view requires at least one *log*, and Rebbi requires three *login*.
- The Gemara asks “*b’mai kamipalgi*,” and the *Rabbanan* propose it depends on “*don minah u’minah*” versus “*don minah v’okey b’asrah*,” using the derivation of oil from “*korban*” near *minchah*. They state that the *Rabbanan* would learn oil like *minchah* and therefore set the minimum at one *log*, while Rebbi would return to oil’s “home” context of *nesachim* and set the minimum at three. Rav Papa rejects this framing by saying that if Rebbi learned oil from *minchah* then everyone would agree to “*don minah u’minah*,” and he states instead that Rebbi learns it from *ha’ezrach* in a parallel to wine, with Rashi describing the logic as aligning oil with *nesachim* measures.
- The text later applies “*pirashti v’eini yodei’a mah pirashti*” to animal categories, requiring multiple offerings to cover all possibilities, such as bringing both a *par* and an *egel* when “*min habakar*” was specified but forgotten. It attributes this requirement to Rebbi’s view that “*katan v’hevi gadol lo yatza*,” rejecting “*yesh b’chlal merubeh mu’at*” as a blanket solution. It expands the list for “*min habehemah*” to include distinctions of species, sex, and age categories, and it adds *tor* and *ben yonah* when the forgotten specification could include birds. It treats “*harei alai todah u’shelamim*” as Rashi’s “*o shelamim*,” and it broadens the possibilities there to include females, producing an expanded set like “*par u’parah, egel v’eglah*” and parallel male-female pairs across eligible animals.
- A series of rules assigns standard total values for pledges like “*harei alai shor*,” where Rashi says the required cost with *nesachim* is a received *Torah sheb’al peh* measure, such as “*b’maneh*” for a *shor* with its *nesachim*. The Rambam and *Pirush HaMishnayos* interpret these amounts as the prevailing “medium” market value at the time. The text distinguishes between a default pledge, where the fixed sum includes *nesachim*, and a pledge that explicitly assigns the animal’s value, such as “*shor b’maneh*,” where the animal alone must be worth that amount “*chutz min’nesachav*.” It rules that splitting the pledged value into two animals does not satisfy a pledge for one animal of that value, and it rules that switching specified color or size fails, while “*katan v’hevi gadol*” succeeds according to *Chachamim* but fails according to Rebbi.
- Tosafos records that different colors are suited to different uses, with black for pulling, red for meat, and white for field work. The *Sefas Emes* asks why the Mishnah lists black and white but not red, and he answers that red would introduce a straightforward value increase or decrease that maps onto the later “big versus small” dispute. The *Sefas Emes* states that black and white are equivalent for the *mizbe’ach* even if they differ for other purposes, so the case highlights precision in the pledge rather than obvious monetary disparity.
- A stated dispute about the minimum *olah*—whether it is a *keves* or a *tor/ben yonah*—is resolved as “*lo pligi*,” with each *Tanna* reflecting local market realities. Rashi explains that in one place the cheapest offering is a *keves* and in another it is a bird. Tosafos objects that offerings are purchased in Yerushalayim, but answers “*da’as hanoder l’fi mah she’ro’eh b’iro*,” making the pledge’s interpretation depend on the donor’s lived pricing expectations. The same model appears in the *beraisa* about “*olah b’sela lamizbe’ach*,” where a vague pledge defaults to a *keves* as the prototype, but a forgotten explicit specification obligates bringing every item that can be offered for a *sela*, listed by Rabbeinu Gershom as *keves*, *soles*, and *levonah*.
- The Gemara challenges why one who forgot what he specified from cattle must bring both *par* and *egel*, since a *par* could seemingly satisfy either. The answer identifies the Mishnah’s opening position as Rebbi, who holds that pledging a smaller item is not fulfilled by bringing a larger one, stated as “*ha mani Rebbi*” and “*katan v’hevi gadol lo yatza*.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions