Halacha
הלכה א
הַנּוֹדֵר מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר לֹא יָבִיא מאֲפֵה כֻּפָּח וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה רְעָפִים וְלֹא מַאֲפֵה יוֹרוֹת הָעַרְבִיִּים:
כסף משנה
1.
When a person vows to bring a meal-offering baked in an oven, he should not bring one baked in a kopach,1A range with an opening for one pot [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 5:9)]. one baked on rafters,2I.e., one of the common ways to bake in the Talmudic period was to heat rafters and stones until they were glowing hot and place dough upon them. Afterwards, the stones and rafters were covered and thus the dough would bake (ibid.).or one baked in Arab pits.3A pit covered with mud into which wood was placed and kindled. The dough was placed within and it was covered so that it would bake like an oven (ibid.). These are not acceptable, because the person took a vow that he would bring a meal offering cooked in an oven and these devices do not fit that description.הלכה ב
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי בְּמַחֲבַת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת. בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת וְהֵבִיא בְּמַחֲבַת. מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא. וְאִם אָמַר זוֹ לְהָבִיא בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת וֶהֱבִיאָהּ בְּמַחֲבַת. אוֹ בְּמַחֲבַת וֶהֱבִיאָהּ בְּמַרְחֶשֶׁת. הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לַהֲבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים. בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. מַה שֶּׁהֵבִיא הֵבִיא וִידֵי חוֹבָתוֹ לֹא יָצָא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כד) "כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לַה'":
כסף משנה
2.
When one says: "I promise to bring a meal offering [baked] on a flat frying-pan," and he brings one [baked] in a deep frying-pan4See Chapter 13, Halachah 6, with regard to the difference between the two. or he promised to bring one [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brought one [baked] on a flat frying-pan, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation.5Because he did not bring the sacrifice he vowed to bring.If he said: "I will bring these6Pointing to cakes that he prepared to bake. [baked] in a deep frying-pan and brings them [baked] on a flat frying-pan or promised to bring it [baked] on a flat frying-pan and brought it [baked] in a deep frying-pan," [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.7For he specified that the cakes be prepared in one way and they were not. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, if a person says: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel and he brings them in two vessels" or "...in two vessels" and he brings them in one vessel, [the sacrifice] he brought is acceptable, but he did not fulfill his obligation. [The rationale8For all the above.is that Deuteronomy 23:24] states: "As you vowed to G‑d."9Implying that the vow must be fulfilled in all its particulars.
הלכה ג
אָמַר אֵלּוּ לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְהֵבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים אוֹ לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין. לֹא קְבָעָן בִּשְׁעַת הַנֵּדֶר אֶלָּא אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת וּבִשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה קְבָעָן וְהִפְרִישָׁן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְחָזַר וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כג כד) "כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ" וְלֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר הִפְרַשְׁתָּ. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וֶהֱבִיאָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בִּכְלִי אֶחָד נָדַרְתָּ. הִקְרִיבָם בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִין. הִקְרִיבָם בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים:
כסף משנה
3.
If he said: "I will bring these cakes in one vessel" and he brought them in two or [promised] to bring them in two and brought them in one, they are unacceptable.10If he can take a handful from each one separately, they are acceptable as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 4.If he did not specify what he would bring when he took the vow, but [merely] said: "I promise to bring two esronim and when he designated [the meal for the offering], he set [the flour] aside in two vessels and afterwards, brought it in one vessel, it is acceptable. For the verse states "as you vowed" and not "as you set aside."When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in one vessel," but he brought them in two, if despite being told that he vowed to bring them in one vessel, he offered them in two, they are not acceptable.11Because he did not fulfill his vow. It is, however, necessary to ask him and have him respond as the Rambam states. Otherwise, we assume that he is not bringing this offering in fulfillment of his vow, but rather as a separate sacrifice. In that instance, although he would not have fulfilled his vow, the sacrifice would be acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are acceptable.12Since he offered them as he vowed, the fact that he originally brought them in two vessels is not significant.
הלכה ד
אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת לְהָבִיא בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים וְהֵבִיא בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים נָדַרְתָּ. הִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים. הִקְרִיבָן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כִּשְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ:
כסף משנה
4.
When he said: "I promise to bring two esronim in two vessels," but he brought them in one, if after being told that he vowed to bring them in two vessel, he offered them in two, they are acceptable. If he brought them in one vessel, they are like two meal-offerings that became mixed together.13In that instance, as stated in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 11:29, the law is that if one can take handfuls of each individually, they are acceptable. If not, they are not.הלכה ה
האוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה. יָבִיא אַחַת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת הַבָּאוֹת בְּנֵדֶר וּנְדָבָה. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנֵי (מִינֵי) מְנָחוֹת מֵחֲמִשְׁתָּן. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִין מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנֵי מְנָחוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד. הֲרֵי עָלַי מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת יָבִיא שְׁתֵּי מְנָחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִים. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר מִינֵי מִנְחָה יָבִיא שְׁנֵי מִינִין. קָבַע נִדְרוֹ בְּמִין מֵהֶן וּשְׁכָחוֹ מֵבִיא חֲמִשְּׁתָן:
כסף משנה
5.
If one says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering," he should bring one of the five types of meal-offerings that can be either vowed or pledged.14See Chapter 12, Halachah 4, for a description of these meal-offerings. If he says: "I promise to bring meal-offerings," he should bring two15Since he used the plural, at least two offerings are required. of the five types of meal-offerings.16The Kessef Mishneh suggests that the word "types" is a printing error, because even if he brought two of the same type of meal-offering, he fulfilled his obligation. The Radbaz, however, initially explains that the Rambam's wording could be interpreted as being precise. Since the person said two meal-offerings, we can assume that he meant of two different types. Otherwise, he would have just vowed to bring one large meal-offering. Nevertheless, ultimately, the Radbaz rejects this interpretation and states that the Rambam's intent is "even of two types," i.e., he may bring two offerings either of one type or of two types. If he says: "I promise to bring a type of meal-offerings," he should bring two17Here also, since he spoke of "meal-offerings," using the plural, he is required to bring two. meal-offerings of one type.18For he said "a type," limiting him to only one type. If he says: "I promise to bring types of meal-offerings," he should bring two meal-offerings [coming] from two types.19Since he used the plural for both offerings and types, he should bring two offerings and they should be of two different types. Similarly if he says: "...types of a meal-offering," he should bring two types of meal-offerings.20One offering from each type, as in the previous clause. Hebrew grammar occasionally allows for a singular term to be used in a plural sense. The Kessef Mishneh notes that this matter is debated by Menachot 105a and a ruling is not reached. Hence he questions how the Rambam can require him to bring a second offering: If it is not required, he will be bringing ordinary flour into the Temple Courtyard (which is forbidden). Hence he maintains that the person must make a stipulation when bringing this offering: "If I am obligated to bring it, this is to fulfill my vow. And if I am not obligated, it is a freewill offering." If he specified that he would bring one type [of meal-offering] and forgot [which type he specified], he should bring all five types.21For in this way, he will certainly fulfill his vow.הלכה ו
אֵין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא מִנְחָה בִּכְלִי אֶחָד יוֹתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן. וְאִם נָדַר יוֹתֵר מִשִּׁשִּׁים מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְהַשְּׁאָר בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי. שֶׁאֵין יְכוֹלִין לְהִבָּלֵל כְּאֶחָד אֶלָּא שִׁשִּׁים אֲבָל יֶתֶר עַל שִׁשִּׁים אֵין נִבְלָלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַבְּלִילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָה אֵין הַבִּילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְבִילָה הַבִּילָה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ:
כסף משנה
6.
A private individual22I.e., in contrast to the community at large. For there is no concept of a voluntary communal meal-offering and all the required communal meal-offerings have specific measures. should not bring more than sixty esronim [of flour] in one vessel as a meal offering. If he vowed more than sixty, he should bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in a second vessel.23As indicated by the following halachah, it appears to be preferable that he bring sixty in one vessel and the remainder in the other, rather than dividing the sum evenly between the two.[The rationale is that] no more than sixty [esronim of flour] can be mixed together [with oil as one].24Even though oil is always mixed with the flour at a ratio of one log to every isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 7), nevertheless, if there is a very large quantity of flour, it will be difficult to get a proper mixture. It is not an absolute requirement for [the flour and the oil] to be mixed together as we explained.25Chapter 13, Halachah 11. Nevertheless, our Sages said:26Menachot 18b; 103b. "Whenever a [meal-offering] is fit to be mixed [with oil], it is not an absolute requirement for it to be mixed. Whenever it is not fit to be mixed [with oil],27Because there is too large a quantity of flour. mixing it is an absolute requirement."28As long as the meal and the oil could be mixed together, the fact that they were not mixed together is not significant, because there is nothing inherently lacking in the mixture. If, however, they could not be mixed together, there is an inherent difficulty with the mixture, therefore it is disqualified. Note the parallels to the declaration made with regard to the firsts fruits mentioned in Bava Batra 82a.
הלכה ז
אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד עִשָּׂרוֹן מֵבִיא מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים בִּשְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שִׁשִּׁים בְּכָל כְּלִי וּמֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד בַּכְּלִי הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עִשָּׂרוֹן יָבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד. הֲרֵי עָלַי עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם. פֵּרֵשׁ נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה עִשָּׂרוֹן פֵּרֵשׁ יָבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן בִּכְלִי אֶחָד. שָׁכַח כַּמָּה עִשָּׂרוֹן פֵּרֵשׁ וּבְאֵי זֶה מִין קְבָעוֹ. הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן מִכָּל מִין וָמִין מֵחֲמִשְׁתָּן:
כסף משנה
7.
If one says: "I promise to bring 121 esronim [as a meal offering]." He should bring 120 [esronim] in two vessels - 60 in each vessel - and one isaron in a third vessel.29I.e., he does not divide them into three equal portions.If he said: "I promise to bring an isaron," he should bring one isaron. "I promise to bring isaronim," he should bring two. If he specified [the number of esronim] he vowed and then forgot how many he specified, he should bring 60 esronim in one vessel.30For an individual meal-offering is never more than 60 esronim and if he had promised a lesser amount, bringing more will not disqualify his offering (Radbaz). If he forgot how many esronim he specified and which type [of meal-offering] he specified, he should bring 60 esronim of each of the five types [of meal-offerings].
הלכה ח
קָבַע נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה עֶשְׂרוֹנוֹת נָדַר וּבְכַמָּה כֵּלִים נָדַר הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא מֵאֶחָד וְעַד שִׁשִּׁים בְּשִׁשִּׁים כֵּלִים. כֵּיצַד. מֵבִיא עִשָּׂרוֹן אֶחָד בִּכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרוֹנִים בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עַד שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן בַּכְּלִי הָאַחֲרוֹן. וְאִם שָׁכַח אַף בְּאֵי זֶה מִין קָבַע מֵבִיא עַל סֵדֶר זֶה שִׁשִּׁים כֵּלִים מִכָּל מִין וְנִמְצָא מֵבִיא מִכָּל מִין אֶלֶף וּשְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשִׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן:
כסף משנה
8.
If he specified his vow and forgot both how many esronim he vowed and the number of vessels in which he vowed to bring them, he should bring [the full range of] one to sixty esronim in sixty different vessels.31This is necessary, because as stated in Halachah 3, if a person vowed to bring two esronim in two vessels and he brought them in one, the offering is unacceptable. By bringing the full range of vessels from one to sixty, the person will certainly have included the entire number he vowed to bring. Any extra are considered as voluntary offerings.The Radbaz notes that there is a difference of opinion concerning this matter in Menachot 13:2 and the opinion the Rambam quotes here is that of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. The Sages, however, differ and maintain that it is sufficient to bring one meal offering of 60 esronim. The Radbaz questions why the Rambam chooses to follow Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, for it is a minority opinion. Moreover, he notes that in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, he explicitly states that the halachah does not follow this view. The Radbaz explains that since the Talmud (Menachot 106a) tries to justify other teachings according to Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's view, we can assume that it is accepted as halachah.
What is implied? He should bring one isaron in the first vessel, two esronim in the second vessel, three in the third, until he brings 60 esronim in the last vessel. If he also forgot what type [of meal-offering] he designated, he should also brings [60 offerings] according to this pattern in 60 vessels of each type. Thus he will be bringing 1830 esronim from each type.
הלכה ט
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ מִנְחַת חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן אוֹ מִנְחַת בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. שֶׁלֹּא הִתְנַדֵּב דָּבָר שֶׁכָּמוֹהוּ מַקְרִיבִין. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים אוֹ מִן הָעֲדָשִׁים אוֹ מִנְחָה בְּלֹא שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה אוֹ מִנְחָה חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן. שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתוֹ אִם אָמַר לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא עַל דַּעַת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְהַקְרִיב כָּזֶה וְאִלּוּ יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין אֶלָּא עִשָּׂרוֹן שָׁלֵם סלֶת בְּשֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיב כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין:
כסף משנה
9.
When a person says: "I promise to bring a meal-offering of barley,"32Which is unacceptable, because as stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all the meal-offerings are brought from wheat except the meal-offering of a sotah and the omer offering. Those are obligatory offerings and cannot be vowed by a person."...a meal-offering of a half an isaron,"33Which is also unacceptable, because a meal-offering may not be less than an isaron (Chapter 12, Halachah 5). or "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense,"34Such an offering is also unacceptable, for oil and frankincense are absolute requirements (Chapter 12, Halachah 7). he is exempt, because he did not vow an entity that is sacrificed.If he said: "I promise to bring a meal-offering35The difference between this and the previous clause depends on the precise Hebrew term used. If he said minchat ("meal-offering of"), as in the first clause he is not obligated at all, for the grammatical structure of the term is that of an adjective and the emphasis is on the words that follow. If, however, he used the term minchah ("meal-offering"), we assume that the fundamental intent of his vow was to bring a meal-offering. Since the specifics he mentioned were unacceptable, we ask him to clarify his intent. The Ra'avad does not accept this distinction, but the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain the Rambam's position. of barley," "...of lentils,"36Which is also unacceptable. Although Menachot103a debates whether a person could possibly err and think that a meal-offering from lentils is acceptable, from the resolution of that passage, it appears that such an error is plausible. "...a meal-offering without oil or frankincense," or "...a meal-offering of a half an isaron," we ask him [what his intent was]. If he says: "I only took the vow because I thought it was permissible to offer such [sacrifices]. Had I known that one could only offer a complete isaron of fine [wheat] flour together with oil and frankincense, I would not have taken a vow," he is exempt. If, [however,] he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring an offering like those that are offered.
הלכה י
נָדַר עִשָּׂרוֹן וּמֶחֱצָה וְאָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמִּתְנַדְּבִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֵבִיא שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי קֶמַח אוֹ הֲרֵי עָלַי חֲצִי עִשָּׂרוֹן וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר שָׁם מִנְחָה הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נָדַר מֵעוֹלָם. וְכֵן הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם וְזֶבַח בְּלֹא נְסָכִים הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין כָּךְ הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ הַנּוֹדְרִין הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב לְהַקְרִיב כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמַּקְרִיבִין:
כסף משנה
10.
If he vowed to bring an isaron and a half37Based on the conclusion of the clause and the explanations in the previous halachah, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh maintain that this law applies only when the person said: "a meal-offering (minchah) of an isaron and a half." and he said: "Had I known [that such offerings were unacceptable], I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he must bring two [esronim].38For he obviously desired to bring more than one isaron. If he said: "I promise to bring coarse flour"39As stated in Chapter 12, Halachah 2, all of the meal-offerings are brought from solet, "fine flour," and not kemach, "coarse flour." This he is vowing to bring an entity that is never offered. or "I promise to bring a half an isaron" without mentioning the term "meal-offering," he is exempt.40The Ra'avad differs concerning this point and states that in this instance as well, he should be asked to clarify his intent, as mentioned in the previous halachah. It as if he never took a vow at all.Similarly, if one said: "I promise to bring a thanksgiving-offering without bread,"41See Chapter 9, Halachah 5, which includes the bread as an integral part of the thanksgiving-offering.or "...a sacrifice without its accompanying offerings,"42See Chapter 2 which explains that every sacrifice is offered together with wine, meal, and oil. he is exempt. If he said:43I.e., as in the previous halachah, he is asked about his intent (Kessef Mishneh). "Were I to have known that such offerings are not sacrificed, I would have taken a vow to bring [an offering] like those that are offered," he is obligated to bring [an offering] like those that are offered.
הלכה יא
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תּוֹדָה יָבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. שֶׁהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין לֶחֶם בְּלֹא תּוֹדָה וְסוֹף הַקָּרְבָּן הִזְכִּיר. אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי לֶחֶם לִפְטֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי יָבִיא לֶחֶם תּוֹדָה עִם תּוֹדַת חֲבֵרוֹ:
כסף משנה
11.
When a person says: "I promise to bring the bread of a thanksgiving-offering," He must bring a thanksgiving offering and its bread. [The rationale is that] it is known that the bread is never offered without the thanksgiving-offering and he mentioned merely the conclusion of the sacrifice.44We assume that this was intent when making the vow. The Radbaz explains that it is not even necessary to ask him to clarify his intent, since he mentioned the thanksgiving-offering when making his vow, we take for granted that this was what he meant to say. If he said: 'I promise to bring the bread to fulfill the obligation for so-and-so's thanksgiving offering," he should bring the bread for a thanksgiving offering together with the offering of his friend.הלכה יב
מִתְנַדֵּב אוֹ נוֹדֵר אָדָם יַיִן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין לוֹג יַיִן וְלֹא שְׁנֵי לוֹגִין. שֶׁאֵין בִּנְסָכִים לֹא לוֹג וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין חֲמִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין חֲמֵשֶׁת לוֹגִין רְאוּיִין לֹא לְנִסְכֵּי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת וְלֹא לְנִסְכֵּי שְׁתֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת. אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִין שְׁלֹשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וָמַעְלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לְנִסְכֵּי בְּהֵמוֹת:
כסף משנה
12.
A person may vow or pledge to bring wine independently.45See Chapter 14, Halachah 1; Chapter 16, Halachah 14. One should not vow to bring a log of wine or two lugim,46See Halachah 14. for there are no libations that are [only] a log or two lugim.47As mentioned in Chapter 2, Halachah 4, the wine libations are 3, 4, or 6 log, depending on the animal offered. Nor should one vow five lugim, for five lugim are not fit for the libations of one animal or for those of two animals.48For no two offerings will reach a total of five. See also Halachah 14. One may, however, vow three, four, six, or more lugim,49For any number over six will be able to be broken up into multiples of 3,4, or 5, as stated in the following halachah [see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Menachot 12:4)]. because they are fit for the wine libations for sacrificial animals.הלכה יג
כֵּיצַד. נָדַר שִׁבְעָה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּנִסְכֵּי כֶּבֶשׂ וְאַיִל. נָדַר שְׁמוֹנָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּנִסְכֵּי שְׁנֵי אֵילִים. תִּשְׁעָה כְּנִסְכֵּי שׁוֹר וְכֶבֶשׂ אוֹ כְּנִסְכֵּי שְׁלֹשָׁה כְּבָשִׂים. נָדַר עֲשָׂרָה הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּנִסְכֵּי שׁוֹר וְאַיִל אוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים וְאַיִל וְכֵן עַד לְעוֹלָם:
כסף משנה
13.
What is implied? If a person vows seven [lugim], they are considered as the libations for a sheep and for a ram.50The libations for a sheep are three lugim and those for a ram are four. We assume that the person desired to bring them both. If he vowed eight, they are the libations for two rams; nine are the libations for an ox51Six lugim. and a sheep or those of three sheep. If he vowed ten, they are the libations for an ox and a ram or two sheep and a ram. Similarly, all numbers [can be seen as such combinations].הלכה יד
נָדַר חֲמִשָּׁה לוֹגִין אוֹמְרִין לוֹ הַשְׁלֵם שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁהֲרֵי קְבָעָן לְקָרְבָּן. אֲבָל אִם נָדַר לוֹג אוֹ שְׁנַיִם פָּטוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָן רְאוּיִין כְּלָל לֹא הֵן וְלֹא מִקְצָתָן. וְאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין וְלֹא נוֹדְרִין פָּחוֹת מִלּוֹג שֶׁמֶן. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מִנְחָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן וְהִיא צְרִיכָה לוֹג אֶחָד שֶׁמֶן:
כסף משנה
14.
If he vowed to bring five lugim, we tell him: "Make it a complete six."52Which are the libations for an ox. [The rationale is that] he already established it as fit for a sacrifice.53Since libations of three and four lugim are brought, we assume that he did not want to make an empty statement. Hence, we ask him to increase the amount so that he will also be able to bring a valid offering. We do not reduce the amount, because there is an unresolved discussion in Menachot 104a if that is acceptable.If, by contrast, he vowed one log or two, he is exempt, for this amount or their components are not fit to be used as a libation.54Based on the ruling in Halachah 9 with regard to a meal-offering of a half an isaron, the Radbaz states that if one says: "a wine libation of one log," he should be asked to clarify his intent.Less than a log of oil should not be vowed or pledged, for there is no meal-offering smaller than an isaron and it requires a log of oil.55See Chapter 12, Halachot 5 and 7.
הלכה טו
הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי יַיִן לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוֹגִין. הֲרֵי עָלַי שֶׁמֶן לֹא יִפְחֹת מִלּוֹג. פֵּרֵשׁ נִדְרוֹ וְשָׁכַח כַּמָּה לוֹג נָדַר מִן הַיַּיִן אוֹ מִן הַשֶּׁמֶן יָבִיא אַרְבָּעִים וּמֵאָה לוֹג. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ יוֹם שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין בּוֹ הַצִּבּוּר קָרְבָּנוֹת מְרֻבּוֹת יוֹתֵר מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת וְהָיוּ הַנְּסָכִים בּוֹ מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים לוֹג שֶׁמֶן וּכְמוֹתָם יַיִן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין:
כסף משנה