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) 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
(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?
(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)
2) ONE WHO PLEDGES AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF COPPER
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*?
(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)