QUESTIONS: The Gemara discusses the argument between the Chachamim and Rebbi in the Mishnah (104b) in the case of a person who pledged to bring a Korban Minchah in one vessel, but forgot how many Esronim he pledged to bring. The Chachamim say that he must bring sixty Esronim, the maximum amount possible, to ensure that he fulfills his pledge. 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 here records various opinions about what the basis is for the argument between the Chachamim and Rebbi.

One opinion is that of Rav Chisda, who explains that their argument is based on whether one is allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah. Rebbi maintains that one is not allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore he rules that the person may not bring the rest of the Minchah, which he did not pledge to bring, into the Azarah. Only the amount that was pledged is Kodesh, while the rest is Chulin. The Chachamim maintain that one is permitted to bring Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore they allow the entire Minchah to be brought in one vessel, even though the amount of flour more than the person's pledge (when the actual pledge was less than sixty Esronim) is Chulin.

Rav Chisda's explanation is problematic. If Rebbi maintains that one may not offer one Minchah of sixty Esronim because of the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah, then why does he say instead that one must bring an extra fifty-nine Menachos?

RASHI (DH b'Mutar and DH v'Rebbi) addresses this question. Rashi explains 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 correct amount of flour fulfills the Neder, while the other fifty-nine Menachos are Nedavos. Rebbi maintains that one should not put sixty Esronim into one vessel, when part of it is a Neder and part is a Nedavah. Similarly, Rebbi maintains that one may not mix flour of one's Neder with flour of Chulin because of the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah. Although the Chachamim agree that one may not mix flour of a Neder with flour of a Nedavah in one container, they maintain that one may bring Chulin into the Azarah. Therefore, according to the Chachamim, one may bring a vessel with sixty Esronim of flour, part of which will fulfill his Neder, and part of which will be Chulin.

(a) Rashi's explanation seems illogical. How is possible that the Chachamim permit one to mix Neder-flour with Chulin-flour and bring the mixture as a Korban, but they do not permit one to mix Neder-flour with Nedavah-flour? Why should the flour of a Nedavah, which is Kadosh like a Neder, be worse than the flour of Chulin?

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Menachos 29:14; see also 21:13) asks a similar question. A Halachah in the laws of Menachos (see Menachos 11a) states that when 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 slaughtered with intent that it is an Olah is Pasul, while a Chatas slaughtered with intent 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. Intent that is entirely unrelated to 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 and disqualifies it.

(b) The CHAZON ISH explains that, normally, mixing extra oil and flour invalidates the Minchah because the extra contents of Chulin annul the set amount of the Minchah. In the case of the Gemara here, 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 flour of Chulin does not annul the flour of the Minchah. (See the explanation of the Chazon Ish at length.) (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the status of pledges in which no amount was specified. The Mishnah says that one who pledges gold without specifying an amount should not give less than a Dinar of gold. One who pledges silver should not give less than a Dinar of silver. One who pledges 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 pledges copper should give at least a Me'ah of copper, just as one who pledges gold must give gold, and one who pledges silver must give silver! Why does the Mishnah say that one who pledges copper must give silver?

(a) The BEN ARYEH says that the Mishnah refers 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 with regard to Perutos of silver.

(The Ben Aryeh explains that since the Gemara later gives such an explanation later with regard to Perutos of silver, Tosfos here does not ask why the Mishnah says that one who pledges copper must give silver. Tosfos understands that the Gemara's answer later applies to the case of copper as well. In Shabbos, however, the Gemara presents no such explanation, and therefore Tosfos there asks this question.)

(b) The TZON KODASHIM answers this question based on the Gemara's explanation of the Mishnah. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah assumes that the person's intention was to give a coin of gold or silver, and not a bar of gold or silver. The Gemara answers that in the Mishnah's case, the person specified that he was 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 was pledging a coin of gold or silver, then the Mishnah should have mentioned explicitly 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. Rather, after he made his pledge, the person explained that he meant a coin. He is believed because it makes sense that this was his intent. In contrast, with regard to a pledge to give copper, most people can afford to give a bar of copper, and thus it is assumed that when he made his pledge he meant a bar of copper, which is worth a Me'ah of silver, and not a coin of copper, and his contention that he meant a coin of copper is not accepted.

(c) The SEFAS EMES answers simply that it is unusual for a person to make a pledge to Hekdesh of such an insignificant amount of money. Therefore, it is assumed that his intention was to give a large amount of copper, equal to the value of a Me'ah of silver. (Y. MONTROSE)