Back
Menachot
Daf 104bמִיבָּעֲיָא לִי, מַאי? גַּבְרָא לִשְׁנֵי פָרִים קָא מְכַוֵּין, וְעַד דְּמִמְלִי לְהוּ לָא קָרְבִי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא לִשְׁנֵי אֵילִים וְכֶבֶשׂ אֶחָד קָמְכַוֵּוין, תְּרֵי מֵחַד מִינָא וְחַד מֵחַד מִינָא אָמְרִינַן אוֹ לָא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
I ask, what is the halakha? Does the man who vowed to bring eleven log intend to bring an amount of wine corresponding to that which is brought in association with an offering of two bulls, i.e., twelve log, and until he accumulates that amount, the libation is not brought? Or perhaps he intends to bring an amount equal to that associated with two rams and one lamb, i.e., four for each ram and three for the lamb, totaling eleven. Do we say that he intended to bring two libations associated with one type, i.e., a ram, and one libation associated with another type, i.e., a lamb, or not? What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
RASHI
אחד עשר מיבעיא לי מאי גברא לשני פרים איכוין ועד דממלי להו לי״ב לוגין לא קרבי דהא יש קבע לנסכים ולא אמרינן ליקרבו שמנה לוגין לשני אילים ושלשה לוגין לכבש אחד או דלמא למנחה הראויה לשני אילים וכבש איכוין:
ה״ג תרי מחד מינא וחד מחד מינא אמרינן או לא כלומר מי הוי אורחא לאינדובי או לא:
מתני׳ מִתְנַדְּבִין יַיִן וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
One may pledge to bring independent libations of wine,
RASHI
מתני׳ מתנדבין יין בלא שמן וסלת ומנסכו לשיתין בפני עצמו ואין מתנדבין שמן בלא סלת ויין:
מתנדבין שמן וקומצו ומקטיר הקומץ ושיריו נאכלין:
אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: מַה מָּצִינוּ בַּיַּיִן שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה וּבָא נְדָבָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא בָּא חוֹבָה בָּא נְדָבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּיַּיִן שֶׁכֵּן קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בַּשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב עִם חוֹבָתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ?
Rabbi Tarfon said: Just as we found that wine comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering independent of any offering, so too, we find that oil comes as an obligation and comes as a gift offering. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that this is true with regard to wine, as it is sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself, shall you also say that this is also the case with regard to oil, which is never sacrificed with its obligatory offering by itself but only mixed with the flour?
RASHI
מה מצינו כו׳ דאמרן לעיל אזרח מלמד שמתנדבין נסכין ורבי עקיבא מוקי לה ביין (כדחזינן) כדקתני מתנדבין יין ולא שמן:
אף שמן שהוא בא חובה במנחת נסכים בא נדבה בפני עצמה:
עם חובתו בפני עצמו אע״פ שהוא בא חובה עם המנחה אינו מעורב במנחה תאמר בשמן כו׳ וכיון דלא אשכחן ליה דליתי בכלי בפני עצמו השתא נמי לא לייתי:
אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, וְעוֹף אֲפִילּוּ פְּרִידָה אַחַת.
The mishna concludes with a ruling concerning a voluntary meal offering: Two people do not pledge a meal offering of a tenth of an ephah
RASHI
אפילו פרידה אפי׳ גוזל א׳ מתנדבין:
גמ׳ אָמַר רָבָא, מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמוֹד: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכָל יוֹם.
With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva about whether one can pledge oil, Rava said: From the statements of both of them, we learn that a person may pledge a meal offering like those brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings every day.
RASHI
גמ׳ מדברי שניהם נלמד מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים סלת שמן ויין בלא קרבן בכל יום דעד כאן לא פליגי אלא בפני עצמו אבל במעורב עם המנחה לא פליגי:
פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִנְחַת נְדָבָה גַּלֵּי בָּהּ רַחֲמָנָא, הָנֵי חֲמִשָּׁה מְנָחוֹת – אִין, טְפֵי – לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי – בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּפָרֵישׁ – פָּרֵישׁ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara explains: It needed to be said, lest you say that the Merciful One revealed the nature of a voluntary meal offering (see Leviticus, chapter 2). Perhaps only those five meal offerings detailed there are indeed brought as voluntary offerings, but any additional types, such as a meal offering brought with libations, are not. Rava therefore teaches us that these matters in the Torah apply only where his pledge of a meal offering was unspecified, but where he specified that the oil and flour about which he vows should be brought in the manner of a meal offering with libations, then he has specified, and the vow takes effect.
RASHI
חמשה מנחות סלת ומחבת ומרחשת וחלות ורקיקין אבל רבוכה לא חשיב דאינה באה נדבה אלא בתודה עם הזבח ולאו מנחה היא:
קמ״ל הא דהני חשיב ותו לא היכא דאמר מנחה סתם יביא אחת מחמש הללו:
אבל היכא דפריש לנסכים פריש:
״אֵין שְׁנַיִם מִתְנַדְּבִין״. מַאי טַעֲמָא? אִילֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב ״תַּקְרִיב״ – עוֹלָה נַמִי הָא כְּתִיב ״יַקְרִיב״!
§ The mishna stated that two people do not pledge a tenth of an ephah together. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), in the singular, that is not a proof, as with regard to a burnt offering as well, it is written in the singular: “When any man of you brings an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). Nevertheless, two people may bring a burnt offering together, as stated in the mishna.
RASHI
מאי טעמא אין שנים מתנדבין עשרון:
תקריב לשון יחיד:
אֶלָּא עוֹלָה מַאי טַעֲמָא? דִּכְתִיב ״לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם״ – מִנְחָה נַמִי הָא כְּתִיב ״לְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם״! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
Rather, what is the reason that a burnt offering is brought by two people? The reason is that it is written in second person plural: “These you shall offer…beside your burnt offerings [le’oloteikhem], or your meal offerings, or your drink offerings, or your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The Gemara points out: With regard to a meal offering, it is also written in the plural: “Your meal offerings [leminḥoteikhem].” Rather, the reason that one may not bring a meal offering as a partnership is because it is written: “And when an individual brings a meal offering” (Leviticus 2:1), indicating that only one individual may offer it, but not two together.
RASHI
עולותיכם לשון רבים:
תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיב קָרְבָּנוֹ לְכָל נִדְרֵיהֶם וּלְכָל נִדְבוֹתָם אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ לַה׳״ – הַכֹּל בָּאִין בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, לֹא סִילֵּק הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נֶפֶשׁ״.
This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states an explanation of the following verse: “Anyone that brings his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their free-will offerings that they sacrifice to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). It is evident from the use of the plural in the second part of the verse that any offering can be brought in a partnership, and the verse excludes only a meal offering from this principle, as it is stated: “And when an individual brings a meal offering.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהּ ״נֶפֶשׁ״? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהָבִיא מִנְחָה? עָנִי, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ לְפָנַי.
The Gemara cites another comment about the fact that the Torah introduces the voluntary meal offering by emphasizing that it is brought by an individual. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what reason is the meal offering different from other offerings in that the term “an individual [nefesh]” is stated with regard to it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Whose practice is it to bring a meal offering? It is that of a poor individual; and I will ascribe him credit as if he offered up his soul [nafsho] in front of Me.
RASHI
עני דרכו להביא מנחה שאין לו בהמות:
TOSAFOT
מה נשתנית שנאמר בה נפש דאי משום דאין באה בשותפות הוה ליה למיכתב איש או לשון אחר דמשמע יחיד דוקא:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַה נִּשְׁתַּנֵּית מִנְחָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהּ חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן הַלָּלוּ? מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ סְעוּדָה, וְיוֹדֵעַ בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא עָנִי, אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה לִי מִן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי טִיגּוּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁאֵהָנֶה מִמְּךָ. הדרן עלך המנחות והנסכים
§ The Gemara cites another comment made by Rabbi Yitzḥak about meal offerings. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason that the meal offering is differentiated from other offerings in that the Torah stated these five types of preparations with oil with regard to it? The five types of voluntary meal offerings are: A meal offering of fine flour, a meal offering in a shallow pan, a meal offering in a deep pan, a meal offering of loaves baked in an oven, and a meal offering of wafers baked in an oven. All are brought with oil. This can be explained by a parable of a flesh-and-blood king whose friend made a festive meal for him, but the king knows that the friend is poor. The king said to him: Make for me foods from five types of fried dishes, so that I may benefit from you.
RASHI
חמשה מיני טיגון סלת מחבת ומרחשת וחלות ורקיקין דמנחת מאפה כל מידי דאית ביה שמן קרי טיגון:
שאהנה ממך כלומר שתקובל לפני בהן:
TOSAFOT
חמשה מיני טיגון לא היה מטגן מנחת סולת מאפה תנור אלא מנחת מחבת ומרחשת לחודייהו אלא קורא טיגון מה שיש בכולו שמן:
SUMMARY
In this chapter, the Gemara concluded that just as the halakha of redemption applies to consecrated animals that develop a blemish, so too it applies to meal offerings and libations that were rendered impure. They may be redeemed only if they have not yet been placed in a service vessel. Once they are placed in a service vessel, they no longer have sanctity that inheres in their value but rather inherent sanctity. From that point onward, if they become impure, they are burned, like other offerings that became impure. Libations and meal offerings that have not become impure are not redeemed even before they are placed in a service vessel, in accordance with the principle that any item that has been consecrated and is fit to be sacrificed upon the altar may not leave the altar. Furthermore, the Gemara concluded that redemption may be performed only for animals, meal offerings, and libations, but consecrated birds and items that facilitate an offering are not subject to the possibility of redemption. With regard to one who vows to bring a certain type of meal offering, such as a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan, and then brings a different type, such as a deep-pan meal offering, or one who vows to bring a meal offering in one vessel and then brings it in two vessels, the Gemara concluded that the meal offerings are valid and are eaten by the priests. Nevertheless, the one who brought the offering has not fulfilled his vow, and he must bring the type of offering about which he originally vowed as well. If he vowed to offer some specific flour or oil as a specific type of meal offering, and he brought it as a different type, the meal offering is disqualified. In a case where one vowed to bring a meal offering from a food that is not fit for use as a meal offering, such as lentils, or he vowed to bring an improper measurement, such as half a tenth of an ephah of flour, the Gemara rules that it depends upon his intention. If he states that he believed it was permitted to bring such a meal offering, and he indeed intended to bring it, his vow has not taken effect at all. But if he claims that he did intend to bring a meal offering in whatever manner it is usually brought, he brings a meal offering that consists of the appropriate ingredients and the correct measure. The Gemara also discusses the upper limit on the quantity of a single meal offering. If one vows to bring up to and including sixty tenths of an ephah in one offering, then one brings an offering as specified in his vow. If he vowed to bring more that, he brings sixty tenths of an ephah of flour in one vessel, and the rest is brought in a second vessel. The Gemara ruled that one may voluntarily bring libations like those associated with animal offerings whenever one wants, provided that he vows to bring the appropriate measure. Therefore, a voluntary libation of less than three log may not be brought, since three log, the amount of wine offered with a lamb, is the smallest measure of a libation found in the Torah. A voluntary libation of four log, six log, or any greater amount, may be brought, since four log is the measure of wine brought with a ram, six log is the measure brought with a bull, and any amount greater than that can correspond to a combination of various libations together. If he pledged to bring five log, the Sages were uncertain whether he may offer four of them now and offer the fifth after it is combined with additional wine to reach an acceptable measure, or whether there is a fixed amount for libations and the entire amount of five log may not be offered until it is combined with an additional amount to complete an appropriate measure, e.g., six log. When one donates an independent libation of wine, the wine is poured into the basins attached to the altar and then flows down the drainpipes. The Sages disagreed as to whether or not one may bring an independent gift of oil. The Rambam rules that one may bring a gift of oil, and when one brings such oil, its sacrifice is performed in a manner similar to a meal offering: The priest removes a handful and burns it on the altar, and then the remains are eaten. With regard to one who pledges a meal offering without specifying what type, he brings one of the five types of voluntary meal offerings: A fine flour offering, an offering made in a shallow pan, an offering made in a deep pan, an offering of wafers, or an offering of loaves. Some hold that he should bring a meal offering made of fine flour, because that is the most distinguished type. The Gemara ruled that although an animal or bird brought as a burnt offering, or an animal brought as a peace offering, may be brought in partnership with another individual, a voluntary meal offering may not be brought with a partner.
INTRO
But if his offering is a vow or a gift offering. (Leviticus 7:16)
That which is gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to that which you have vowed freely to the Lord your God, that which you have promised with your mouth. (Deuteronomy 23:24)
The main subject of this chapter is sacrificial vows, with special attention given to vows concerning meal offerings. Since a vow to bring an offering creates an obligation to bring one, it is necessary to determine the exact meaning of the vow in cases where it is uncertain. Such cases of uncertainty include those vows in which particular details were not specified, as well as those in which the one who took the vow subsequently forgot the specifics of his vow. With regard to vows to bring meal offerings, one issue that sometimes requires clarification is how much fine flour one must bring for his meal offering, e.g., in a case where he did not specify the amount of flour, or where he specified the amount but subsequently forgot how much he specified. Similar problems may arise with regard to the type of meal offering; furthermore, a dilemma is raised as to whether a vow to bring a meal offering in which the type is not specified could be referring to a meal offering brought with a libation. The chapter tangentially discusses related problems concerning other sacrificial vows and vows of consecration to the Temple treasury. It also clarifies the purpose of each of the six horns for donations that existed in the Temple, aside from the seven that are listed in tractate Shekalim. Finally, the chapter clarifies the status of vows to bring offerings to the temple of Onias, as well as the status of priests who served in the temple of Onias and their subsequent fitness to serve in the Temple in Jerusalem.
מתני׳ ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן״ – יָבִיא אֶחָד. ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן.
One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אֵיזוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מִנְחַת הַסּוֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering,
RASHI
מתני׳ הרי עלי עשרון: פירשתי כמה עשרונים אביא:
ואיני יודע מה פירשתי יביא ששים עשרונים דאי בציר מהכי נדר לא איכפת ליה דמתני ואמר כמה שנדרתי יהיו לנדרי והשאר יהא נדבה ובטפי ליכא לספוקי דאין מנחה יחידית יתירה על ששים עשרונים:
״מִנְחָה״ אוֹ ״מִין הַמִּנְחָה״ – יָבִיא אַחַת. ״מְנָחוֹת״ אוֹ ״מִין מְנָחוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם. ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא חֲמִשְׁתָּן.
If one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, or: It is incumbent upon me to bring a type of meal offering, he must bring one meal offering. If he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring meal offerings,
RASHI
הרי עלי מנחה סתם:
יביא איזו שירצה מחמשה מנחות:
מיוחדות מפרש בגמרא:
TOSAFOT
מתני׳ הרי עלי מנחה יביא איזו שירצה פירוש מחמשת מנחות אבל במנחת נסכים לא איכוין אע״ג דמתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום דסתמא דעתו אמנחות המפורשות ורגילות לבא בפני עצמן ולא בגלל זבח:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי מִנְחָה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כַּמָּה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי״ – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
If one says: I specified a meal offering of tenths of an ephah but I do not know how many tenths I specified,
RASHI
מין המנחה כלומר הרי עלי מנחה או שאמר הרי עלי מין המנחה יביא אחת:
מנחות עלי או שאמר מין מנחות עלי יביא שתי מנחות ממין אחד:
פירשתי אחת מן המנחות שכתובים בפרשה ואיני יודע אי זה מהן פירשתי כו׳:
TOSAFOT
מנחה מין המנחה פירוש או אמר מין המנחה:
גמ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! ״עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת״ – יָבִיא שְׁתַּיִם, אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. הָא נַמִי פְּשִׁיטָא! מִיעוּט עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת שְׁתַּיִם אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
The mishna teaches that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a tenth of an ephah for a meal offering, must bring a meal offering of a tenth. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Why is it necessary to teach this in the mishna? The Gemara answers that it was necessary for the mishna to mention this case as a preamble to the following halakha, that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring tenths of an ephah he must bring two -tenths. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this also obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach that the minimum amount that the word tenths is used in reference to is two -tenths.
RASHI
פירשתי מנחה בכלי אחד של עשרונים:
ואיני יודע כמה עשרונים קבעתי בה:
יביא ששים עשרון דבטפי מהכי ליכא לספוקי ואי בציר נדר לא איכפת לן דמתני ואמר כמה שפירשתי יהא לנדרי והשאר יהא לנדבה:
רבי אומר כיון דאמר מנחה משמע חדא אלמא בכלי אחד קבעה ואם יביא ששים בכלי אחד שמא בציר מהכי נדר והויא מנחה יתירה ואית ליה לרבי קביעותא דמנא מילתא הלכך יביא ששים מנחות מאחד ועד ששים חדא של עשרון וחדא של שתים וחדא של שלש וחדא של ארבע וכן עד ששים דודאי חדא מינייהו נדר ואינך נדבה:
״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה פֵּירַשְׁתִּי – יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן״. מַאן תַּנָּא?
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I do not know what number I specified, he must bring sixty-tenths. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this?
אֲמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּאִי רַבִּי, הָאֲמַר: יָבִיא מְנָחוֹת שֶׁל עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים.
Ḥizkiyya said: This statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mentioned at the end of the mishna. As if it was the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, didn’t he say that such a person must bring meal offerings of all sizes, in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging from one -tenth of an ephah to sixty -tenths?
וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, בְּאוֹמֵר ״פֵּירַשְׁתִּי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת אֲבָל לֹא קְבַעְתִּים בִּכְלִי״, דְּמַיְיתֵי שִׁיתִּין עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת בְּשִׁיתִּין מָאנֵי.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed and said: You may even say that this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, because the case at the end of the mishna is a case where one specified that he would bring the tenths of an ephah in a single vessel. In such a case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one must bring sixty different amounts in sixty different vessels. By contrast, the former case in the mishna is one where the person says: I specified several tenths of an ephah but I did not establish that they must be brought in one vessel. In such a case all agree that he must bring sixty-tenths of an ephah in sixty vessels,
״הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה יָבִיא אֵיזֶהוּ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה״ [וכו׳]. תָּנָא: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב תְּחִלָּה.
§ The mishna teaches that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering, the first tanna holds he may bring whichever meal offering he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, as it is the most notable of the meal offerings. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that he must bring the fine-flour meal offering, since in the passage of the Torah that discusses the meal offering (Leviticus, chapter 2) the verse opens with the fine-flour meal offering first, mentioning it before the other meal offerings.
RASHI
גמ׳ אבל לא קבעתים בכלי אחד הלכך יביא ששים עשרונות בששים כלים כל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו והא דקאמר יביא מנחות של עשרונות מאחד ועד ששים היינו היכא דקבעה בכלי אחד דלא מצי לאיתויי בכלי אחד לא בציר מהכי ולא טפי מהכי הלכך יביא מנחות של עשרונים מאחד ועד ששים דודאי חדא מינייהו נדר:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״ – יָבִיא בֶּן בָּקָר, הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח בּוֹ הַכָּתוּב
The Gemara challenges: If that is so, one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering, without specifying which type of animal, must bring a young bull as his burnt offering, since the verse opens with it
RASHI
תנא מה טעם יביא מנחת סלת לפי שפתח בה הכתוב תחלה: