A mishnah on today’s daf continues the discussion about what happens when someone makes an imprecise pledge to the Temple.
With regard to one who says: “One of my lambs is consecrated” or: “One of my bulls is consecrated,” and he has two lambs or bulls, the larger of them is consecrated. If he has three lambs or bulls, the middle-sized animal among them is consecrated.
The Gemara is interested in why the mishnah rules as it does. The first ruling is not surprising to the later sages: If you pledge one of your sheep to God, we would expect it to be the larger one. Or, as the Gemara puts it:
One who consecrates, consecrates generously.
The implication here seems to be not only that it is correct to give the larger animal, but that this must be what the owner had in mind all along.
The mishnah’s second ruling, however, is more opaque. In the case of three animals, we might expect the mishnah to again rule that the largest is offered. Why, then, does it specify the middle-sized animal?
Shmuel explains that offering the middle-sized animal is still generous because, after all, it’s larger than the smallest. So it is not unreasonable to imagine this is the animal the owner had in mind. But Shmuel is still bothered because although offering the middle-sized animal is still generous, the person who made the vow might actually have meant the largest animal. Whereas in the mishnah’s first case, we can be certain that the vower meant the larger of two animals (because “one who consecrates, consecrates generously”), in this case, we cannot know which of the three they meant to designate. This means there is a flaw in the mishnah’s ruling: If the owner meant to consecrate the middle animal, and the largest is offered, that means there is a sacred animal (the middle-sized one) being misused (for instance, sold in the market or eaten for dinner).
The Gemara poses a solution that preserves the mishnah’s ruling but eliminates this problematic scenario:
Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav said: One should wait until the middle-sized animal becomes blemished and then desacralize it by transferring its sanctity onto the large animal, which is then sacrificed on the altar.
Following the mishnah, Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav proposes, the middle animal is indeed sanctified. Because of the existing doubt, however, it is not sacrificed. Rather, it is left out to graze and live its life until it develops a blemish that renders it unfit for the altar. At that point, it is permissible to substitute another animal in its place: the largest of the three. This upholds the mishnah while resolving Shmuel’s uncertainty and protecting the original owner: If the middle animal was originally consecrated, the blemish allows its consecration to be transferred to the largest animal, which is then sacrificed in the middle-sized animal’s place. If the consecration originally fell on the larger animal, the middle animal was always in an unconsecrated state and there is no issue in not sacrificing it. Following this path, we ensure that the owner sacrifices a consecrated animal and is left with an unconsecrated one, with no misuse of Temple property.
Read all of Menachot 108 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on April 29, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
