Menachot 108

Sugya Map

• Issue: Determining the specific functions of the six shofarot (collection horns) in the Temple and the halachic status of surplus dedicated funds (motarot).
• Nafka Mina: Whether surplus funds are designated for communal "Gift Offerings" (nedava) or are left to "rot" (yir'u).
• Primary Sources: Menachot 108a; Shekalim 6b; Leviticus 5:11.

Text Snapshot

• Menachot 108a: "And the surplus (ha-motarot)—like one who designated money for one of these offerings and the animals became cheaper, leaving money over—he gives to the fifth horn."
• Rashi ad loc. s.v. v’ha-motarot: Notes that if one set aside money for a sacrifice and prices dropped, the remainder is not just "extra," but specifically designated for the nedava horn.

Readings

• Rashi: Emphasizes that specific types of motarot (like guilt offerings) are "put out to pasture" (nitkot le-re'iya), meaning they are sold and the funds redirected. The "surplus" is not a homogenous pile; it retains the character of the original vow.
• Tosafot: Challenges the Rashi regarding the kolbon (premium). Where Rashi sees a simple mechanical fix for two people paying a shekel together, Tosafot (citing Tosefta Shekalim) argues that the kolbon itself is a point of dispute: does it go toward the shekalim (communal fund) or the nedava?

Friction

• Kushya: If the motarot from various offerings are functionally identical (leftover money), why distinguish between them at all?
• Terutz: The Gemara (108a) rejects Bar Padda’s attempt to categorize them, but maintains that the nature of the offering matters. If an offering is not called a "sin offering" (like the High Priest’s mincha), its surplus behaves differently—some say it must "rot" rather than join the communal nedava.

Intertext

• Shekalim 6b: Explicitly defines which surpluses go to nedava and which rot, creating the tension that occupies the Amoraim in Menachot.
• SA/Responsa: This logic mirrors the din of hekdesh—once money is linked to a specific mitzvah, it retains a "scent" of that obligation even after the primary purpose is fulfilled.

Psak/Practice

• Meta-Psak: The Gemara here serves as a masterclass in heksher (sanctity) maintenance. In modern communal finance, the principle holds: funds collected for a specific tzedakah objective cannot be unilaterally repurposed for the general fund without a mechanism for hitnaut (pre-stipulated conditions). If you didn't define the "surplus" at the start, it remains "stuck" in its original holy status.

Takeaway

• Sanctity is granular: Even the "surplus" of a holy act carries the identity of the original intent; one cannot simply pool sacred funds without clear, pre-existing halachic permission.