In this chapter, and through to the end of the tractate, we deal with vows - commitments that a person takes upon himself verbally to bring offerings. Our Mishnah discusses someone who vowed to bring a menachah (meal offering) in a particular manner, and in the end brought it in a way different from what he had committed to. The principle of the Mishnah is this: since he did not fulfill his words, he has not discharged his obligation and must bring another menachah as he vowed; and what he actually brought is not lost but is considered an offering in its own right, since we assume that he did not intend to bring something invalid, but rather an additional menachah in a different form - unless he explicitly demonstrated otherwise. This is a long Mishnah, and its details are many.
The first case - a general commitment using the wording "harei alai":
"Ha'omer harei alai b'machavas v'heivi b'marcheshes, b'marcheshes v'heivi b'machavas - mah shehevi hevi, v'yedei chovaso lo yatza" - a person commits to bring a menachah, and specifies that he will prepare it in a machavas (a flat pan), and in the end he brings a menachah that was prepared in a marcheshes (a deep pan); or he explicitly committed to a marcheshes, and in the end brought a menachah prepared in a machavas. Says the Mishnah: what he brought is an offering, and it is not disqualified. But the obligation he took upon himself he did not fulfill, and therefore he must go back and bring a menachah as he vowed as well.
Background - the five types of voluntary menachah:
Voluntary meal offerings come in five types, and two of them are the machavas and the marcheshes. They resemble one another in their ingredients, and the only difference between them is the manner of preparation: the machavas is like a flat vessel, while the marcheshes is like a deep vessel. Another opinion in the Talmud, which we saw in the Mishnah, is that the marcheshes has a cover and the machavas does not. All of these menachos have the same basic ingredients: an isaron of fine flour, a log of oil, and frankincense on top, and a person is free to prepare it as he wishes. But once he specified in his vow that he is bringing a marcheshes - that is his commitment, and he is obligated to fulfill it; and if he brought a machavas, he has indeed brought a machavas, and the obligation of the marcheshes still rests upon him.
The second case - consecrating specific flour using the wording "harei zu":
"Zu l'havi b'machavas v'heivi b'marcheshes, b'marcheshes v'heivi b'machavas - harei zu pesulah" - here we are not speaking of a general commitment, but of a person who points to a specific isaron of fine flour and says: this flour is consecrated to be brought as a machavas menachah, and in the end he prepared it in a marcheshes; or he said to bring it in a marcheshes, and prepared it in a machavas.
In such a case the offering is entirely invalid. The flour he pointed to became obligated to be brought in one particular form only, and it is impossible to say that it should now be a menachah of a different type - for this flour can be one thing only, and this is not what he said. Since it was not prepared as he vowed, it is invalid.
There is an important distinction here between the two wordings of the vow:
"Harei alai": a general commitment upon the person himself. Therefore what he brought, he brought, and an obligation still rests upon him to bring an additional menachah as he vowed.
"Harei zu": a commitment regarding specific flour that was consecrated. Once it was not made according to his words, his offering is invalid, but he has no further obligation to bring a new menachah, since he committed himself only regarding this particular flour. The law is similar to a case in which the flour was lost, stolen, or became tamei: once it cannot be brought as a menachah, it is no longer brought at all, and the vow is not fulfilled.
Two esronim - in one vessel or in two vessels:
A typical menachah comes with an isaron of fine flour and a log of oil, but a person may double the measure, triple it, or quadruple it, and bring a menachah of two esronim, three, or four as he wishes (and there is a dispute whether the oil is doubled as well, and this is not the place for it). However, bringing two menachos of one isaron each is not the same as bringing a single menachah of two esronim, and there are two differences between them:
A qualitative difference: One who says he will do it in a particular way is obligated to do exactly as he said - as we saw at the beginning of the Mishnah.
A quantitative difference: From every minchah only a single kometz (handful) is taken, and the rest are the remainders. From two menachos two kematzim are taken, whereas from one minchah of double the measure only a single kometz is taken, so that the remainders come out far greater.
Here too the principle we have seen returns: we assume that a person did not intend to do something that has no validity, but rather to bring this and to add his original commitment on top of it - unless he demonstrated otherwise by his conduct.
He vowed one vessel and brought two vessels:
A person says: "Harei alai shnei esronim l'havi bichli echad" - "It is incumbent upon me to bring two esronim in one vessel", meaning one minchah of double the measure in a single vessel, "v'heivi bishnei kelim" - and in the end he divided it into two separate vessels, two menachos of the regular measure. Those who heard his vow say to him: "Bichli echad nadarta" - "You vowed one vessel." From here on, everything depends on his response:
"Hikrivan bichli echad - kesheirim" - "If he offered them in one vessel, they are valid": if he accepted their words and immediately combined the two vessels into one as he had committed, the minchah is entirely valid. For it is evident that his intention was to fulfill his vow, he erred and forgot, and now he has repaired what he had ruined.
"Bishnei kelim - pesulin" - "In two vessels, they are invalid": if he ignored their warning and offered in two vessels, both are invalid. And not only has he failed to fulfill his obligation and must bring another, as in the ruling of the previous Mishnah, but the offering itself is invalid. The reason: once they warned him that this is not in accordance with his vow and he nevertheless persisted, it is proven that he did not intend an additional offering. Had that been so, he would have said: "I understand, and nevertheless I am bringing this as an additional offering." Rather, he certainly intended to fulfill his obligation with this, and since he did not do as he said - it is invalid.
He vowed two vessels and brought one vessel:
A person says: "Harei alai shnei esronim l'havi bishnei kelim" - "It is incumbent upon me to bring two esronim in two vessels", meaning two menachos in two separate vessels, "v'heivi bichli echad" - and in the end he placed the two esronim and the oil that came with them into one large vessel. They say to him: "Bishnei kelim nadarta" - "You vowed two vessels." Here too there are two possibilities:
"Hikrivan bishnei kelim - kesheirim" - "If he offered them in two vessels, they are valid": if he accepted their words immediately and separated them back into two vessels, it is evident that he came to fulfill his vow, that he erred and corrected his error; he brings what he committed to and fulfills his obligation, and it is all valid.
"Hiniach bichli echad - kishtei menachos shenis'arvu" - "If he left it in one vessel, it is like two menachos that became mixed together": if he ignored them and left everything in one vessel, their status is that of two separate menachos that became mixed with one another.
And we already learned in chapter 3, Mishnah 3, that with two menachos that became mixed the matter depends: if the kohen is able to take a kometz from this one and a kometz from that one, and he is certain with complete certainty that each kometz came from its own minchah, the two kematzim are each valid on their own, and once they have been taken there is nothing preventing the remainders from being eaten together. In such a case the kohen can, as it were, rescue the situation, since after all two separate menachos were brought before him.
But here, once he placed the two esronim into one vessel and they became mixed with each other, there is no longer any way to take a definite kometz from this one and a definite kometz from that one, and it is impossible to bring the two required kematzim from two menachos. Therefore it is all invalid. And since he said "Harei alai", and the invalidity came about because he joined them together, he will have to bring another minchah in its place.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the law of one who vows a minchah and then deviates from his vow. With the wording "Harei alai" - what he brought, he brought, but he has not fulfilled his obligation and must bring again; with the wording "Harei zo", where he consecrated a specific quantity of fine flour - it is invalid, and no new obligation rests upon him. Regarding a vow of two esronim we examined the qualitative and quantitative difference between one double minchah and two menachos, and that everything depends on his response to the warning of those who heard him: if he corrected it immediately - they are valid; if he ignored them and offered not in accordance with his vow - they are invalid, and in the latter case their status is that of two menachos that became mixed, where it is impossible to take a kometz from each one on its own.