Menachot

the many rams but had not [means enough for] the meal-offerings,1 they should bring one ram and its meal-offering and should not offer them all without meal-offerings. MISHNAH. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BULLOCK,2 OR THE RAMS, OR THE LAMBS OR THE HE-GOAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING,3 NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATE THEM. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS,4 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;5 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.6 AND [WHY DO I SAY THAT] THE BREAD-OFFERING MAY NOT BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE LAMBS? BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE.7 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And ye shall present with the bread,8 that is, as an obligation with the bread-offering;9 seven lambs without blemish,10 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.11 This is the view of R. Tarfon.12 You might think that the lambs stated here13 are the identical ones which are stated in the Book of Numbers;14 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;15 but these16 are brought on their own account, whilst those17 are brought on account of the bread-offering.18 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?19 — Since those [the former] are certainly different ones,20 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 different21 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]22 from the other expression ‘they shall be’ [tiheyenah]:23 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]22 from the other expression ‘they shall be’ [yiheyu]:24 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 yiheyu25 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,26 and And the priest shall come in,27 ‘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.28 but the others29 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.30 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, God31 acquired it and granted it to the priest. R. Johanan said, All agree the two rams and the seven lambs for burnt-offerings, and the he-goat for a sin-offering. flesh permissible to be eaten; thus the validity of the lambs is in no wise dependent on the bread-offering. the lambs there is naught to render the bread-offering permissible. extant MSS., and are struck out by Sh. Mek. V. Glosses of Strashun a.l. similarly not offered in the wilderness. verse before the bullock and the rams and in Num. after them signifies that they are not the identical ones. 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. the flesh was eaten by the priests, and so, too, did the two loaves, for they were entirely eaten by the priests.