Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara cites another comment concerning the ruling in the mishna that a vow to bring a meal offering from barley takes effect: Ze’eiri said: The Sages taught that the first portion of one’s statement is accepted only where he said in his vow: Meal offering [minḥa], but not in the Hebrew construct where it is attached to the term: From barley [minḥat se’orim]. But if he did not say the word meal offering independently, but either said minḥat se’orim or said: It is incumbent upon me to bring barley, the vow does not take effect, and he does not bring a meal offering.
אָמַר זְעֵירִי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״, אֲבָל לָא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ – לָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Naḥman was sitting and reciting this halakha of Ze’eiri. Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman from the mishna: One who vows to bring a meal offering from regular flour, which is not used for a meal offering, should bring the meal offering from fine flour. Is it not referring to a case where he did not say: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, but rather said: It is incumbent upon me to bring regular flour? Apparently, the vow takes effect even if one did not state the term meal offering in an independent form. Rav Naḥman responded: No, it is referring to where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of regular flour.
יָתֵיב רַב נַחְמָן וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: ״קֶמַח״ – יָבִיא סוֹלֶת, לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava raised another, similar objection from the continuation of the mishna: With regard to one who vows to bring a meal offering without oil and frankincense, his vow takes effect, and he shall bring it with oil and frankincense. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the word meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Naḥman responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering without oil or frankincense.
״בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה״, יָבִיא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה. מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava asks again based on the mishna: If one vows to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah. What, is it not referring to a case where he did not say the term meal offering in his vow, and yet it still takes effect? Rav Naḥman responds: No, it is referring to a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth of an ephah.
״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם, מַאי לָאו דְּלֹא אָמַר ״מִנְחָה״? לָא, דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava asks: If it is so that in all the cases in the mishna his vow included the term meal offering, say the last clause: If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half of an ephah, he should bring two tenths. Once he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah of flour. Therefore, when he states the words: Half a tenth, he is not saying anything, as he did not say the term meal offering with it, and would not have to bring two tenths. In what case is the ruling in the latter clause relevant?
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ לֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר הוּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Naḥman answers: No, it is necessary to teach the halakha in the case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of half a tenth and a tenth. Since he said the term meal offering, he is obligated in bringing a tenth of an ephah for it. When he said: Half a tenth, he is saying nothing, since a meal offering is not brought with that amount of flour. When he then said the word tenth, he therefore brings another tenth, totaling two tenths.
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן וְעִשָּׂרוֹן״, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״מִנְחָה״ אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּעִשָּׂרוֹן, כִּי אָמַר ״חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ וְלֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר, כִּי הָדַר אָמַר ״עִשָּׂרוֹן״ מַיְיתֵי עִשָּׂרוֹן אַחֲרִינָא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava asks: If so, then when the mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge, why is this his opinion? Once he said the term meal offering, the vow should be valid. Rava said in response: Rabbi Shimon stated his opinion according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that the conclusion of a person’s statement is also accepted. Therefore, even when he said the term meal offering at the beginning of the vow, since at the end he also made declarations that do not apply to a voluntary meal offering, the vow does not take effect.
אִי הָכִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין, אַמַּאי? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: אַף בִּגְמַר דְּבָרָיו אָדָם מַתְפִּיס.
Mishna 1
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: A person may pledge a meal offering of sixty tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and bring all sixty tenths in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty tenths of an ephah, he brings it in one vessel. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring sixty-one tenths of an ephah, he brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel, as the greatest number of tenths of an ephah that the community brings as meal offerings in one day is on the first festival day of Sukkot when it occurs on Shabbat, when sixty-one tenths of an ephah of fine flour are brought.
מַתְנִי׳ מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן, וּמֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. (אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – מֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד). אִם אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ – מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד.(משנה)
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : It is sufficient for an individual that the maximum amount he can bring at once is one tenth of an ephah less than that of the community. When the first day of Sukkot occurs on Shabbat, thirteen bulls, two goats, and fourteen lambs are sacrificed as the additional offerings of Sukkot, two lambs are sacrificed as the daily offerings, and two lambs are sacrificed as the additional offering of Shabbat. Three tenths of an ephah are brought for each bull, two tenths for each goat, and a tenth for each lamb. Altogether, that is sixty-one tenths of an ephah.
דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִן הַצִּיבּוּר אֶחָד.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Shimon says: What is the relevance of the tenths of an ephah sacrificed on Sukkot that occurs on Shabbat? Aren’t these meal offerings for bulls and those for lambs, and they are not mixed with each other (see 89a)? Rather, the reason that one may not bring more than sixty tenths of an ephah in one vessel is because up to sixty tenths of fine flour can be mixed with one log of oil.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ לַפָּרִים, וְאֵלּוּ לַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵינָם נִבְלָלִים זֶה עִם זֶה! אֶלָּא עַד שִׁשִּׁים יְכוֹלִין לִיבָּלֵל.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Rabbis said to him: Is it so that sixty tenths of flour can be mixed with a log of oil, but sixty-one tenths cannot be mixed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: All the measures of the Sages are so: For example, in a ritual bath containing forty se’a of water, one immerses for purification, and in a ritual bath with forty se’a less the small measure of a kortov, one cannot immerse in it for purification.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִין, וְשִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִין?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים כֵּן – בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, וּבְאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן.
Guémara
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : GEMARA: The Sages asked a question above, i.e., in front of, Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai: From where is it derived that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of sixty-one tenths, brings sixty tenths in one vessel and one tenth in another vessel?
גְּמָ׳ שְׁאִיל שְׁאֵילָה לְמַעְלָה מֵרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר אִילְעַאי: מִנַּיִן לְאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד״ מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד?