Detailed Flowchart:
(a) Maimonides rules like the “Rabbis” (-Minochos 107b) concerning, “[If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation,” and only when speaking of small and large ones within the same species.
(b) How can this be, when one has the biblical obligation (-Deuteronomy 23:24), “That which your lips utter you are to observe, and you shall do as you have promised”?
Answers:
(i) From the Person: We say that his intention was that he will not bring less than a Small one. Not that he wouldn’t bring a Large one. Thus, his intention included the possibility of a Large one.
(ii) From the Object (animal): The person actually meant a Small one, however (-Rashi, Minochos 106b), “Within the many is the few.” Thus, he brought the Small, and upon it added, thus, he fulfilled his promise.
(c) The Talmud (-Minochos 104b), upon a similar argument,
--[“(If one says), ‘I specified a meal offering of tenths (of an ephah --Eipha: 22 litres; 20 dry quarts) but I do not know how many (tenths) I specified,’ he must bring (a meal offering of) sixty (-tenths of an ephah). Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says, ‘He brings meal offerings of all sizes, (in increments of tenths of an ephah, ranging) from one-tenth (of an ephah) to sixty (-tenths, for a total of sixty meal offerings with a total volume of 1,830 tenths of an ephah, or 183 ephahs).”]--
explains the reason why both arguments are necessary: “Had (their dispute) been stated (only) with regard to this (case of one who vows to bring a small meal offering and brings a large one instead, there would be room to reason that it is only) in this (case that) the Rabbis say (that he has fulfilled his obligation,) because (both) this (small meal offering) and that (large meal offering are identical with regard to the portion of the offering that is sacrificed on the altar; in both cases) it is a handful. But there, (in the case of one who vows to bring a small bull but brings a large one,) since the sacrificial portions are greater, (i.e., larger, there is room to) say (that the Rabbis) concede to Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi that he has not fulfilled his obligation). And had (their dispute) been stated (only) in that (case of one who vows to bring a small bull and brings a big one, there would be room to reason that only in that case) Rebbi (Yehuda HaNasi) says (that the person has not fulfilled his obligation, because the sacrificial portions are larger). But in this (case of bringing a large meal offering instead of a small one, there is room to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) concedes to (the opinion of) the Rabbis. (Therefore,) it is necessary (for the mishna to teach both cases.)
(d) Questions:
(i) From that answer we see that we do not apply the reasoning of, “Within the many is the few.” Thus, here too (“[If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one”), we should not apply this reasoning?
(ii) How can we say, “his intention was that he will not bring less than a Small one... his intention included the possibility of a Large one,” when that is not what he actually said?
Thus, we need to still explain the ruling of Maimonides.
(e) Question:
If we are to say, (i) “his intention included the possibility of a Large one,” and (ii) “Within the many is the few,” and the law is (-Maimonides Laws of Prohibitions Upon the Altar 7:11), “one who desires to gain merit for himself, subjugate his evil inclination, and amplify his generosity should bring his sacrifice from the most desirable and superior type of the item he is bringing. For it is written in the Torah (-Genesis 4:4), ‘And Abel brought from his chosen flocks and from the superior ....’ And so it is stated (-Leviticus 3:16), "All of the superior quality should be given to G-d,’” and concerning sacrifices it is (-Deuteronomy 12:11), “and the choice of vows...,” (-Rashi ibid), “This teaches that one should bring (offerings) from the choicest,” thus, the ruling should not be that he is allowed to bring a Large one. But Rather, that he must bring a Large one?! Thus we must say that (i) “his intention included the possibility of a Large one,” and (ii) “Within the many is the few,” is not the issue here. Thus, what is the reason for, “[If he vows to bring] a small one and brings a large one, he fulfills his obligation”?
(f) --[The explanation of the Chinuch upon the “sacrifice that varies up and down,” that, “And the reason is that since G-d, blessed be He, had mercy upon him and exempted him with [something less expensive], it is not appropriate that he push himself to bring more than what his hand can reach,” can only apply when (i) the offering is commanded by G-d, while here we are speaking of voluntary promise. (ii) by that sacrifices, the poor bringing of the rich is his bringing a different species (from flour to fowl or to an animal), which Maimonides rules is not acceptable.]--
(f) Introduction to Answer:
In the opening to the Laws of Vows, when Maimonides lists the mitzvot found in these chapters, he seemingly elaborates unnecessarily, “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth and to carry out one’s vow.” Why the duplicity? Thus, we must say that there are two concepts going on, (i) The words of the promise that were uttered: “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth,” and (ii) the intent of the promise made: “to carry out one’s vow.”
(g) This is what Rebbi and The Rabbis are arguing over:
Rebbi is focused on the person keeping his exact words: “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth”: “[If he vows to bring] a small one.” While The Rabbis are focused on the person keeping his intention: “to carry out one’s vow” (to bring an offering to G-d): “he fulfills his obligation.” Nevertheless, The Rabbis don’t force him to bring the Large, “and the choice... one should bring (offerings) from the choicest,” because, the verse states, “To heed the utterances of one’s mouth,” thus, he should better fulfill his utterance.
(h) This ‘sweetens’ why Maimonides brings two verses in his statement (-Laws of Vows 1:4),
“It is a positive commandment of Scriptural origin for a person to fulfill his oath or vow, whether it be a vow involving prohibitions or a vow of sanctification, as it is stated (-Deuteronomy 23:24), ‘that which your lips give out (utter) heed, and do as you have promised.’ And it is stated (-Numbers 30:3), ‘As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do.’”
(i) “That which your lips give out (utter) heed, and do as you have promised,”
speaks of Vows of consecrating things to the Holy Temple, offerings, etc.. Consecrated things, while the obligation of the person is through his mouth, that he do an obligation of the Torah, the actual consecration cannot be through the person, but through the biblical laws of consecration “I shall bring an offering upon the altar,” which are the voluntary offerings defined in the Torah.
(ii) “As all that he gives out from his mouth (utters) he shall do,”
speaks of prohibitions that are solely the creation of the words of his mouth (“I shall not drink wine... I shall not eat meat...”).
(i) Answer:
This is why concerning offerings Maimonides rules that there is also the issue of, “and do as you have promised,” meaning the intention of bringing an offering to G-d, and thus, “he fulfills his obligation,” even if this is not precisely as, “which your lips give out.”
(j) --[Thus Maimonides states (-Laws of Vows 13:25),
“Our Sages stated (-Nedarim 22a), ‘Anyone who takes a vow is considered as having built a private altar (called a ‘bama’, which is forbidden since the time that the Holy Temple was built in Jerusalem).’ And if he transgressed and took a vow, it is a mitzvah to ask (a sage) to absolve it, so that he will not have an obstacle before him. When does the above apply? With regard to vows involving prohibitions. However, with (regard to) vows involving the consecration of articles, it is a mitzvah to fulfill them and not to ask for them (absolution) only out of being (financially) pressed, as it is stated (-Psalms 116:14), ‘I will fulfill my vows to G-d.’” Being that the, “vows involving the consecration of articles,” now entails a biblical law, becoming, “an object of a mitzva,” thus, “not to ask for them (absolution).”]--
