אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא

only when he assigned it at the time of the vow. But if at the time of the vow he simply said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, and at the time of the designation of the fine flour as a meal offering he specified a particular type of meal offering, he is not obligated to bring that type, and if he brought a different type, he has still fulfilled his obligation.

כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת

The reason for this is that the Torah states: “ That which has emerged from your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, even that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). Since it states: “ According to what you have vowed, ” and not: According to what you have designated to fulfill your vow, only matters specified as part of the vow are essential to its content.

איתמר נמי אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שקבען בשעת נדר אבל בשעת הפרשה לא כאשר נדרת ולא כאשר הפרשת

It was also stated that Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina says that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The tanna’im taught in the mishna that meal offerings are not valid only when he established their type at the time of the vow and subsequently brought a different type of meal offering. But if he mentioned one type of meal offering at the time of the designation of the flour, and then brought it differently, it is not invalid, as the Torah states:“ According to what you have vowed, ” and not: According to what you have designated for your vow.

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי מנחה מן השעורים יביא מן החטים קמח יביא סולת בלא שמן ובלא לבונה יביא שמן ולבונה

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, should bring the meal offering from wheat, as voluntary meal offerings are brought exclusively from wheat. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from flour, should bring the meal offering from fine flour, as it is written: “ His offering shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 2:1). If one vows to bring a meal offering without oil and without frankincense, he should bring it with oil and frankincense, as voluntary meal offerings require oil and frankincense.

חצי עשרון יביא עשרון שלם עשרון ומחצה יביא שנים רבי שמעון פוטר שלא התנדב כדרך המתנדבין

If one vows to bring as a meal offering half a tenth of an ephah, he should bring a complete tenth of an ephah, the minimum measure of a voluntary meal offering. If one vows to bring a meal offering of a tenth and a half an ephah, he should bring two tenths, as there are no partial tenths of an ephah brought in meal offerings. Rabbi Shimon deems one exempt from bringing a meal offering in all these cases. This is because the vow does not take effect, as he did not pledge in the manner of those who pledge.

גמ׳ אמאי נדר ופתחו עמו הוא

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why is the vow to bring a meal offering from barley valid? It is seemingly a case of a vow and its extenuation together. The statement: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, is a valid vow, while the next term: From bar ley, constitutes a retraction, as the speaker knows that a meal offering may not be brought from barley.

אמר חזקיה הא מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי תפוס לשון ראשון דתנן הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה בית שמאי אומרים נזיר ובית הלל אומרים אינו נזיר

Ḥizkiyya said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say: In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, attend only to the first statement. As we learned in a mishna ( Nazir 9a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from pressed figs, which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, Beit Shammai say: He is a full-fledged nazirite, as one attends only to the first statement, i. e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. And Beit Hillel say: The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore he is not a nazirite, as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.

רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בית הלל באומר אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You may even say that the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. It is referring to one who, upon being informed that such a vow is not effective, says: Had I known that one cannot vow in this manner to bring barley for a meal offering, I would not have vowed in this manner but rather in that manner, by vowing to bring wheat instead.

אמר חזקיה לא שנו אלא דאמר מנחה מן השעורים אבל אמר מנחה מן העדשים לא

§ The Gemara cites another disagreement between Ḥizkiyya and Rabbi Yoḥanan about the mishna: Ḥizkiyya says that the Sages taught in the mishna only that where he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from barley, he can bring a meal offering from wheat instead, but if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow is not valid.

מכדי חזקיה כמאן אמר לשמעתיה כבית שמאי ובית שמאי משום תפוס לשון ראשון הוא מה לי מן השעורין מה לי מן העדשים הדר ביה

The Gemara asks: Now, Ḥizkiyya said that his tradition of interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with Beit Shammai’s opinion, and Beit Shammai’s ruling is due to the principle that one should attend only to the first statement. If so, what is the difference to me whether he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley or from lentils? In either case, that principle should require him to bring a meal offering from wheat. The Gemara answers: Ḥizkiyya retracted his initial explanation that the mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai, and subscribes to the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

ומאי טעמא הדר ביה אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני מנחה מן השעורים ליתני מן העדשים

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that he retracted his explanation? Rava said: The mishna posed a difficulty for him: Why does the tanna specifically teach this halakha using the example of a meal offering from barley? Let it teach the halakha using the example of a meal offering from lentils, which is a greater novelty.

אלא שמע מינה משום דטעי הוא בשעורים טעי בעדשים לא טעי

Rather, learn from it that the reason the vow takes effect is because one may err. With regard to barley, it is reasonable that one may err, since one of the individual meal offerings, the meal offering of a sota, comes from barley. But with regard to lentils, one would not err in thinking that one may bring a meal offering from them. Therefore, one can presume that by say ing: Lentils, he intended to negate his initial statement.

ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו מן העדשים מכדי רבי יוחנן כמאן אמרה לשמעתיה כבית הלל ובית הלל משום דטעי הוא בשעורין טעי בעדשים לא טעי

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: According to the mishna, even if he vowed to being a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Now, Rabbi Yoḥanan states that his tradition in interpreting the mishna is that it is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel understand that the reason the meal offering takes effect is because one may reasonably err. One may err with regard to barley being fit for a meal offering, but with regard to lentils, he will not err that they are fit. Why then, does Rabbi Yoḥanan hold that the meal offering takes effect even if he said: Lentils?

לדבריו דחזקיה קאמר ליה את מאי טעמא הדרת בך משום דלא קתני מן העדשים

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan does in fact hold that when he vows to bring a meal offering from lentils it is not valid. What he said was in response to the statement of Ḥizkiyya. Rabbi Yoḥanan is say ing to him: What is the reason that you retracted your explanation of the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? It is because the mishna does not teach using the example of one who vowed to bring a meal offering from lentils, which would have been a greater novelty.

דלמא לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא מן העדשים דאיכא למימר מהדר הוא דהדר ביה ותפוס לשון ראשון אלא אפילו מן השעורין נמי דאיכא למימר מיטעא הוא דקא טעי אפילו הכי תפוס לשון ראשון

Rabbi Yoḥanan questions this reasoning: Perhaps the mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to say that when one vows to bring a meal offering from lentils, the vow takes effect and he brings a meal offering from wheat. He brings it because one has reason to say that he in fact intended to vow and then retracted his initial statement, and yet the vow takes effect in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one should attend only to the initial statement and his retraction is disregarded. But even if he vowed to bring a meal offering from barley, where one has reason to say he made an error, and had he known that a meal offering is not brought from barley, he would not have vowed at all, nevertheless, the vow takes effect and he must bring a meal offering, due to the principle: Attend only to the first statement.