מנחות 45 — Soncino English Talmud

¹And which rams are meant? Will you say those of the above occasions? But only one ram is spoken of there! Or will you say those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus? But the expression ‘shall be’ is used with regard to them! — In truth those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus are meant, and [the Mishnah] teaches that neither the [absence of the] rams which are ordained in Leviticus will invalidate the ram ordained in Numbers nor will [the absence of] the ram ordained in Numbers invalidate the rams ordained in Leviticus. Then [the position is this, is it not], that in regard to the bullocks even [though they are ordained in one passage the absence of] one does not invalidate the other; whereas in regard to the rams the absence of what is ordained in one passage does not invalidate what is ordained in another passage, but of what is ordained in one passage the absence of one invalidates the other? — The Tanna dealt with different conditions in each case. And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish; and six lambs and a ram; they shall be without blemish. Why does the text say, ‘A bullock’? It is because in the Torah it says, [Two] bullocks; but whence do I know that if two are not to be found one must be brought? The text therefore says, ‘A bullock’. Again why does the text say. ‘Six lambs’? It is because in the Torah it says. Seven lambs; but whence do I know that if seven are not to be found six must be brought? The text therefore says, Six lambs. And whence do I know that if six are not to be found five are to be brought, and if not five four, and if not four three, and if not three two, or even one? The text therefore says. And lambs according as his means suffice. But since this is so, why does the text say, ‘six lambs’? To indicate that we must make every effort to obtain as many as possible. And whence do I know that [the absence of] one invalidates the others? Because the text says. They shall be. Thus saith the Lord God, In the first month, in the first day of the month thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and thou shalt offer it as a sin-offering in the sanctuary. A sin-offering’? But surely it is a burnt-offering? — R. Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. R. Ashi said, [It refers to] the special consecration-offering [to be] offered in the time of Ezra just as it was offered in the time of Moses. There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to the same effect: R. Judah says, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. But R. Jose said to him, [It refers to] the consecration-offering [to be] offered in the time of Ezra just as it was offered in the time of Moses. He replied, May your mind be at ease for you have set mine at ease. The priests shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself [nebelah], or is torn [trefah], whether it be fowl or beast. Is it only the priests that may not eat such but the Israelites may? — R. Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. Rabina said, It was necessary [to repeat this prohibition] for the priests, for I might have thought that since they are permitted [to eat] a bird-offering of which the head had been nipped off at the neck, they are also permitted to eat nebelah and trefah; we are therefore told [that it is not so]. And so thou shalt do on the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple; so shall ye make atonement for the house. ‘Seven’, says R. Johanan, refers to a sin committed by seven tribes, even though they do not constitute the majority of the community. ‘New [moon]’, that is, they decided a new law saying, [e.g.,] that fat is permitted. ‘For every one that erreth and for him that is simple’, this teaches that they are liable only if the ruling [of the Beth din was made] in ignorance and the transgression [of the community] was committed in error. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, That man is to be remembered for good, and Hanina b. Hezekiah is his name; for were it not for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, since its sayings contradicted the words of the Torah. What did he do? He took up with him three hundred barrels of oil and remained there in the upper chamber until he had explained away everything. R. SIMEON SAID, IF THEY HAD [MEANS ENOUGH FOR] THE MANY BULLOCKS etc. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And he shall prepare a meal-offering, an ephah for the bullock, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs according as his means suffice, and a bin of oil to an ephah. R. Simeon asked, Is the quantity [of flour for a meal-offering] the same for bullocks as for rams? But it signifies that if they had [means enough for] the many bullocks but had not [means enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings. And if they had [means enough for]^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:As prescribed in the Book of Numbers; v. prec. note.
^ᵇnote:Whereas our Mishnah speaks of rams in the plural.
^ᶜnote:Which are offered with the two loaves; v. Lev. XXIII, 18: And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs . . . and one young bullock and two rams; they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.
^ᵈnote:V. prec. note. The expression ‘shall be’ invariably implies indispensability of every item and detail; thus conflicting with our Mishnah.
^ᵉnote:And if one bullock was lost the other may nevertheless be offered.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the two rams offered with the two loaves on Pentecost, ordained in Lev. XXIII, 18, are indispensable to each other, and one cannot be offered without the other.
^ᵍnote:I.e., the position as described is quite correct, and the Tanna of our Mishnah was in no way concerned with the facts that the cases of the bullocks and of the rams were not on all fours.
^ʰnote:Ezek. XLVI, 6.
^ⁱnote:Num. XXVIII, 11.
^ʲnote:Ezek. XLVI, 7.
^ᵏnote:That less than the prescribed number of seven may be brought.
^ˡnote:I.e., if there were seven (or any lesser number of) lambs each one is indispensable and the absence of one of them would prevent the offering of the others. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf. s.v. ihbnu, and Sh. Mek. n. 3.
^ᵐnote:Ezek. XLVI, 6. This expression indicates indispensability
^ⁿnote:Ezek. XLV, 18. The word ,tyju rendered in the versions ‘and thou shalt purify’ is understood as though it were read ,tyju ‘and a sin-offering’.
^ᵒnote:The special sacrifices of the New Moon were burnt-offerings, v. Num. XXVIII, 11.
^ᵖnote:This means that it is beyond our power to reconcile this verse with the ordinance of the Torah and will be explained by Elijah the Prophet, the herald of the Messianic era, who is to make the truth known.
^ᵠnote:V. Sh. Mek. n. 4.
^ʳnote:For on the eighth day of the consecration of the Sanctuary in the time of Moses, which coincided with the New Moon of Nisan, sin-offerings, and not the usual burnt-offerings, were brought. The prophet Ezekiel foretells a similar consecration of the Temple on the New Moon in the future, when in place of the usual burnt-offerings sin-offerings will be offered.
^ˢnote:Ezek. XLIV, 31.
^ᵗnote:Surely not; for nebelah and trefah are expressly forbidden in the Torah to all Israelites, v. Deut. XIV, 21, and Ex. XXII, 30.
^ᵘnote:Bird-offerings were not slaughtered in the usual manner but their heads were nipped off at the neck, v. Lev. I, 15. After the application of the blood as prescribed, the priests were allowed to eat the flesh of the bird, although for profane purposes such nipping would render the bird nebelah.
^ᵛnote:Ezek. XLV, 20.
^ʷnote:The expression asjc vgcac, ‘on the seventh day of the month’ is interpreted separately, vgca meaning seven, and asj the new moon.
^ˣnote:The reference is to the special sin-offering of a bullock brought on behalf of the community when the whole community or the greater part thereof or even the majority of the tribes had committed a sin by acting upon the erroneous ruling of the Beth din; v. Lev. IV, 13.
^ʸnote:Whereas the fat is forbidden by the Torah on penalty of kareth; v. Lev. VII, 25.
^ᶻnote:Sc. the community.
^ᵃᵃnote:To bring the special sin-offering of a bullock.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the people acted in accordance with the new ruling of the Beth din and actually ate forbidden fat.
^ᵃᶜnote:To serve him for lighting.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ezek. XLVI, 7.
^ᵃᵉnote:Of course not, for the quantity of flour for the meal-offering which accompanied the offering of a bullock was three tenths of an ephah whereas that which accompanied a ram was two tenths. V. Num. XV, 6, 9.

²the many rams but had not [means enough for] the meal-offerings, they should bring one ram and its meal-offering and should not offer them all without meal-offerings. MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BULLOCK, OR THE RAMS, OR THE LAMBS OR THE HE-GOAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING, NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATE THEM. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS, BUT THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING. SO R. AKIBA. R. SIMEON B. NANOS SAID, IT IS NOT SO, BUT RATHER THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS INVALIDATES THE BREAD-OFFERING, WHILST THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE LAMBS; FOR SO WE FIND IT WAS THE CASE THAT WHEN THE ISRAELITES WERE IN THE WILDERNESS FOR FORTY YEARS THEY OFFERED THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING; THEREFORE NOW TOO THEY MAY OFFER THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING. R. SIMEON SAID, THE HALACHAH IS ACCORDING TO THE WORDS OF BEN NANOS BUT THE REASON IS NOT AS HE STATED IT; FOR EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS, BUT NOT EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS; HOWEVER, WHEN THEY CAME INTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL THEY OFFERED BOTH KINDS. WHY THEN DO I SAY THAT THE LAMBS MAY BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING? BECAUSE THE LAMBS RENDER THEMSELVES PERMISSIBLE. AND [WHY DO I SAY THAT] THE BREAD-OFFERING MAY NOT BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE LAMBS? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And ye shall present with the bread, that is, as an obligation with the bread-offering; seven lambs without blemish, that is, even though there is no bread-offering. Then why does the verse say, ‘With the bread’? To teach that there was no obligation to bring the lambs before there was the obligation to bring the bread-offering. This is the view of R. Tarfon. You might think that the lambs stated here are the identical ones which are stated in the Book of Numbers; but you must say that this is not the case, for when you come to the bullocks and the rams it is evident that they are not the identical ones; but these are brought on their own account, whilst those are brought on account of the bread-offering. It will thus be seen that those offerings stated in the Book of Numbers were offered in the wilderness but those stated in the Book of Leviticus were not offered in the wilderness. Perhaps the bullocks and the rams [of the two Books] are not the identical ones, but the lambs are the identical ones? — Since those [the former] are certainly different ones, these [the latter] too are not the identical ones. And why must one say that the bullocks and the rams are different ones? perhaps the Divine Law meant to say, If it is so desired one bullock and two rams are to be offered or, if preferred, two bullocks and one ram? — Since the order is different they must be other sacrifices. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS. What is the reason for R. Akiba's view? — He infers the expression ‘they shall be’ [yiheyu] from the other expression ‘they shall be’ [tiheyenah]: as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering, so in the former it refers to the bread-offering. Ben Nanos, however, infers the expression ‘they shall be’ [yiheyu] from the other expression ‘they shall be’ [yiheyu]: as in the latter case it refers to the lambs, so in the former it refers to the lambs. And why does not Ben Nanos infer [yiheyu] from tiheyenah, [and say:] as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering so in the former it refers to the bread-offering? — One may infer yiheyu from yiheyu but one may not infer yiheyu from tiheyenah. But what does this [variation] matter? Was it not taught in the school of R. Ishmael that in the verses, And the priest shall come again, and And the priest shall come in, ‘coming again’ and ‘coming in’ have the same import [for purposes of inference]? — That is permissible only where there is no identical expression [on which to base the inference], but where an identical expression exists, the inference must be drawn from the identical expression. And why does not R. Akiba infer yiheyu from yiheyu? — One should infer that [offering] which provides a gift to the priest from that which provides a gift to the priest. but the others are burnt-offerings. Alternatively I can say that they differ on the interpretation of this very verse: They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. R. Akiba maintains, What is it that is entirely for the priest? I should say, It is the Bread-offering. And Ben Nanos, [what does he say]? Does the verse say, ‘They shall be holy to the priest’? It says, ‘They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest’. What is it that is partly to the Lord and partly for the priest? I should say, It is the lambs. And R. Akiba [what does he say to this]? — Does the verse say, ‘They shall be holy to the Lord and for the priest’? It says, ‘To the Lord for the priest’. It is as stated by R. Huna, for R. Huna said, God acquired it and granted it to the priest. R. Johanan said, All agree^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘their ephahs’.
^ᵃᵍnote:The animals here enumerated are the special offerings prescribed for Pentecost, cf. Lev. XXIII, 17-19; the bullock, the two rams and the seven lambs for burnt-offerings, and the he-goat for a sin-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., the two loaves; cf. ibid. 17.
^ᵃⁱnote:Sc. the two lambs for peace-offerings; ibid. 19.
^ᵃʲnote:For only flour from the Land of Israel was to be used for the Bread-offering and the ‘Omer-offering; v. infra 83b.
^ᵃᵏnote:The sprinkling of the blood of the lambs renders the sacrificial portions permissible for sacrifice and the rest of the flesh permissible to be eaten; thus the validity of the lambs is in no wise dependent on the bread-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:For it is the slaughtering of the lambs that renders the bread-offering permissible to be eaten, so that in the absence of the lambs there is naught to render the bread-offering permissible.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. XXIII, 18.
^ᵃⁿnote:And one may not be offered without the other.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ibid.
^ᵃᵖnote:And this obligation only commenced when they entered the Land of Israel.
^ᵃᵠnote:In cur. edd. are added the words: ‘R. Akiba says’. They are not found in the parallel passage in the Sifra and in all extant MSS., and are struck out by Sh. Mek. V. Glosses of Strashun a.l.
^ᵃʳnote:In Lev. ibid. where the verse reads: And ye shall present seven lambs . . . and one young bullock and two rams.
^ᵃˢnote:Num. XXVIII, 27: Two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since the number of each kind is different in each passage.
^ᵃᵘnote:Those animals stated in Numbers are offered as additional sacrifices and are not related to the bread-offering.
^ᵃᵛnote:Mentioned in Leviticus.
^ᵃʷnote:And since the bread-offering was not offered in the wilderness the sacrifices stated in connection with it were similarly not offered in the wilderness.
^ᵃˣnote:Since the number of lambs is seven in each passage.
^ᵃʸnote:For the number of animals of each kind is different in the two texts.
^ᵃᶻnote:Cf. the verses of Lev. and Num. supra p. 274, nn. 8 and 9. The fact that in Lev. the seven lambs are stated in the verse before the bullock and the rams and in Num. after them signifies that they are not the identical ones.
^ᵇᵃnote:Lev. XXIII, 20: And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. Now the expression ‘they shall be’ uhvh implies that the offering cannot be dispensed with, but the doubt is as to which offering is meant, whether the bread-offering or the two lambs.
^ᵇᵇnote:Ibid. 17: vbhhv, ,kx, they shall be of fine flour; this clearly refers to the bread-offering.
^ᵇᶜnote:Ibid. 18: uhvh. This expression clearly refers to the seven lambs and the other burnt-offerings.
^ᵇᵈnote:Being identical expressions.
^ᵇᵉnote:Ibid. XIV, 39 and 44. The reference is to the treatment of a leprous spot in the walls of a house.
^ᵇᶠnote:v. p. 275, n. 8.
^ᵇᵍnote:The two lambs for the peace-offerings provided a gift to the priest, for after the burning of the sacrificial portions the flesh was eaten by the priests, and so, too, did the two loaves, for they were entirely eaten by the priests.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc. the seven lambs etc.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lev. XXIII, 20.
^ᵇʲnote:Lit., ‘the Name’.