Menachot

— He requires it for the following teaching of R. Nahman. For R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha,1 Whence do we know that the surplus of the Passover-offering2 is brought as a peace-offering? Because it is said, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God of the flock and the herd.3 But is not the Passover-offering brought only from the lambs and the goats? It means that the surplus of the Passover-offering is to be [utilized] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd.4 But is it5 derived from this verse? Surely it is derived from the following teaching of Samuel's father: It is written, And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings [unto the Lord] be of the flock:6 and Samuel's father said, This teaches that what comes [only] from the flock7 shall be offered as peace-offerings! And again,is it derived from this [latter] verse? Surely it is derived from the following: It was taught:8 Lamb;9 this includes the fat tail of the Passover-offering.10 When it says, If [he bring] a lamb,9 it is to include the Passover-offering that has passed the age of one year11 and the peace-offerings which are brought by virtue of the Passover-offering12 for all the regulations of peace-offerings, viz., that they require the laying on of hands, the drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh. Again, when it says, And if [his offering be] a goat.13 this interrupts the subject [and thereby] teaches that in the case of a goat [the burning of] the fat tail [upon the altar] is not required!14 — There are three Scriptural texts;15 one is required for [the Passover-offering] which has passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering]16 has also passed, another for that which has not passed the age of one year but whose time [for offering] has passed. and a third for that which has not passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering] has not passed.17 And all [three texts] are necessary; for had [Scripture] taught us it only of that [Passover-offering] which had passed the age of one year and whose time [for offering] had also passed, I would have said that it was so18 only in that case seeing that it was absolutely rejected [from being offered as a Passover-offering], but I would not have said so of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had passed but which had not passed the age of one year, since it is fit for the Second Passover.19 And had [Scripture] taught us it only of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had passed but which had not passed the age of one year, I would have said that it was so18 only in that case seeing that it was rejected [from being offered] for the first Passover, but I would not have said so of that [Passover-offering] whose time [for offering] had not passed and which had not passed the age of one year, since it is even fit for the first Passover. Hence [all texts] are necessary. CHAPTER IX MISHNAH. ALL THE OFFERINGS20 OF THE CONGREGATION OR OF THE INDIVIDUAL MAY BE OFFERED FROM [PRODUCE GROWN] IN THE LAND [OF ISRAEL] OR OUTSIDE THE LAND, FROM THE NEW [PRODUCE] OR FROM THE OLD, EXCEPTING THE ‘OMER-OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES, WHICH MUST BE OFFERED ONLY FROM THE NEW PRODUCE AND FROM [PRODUCE GROWN] IN THE LAND. ALL [OFFERINGS] MUST BE OFFERED FROM THE CHOICEST PRODUCE. AND WHICH IS THE CHOICEST? MICHMAS21 AND ZANOHA21 RANK FIRST FOR THE QUALITY OF THEIR FINE FLOUR; SECOND TO THEM IS HAFARAIM21 IN THE VALLEY. THE [PRODUCE OF THE] WHOLE LAND22 WAS VALID, BUT THEY USED TO BRING IT FROM THESE PLACES. GEMARA. Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna. For it was taught: If the ‘Omer-offering was offered from the old produce it is valid, and so, too, if the Two Loaves were offered from the old produce they are valid, save that the precept has not been duly performed; the ‘Omer-offering-for it is written, Thou shalt bring for the meal-offering of thy first-fruits.23 that is, even from the store-room;24 and the Two Loaves-for it is written, Out of your dwellings,25 but not from [the produce grown] outside the Land; ‘Out of your dwellings’, even from the store-room. But has not a deduction already been drawn [from that expression]?26 The verse reads, Ye shall bring.27 even from the store-room. But is not this [latter expression] required to teach that every other offering that you make of a similar kind shall be like this!28 — If for this only the verse should have read, ‘Thou shalt bring’; why does it say, Ye shall bring? You can therefore draw two deductions therefrom. But is it not written, The first?29 — That is only a recommendation.30 But does it not say. New?31 — That is required for [the following Baraitha] which was taught: R. Nathan and R. Akiba32 said, If the Two Loaves were brought from the old produce they are none the less valid. How then am I to interpret the expression ‘new’? To signify that they shall be the first 33 of all meal offerings.34 Now they35 differ only concerning the new produce.36 set apart for the Passover-offering was lost and another was offered in its stead and later the original animal was found. is dealing with the peace-offering. subsequent passage of ‘a goat’, this passage must obviously be dealing with lambs. fat tail is expressly stated to be burnt, hence it was necessary to include the Passover-offering. the Passover-offering. These supplied the full meal for those members registered for the one Passover-offering, at the end of which the Passover-lamb was distributed, about an olive's bulk being given to each person. So Rashi MS. According to Rashi and Tos. the peace-offerings in the text are the surplus of the Passover-offering; v. Tosaf.s.v. ohnkau . not apply to a goat, unless expressly stated; and the fat tail is mentioned in connection with the former (v. 9) but not with the latter. Passover-offering must be offered as a peace-offering. Passover either by reason of uncleanness or absence on a journey; v. Num. IX, 10ff. (var: Machnis, Machmis) v. Ezra II, 27; for Zanoha (var: Zatha, Zinuha) v. Jos. XV, 34, 56; for Hafaraim (var. lec: ‘Afraim (cf. Ephrain in II Chron. XIII, 19). ‘Aforaim, Kufraim) v. Jos. XIX, 19. Palestine, how then can it be interpreted a second time to include the old produce? clearly implies the new produce. are offered of the old produce.