Menachos, Chapter 13, Mishnah 8. The Mishnah continues to discuss obligations that a person takes upon himself verbally - vows to bring offerings, and here the discussion turns to animal offerings. The first topic the Mishnah addresses is the minimum values of various animals, in a case where a person obligates himself to bring an olah without specifying how much he intends to spend.
The minimum values when no sum was specified:
The words of the Mishnah: "Harei alai shor - yavi hu u'nesachav b'maneh" - "I take upon myself an ox - he brings it and its libations for a maneh." The minimum sum he must spend, when he did not specify an amount, covers the two things together: the animal itself and the libations that accompany it. With an ox, for example, the libations include three esronim of fine flour, six lugin of olive oil, six lugin of wine and the frankincense - and all of this together with the animal must come to at least a maneh. A maneh is twenty-five sela (literally: one hundred, that is, one hundred dinar, which are worth twenty-five sela).
"Harei alai shor" - "he brings it and its libations for a maneh": a maneh, twenty-five sela, for the ox and the libations together.
Egel (a calf) - "he brings it and its libations for five": five sela as the minimum for the calf and the libations that accompany it.
Ayil (a ram) - "he brings it and its libations for two": two sela as the minimum for the ram and the libations that accompany it.
Keves (a lamb) - "he brings it and its libations for a sela": one sela as the minimum for the lamb and the libations that accompany it.
When he did specify a sum:
If a person specified a particular sum that he intends to spend on the animal, he must spend that sum on the animal alone, whether the sum is large or small. For once he said "an ox for a maneh" - an ox worth twenty-five sela - his intention was that the ox by itself should cost twenty-five sela, while the libations are an additional expense that is not included in that sum:
"Shor b'maneh" (an ox for a maneh) - "he brings one for a maneh apart from the libations": a maneh for the ox alone, aside from the expense of the libations.
"Egel b'chamesh" (a calf for five) - "he brings one for five apart from the libations": five sela for the animal alone, aside from the libations.
"Ayil b'shtayim" (a ram for two) - "he brings one for two apart from the libations": two for the ram, aside from the libations.
"Keves b'sela" (a lamb for a sela) - "he brings one for a sela apart from the libations": one sela for the lamb, aside from the libations.
One who brought something other than what he vowed:
"Shor b'maneh v'heivi shnayim b'maneh - lo yatza" - "an ox for a maneh, and he brought two for a maneh - he has not fulfilled his obligation." A person obligated himself to bring an ox worth a maneh (and here we explain maneh as one hundred dinar, since that is how the words of the Mishnah fit together), and in the end he brought two oxen. Even though the total comes to more than what he obligated himself in, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Mishnah continues: "Afilu zeh b'maneh chaser dinar v'zeh b'maneh chaser dinar" - even if each of the two oxen cost ninety-nine dinar, it makes no difference: he obligated himself in an ox worth a maneh, and he did not fulfill his words.
Similarly: "Shachor v'heivi lavan, lavan v'heivi shachor - lo yatza" - if he said he would bring a black ox and brought a white one, or said white and brought black, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The reason, Tosafos explains, is that there is a real difference between the colors: black oxen are prized for their hides, white ones are prized as beasts of burden, and red ones are prized for their meat. The color thus expresses a different quality, and therefore one who obligates himself in a particular type of animal must bring precisely that type.
"Gadol v'heivi katan - lo yatza" - one who said he would bring a large animal, meaning a mature animal, a bull, and brought an animal that is not mature, a calf, has not fulfilled his obligation, since this is not what he said. "Katan v'heivi gadol - yatza" - one who said he would bring an animal that is not mature, a calf, and brought a mature animal, a bull, has fulfilled his obligation, according to the first Tanna. And Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi says: he has not fulfilled his obligation.
We already encountered this dispute, concerning one who obligated himself in a small animal and brought a large one, in the previous Mishnah. There it was stated that one who says a particular type of animal is obligated to bring both the young ones, such as calves, and the mature ones, such as bulls - and that is the approach of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, which the Mishnah quoted. The halachah, however, follows the opinion of the Sage: if he brought a bull even though he said a calf, he has fulfilled his obligation.
"Yesh bichlal masayim maneh" - "Two hundred includes one hundred":
The view of the Sage, which is also the halachah, rests on a general principle found in halachah in other places as well: "yesh bichlal masayim maneh" - within two hundred, the hundred is already included. Someone who obligated himself to bring a hundred ounces of silver and brought two hundred ounces has fulfilled his obligation, since he gave the hundred he spoke of, and more. This is not comparable to someone who obligated himself in a hundred ounces of silver and brought a hundred ounces of gold: even though gold is more valuable than silver, gold and silver are two separate things, and he has not fulfilled his obligation.
Accordingly, one who says "a calf" - in the view of the Sages a calf is like an animal worth one hundred, and a bull is like an animal worth two hundred. One who obligated himself in a hundred and brought two hundred has fulfilled his obligation. This is the intent of the Mishnah's terms "large" and "small," which describe the animals as more or less valuable. Therefore the Sages say that with animals, one who obligated himself in a young animal that has not matured and brought a mature one has simply added on, and he has fulfilled his obligation.
Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, however, holds that there is a fundamental difference here: calves are one thing and bulls are another. One who says he will bring a calf must bring a calf, and bringing a bull does not help him - just like the law of one who says white and brings black, or one who says silver and brings gold. But as stated, the halachah follows the Sages: one who says a young animal and brings a mature animal, fully grown and more valuable, has fulfilled his obligation, since he brought what he said, and more.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the minimum values for one who vows without specification - an ox and its libations at a maneh, a calf and its libations at five, a ram and its libations at two, a lamb and its libations at a sela; and the law of one who specifies an explicit sum, where the sum applies to the animal alone and not to the libations. We also learned that one who brings two in place of one, or a color other than what he said, or a small animal in place of a large one, has not fulfilled his obligation; while regarding one who brings a large animal in place of a small one the Tannaim disagreed, and the halachah follows the Sages on the strength of the principle "yesh bichlal masayim maneh."