Menachot 45
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in memory of Miriam’s beloved father Jack Zemsky z’l, יעקב יצחק בן משה נחום הלוי on his 22nd yahrzeit. “His life of Avodat Hashem was filled with “netina” and “todah” and many other concepts that appear in this masechet. He continues to impact his children & grandchildren. May his memory be a blessing- יהי זכרו ברוך as he was in his lifetime -זכור אותו האיש לטוב.
Menachot 45
אֵילִים דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דְּהָנְהוּ – דְּאַיִל הוּא, אִי דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
The Gemara asks: The mishna mentioned rams, in plural; on which festival are multiple rams offered? If the mishna is referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on those days of the new moon and Shavuot as prescribed in the book of Numbers, these offerings include only one ram and not two. And if it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, a term of being is written about them in the verse: “They shall be a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). This term indicates that the offerings must be sacrificed exactly as prescribed in order to be valid. Consequently, one may not sacrifice fewer than two rams.
לְעוֹלָם דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא אֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מְעַכְּבִי לֵיהּ לְאַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, וָלֹא אַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים מְעַכֵּב לְהוּ לְאֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that are prescribed in Leviticus, and this is what the mishna is saying: Failure to sacrifice the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, does not prevent the sacrifice of the ram of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers. Similarly, failure to sacrifice the ram of the additional offering, prescribed in the book of Numbers, does not prevent the sacrifice of the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus.
אֶלָּא, פָּרִים – דַּאֲפִילּוּ אַהֲדָדֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי, וְאֵילִים – דְּהָכָא וּדְהָכָא הוּא דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי, אִינְהוּ מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara challenges: But if that is the explanation, then when the mishna mentions bulls and sheep it means that even the bulls or sheep of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers do not prevent each other from being sacrificed, i.e., the inability to sacrifice one of the bulls or sheep does not prevent one from sacrificing the rest. But when the mishna mentions rams, it is the rams mentioned here in Leviticus that do not prevent sacrifice of the rams mentioned there, in Numbers, and vice versa; but the failure to sacrifice one of those rams in Leviticus does prevent sacrifice of the other. Consequently, although the mishna mentions bulls, rams, and sheep together, the halakha is not the same with regard to these different animals.
תַּנָּא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna teaches each statement individually, i.e., the halakha applies to each of the animals listed in a different manner.
״וּבְיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ (תִּקַּח) פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים וָאַיִל תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ״, ״פַּר״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?
§ The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the offerings sacrificed on the New Moon: The verse states: “And on the day of the new moon, a young bull without blemish; and six lambs, and a ram; they shall be without blemish” (Ezekiel 46:6) The baraita asks: Why does the verse state “a bull” when the verse in the Torah requires two bulls, as it is stated: “And on your New Moons you shall present a burnt offering to the Lord: Two young bulls, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish” (Numbers 28:11)?
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה ״פָּרִים״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פַּר״.
The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Two young bulls,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than two bulls under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find two bulls, he brings one? Therefore, the verse states: “A young bull,” in the singular, to teach that even if one has only one bull it should be sacrificed.
״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״שִׁבְעָה״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁבְעָה יָבִיא שִׁשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״.
The baraita discusses the continuation of the verse in Ezekiel, which mentions “six lambs.” Why does the verse state only six lambs when the verse in the Torah requires seven? The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Seven lambs,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than seven lambs under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find seven lambs, he should bring six? Therefore, the verse in Ezekiel states: “Six lambs,” to teach that in the absence of all seven lambs one should sacrifice six.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁשָּׁה, יָבִיא חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשָּׁה יָבִיא אַרְבָּעָה, אַרְבָּעָה יָבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״.
And from where is it derived that if he did not find six lambs, he should bring five; and that if he did not find five lambs, he should bring four; and that if he did not find four lambs, he should bring three; and that if he did not find three lambs, he should bring two; and that if he could not find even two lambs, he should bring even one lamb? Therefore, the next verse in Ezekiel states: “And for the lambs as his means suffice” (Ezekiel 46:7), indicating that one should bring however many lambs one is able to bring.
וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב הָכִי, ״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ לְמָה לִי? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַדּוֹרֵי, מְהַדְּרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: But once this is written, why do I need the previous verse to state “six lambs,” indicating that if one does not have seven lambs he should bring six? The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the minimal obligation is satisfied with even one lamb, nevertheless, to the degree that it is possible to seek more lambs, we seek them.
וּמִנַּיִן (לְאֵילִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים) שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיוּ״.
The Gemara presents another halakha derived from these verses: And from where is it derived that failure to slaughter some of the required two bulls and seven sheep of the additional offering on Shavuot prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “They shall be” (Numbers 28:31); the term “they shall be” indicates that the offerings must be brought precisely as prescribed.
״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחוֹדֶשׁ תִּקַּח פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְחִטֵּאתָ אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ״. ״חַטָּאת״ – עוֹלָה הִיא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “So says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish; and you shall purify [veḥitteita] the Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 45:18). The Gemara asks: Since this verse speaks of the first of Nisan, which is a New Moon, why does it state “you shall purify [ḥitteita],” which indicates the sacrifice of a sin offering [ḥatat], when in fact each of the two bulls sacrificed on the New Moon is a burnt offering (see Numbers 28:11)? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, and in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִילּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה.
Rav Ashi says: It is possible to explain that this verse is not referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on the New Moon but rather to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration of the Tabernacle in the days of Moses. When the Temple service was restored in the Second Temple, the Jewish people observed eight days of inauguration, initiating the priests in the Temple service, from the twenty-third of Adar through the New Moon of Nisan. During these eight days, they offered a bull for a sin offering in addition to the offerings of the inauguration, just as had been done at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 9:2).
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִלּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה. אָמַר לוֹ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ דַּעְתִּי.
The Gemara comments that this discussion with regard to the interpretation of the verse in Ezekiel is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: This verse is referring to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration in the days of Moses. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: May your mind be at ease, as you have put my mind at ease with this interpretation of the verse.
״וְכׇל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִן הָעוֹף וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְלוּ, הָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אָכְלִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “The priests shall not eat of anything that dies of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast” (Ezekiel 44:31). The Gemara asks: Is it only the priests who may not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass or an animal that was torn and now has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], but an ordinary Jew may eat them? In fact, these items are prohibited for consumption by all. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשְׁתְּרִי מְלִיקָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, תִּשְׁתְּרֵי נָמֵי נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Ravina said that it was necessary for the verse to emphasize that these prohibitions apply to priests for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say that since pinching is permitted with regard to priests, therefore an animal carcass or a tereifa should also be permitted for them. A bird sin offering is killed by a priest pinching the nape of its neck. This is not a valid method of slaughter and would generally render a bird or animal an unslaughtered carcass, yet the priests are permitted to partake of the bird sin offering. Consequently, one might think that the prohibitions against eating an animal carcass or a tereifa in general do not apply to priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us that these prohibitions apply to priests as well.
״וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי וְכִפַּרְתֶּם אֶת הַבָּיִת״, ״שִׁבְעָה״?
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “And so shall you do on the seventh of the month for every one that errs, and for him that is simple; so shall you make atonement for the house” (Ezekiel 45:20). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression “on the seventh of the month”? There are no special offerings that are sacrificed on the seventh day of any month.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל קָהָל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse must be reinterpreted as referring to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought when the majority of the Jewish people have sinned as a result of following a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin. These seven alluded to in the verse are seven tribes who sinned. In such a case, a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought even though the number of individuals who sinned are not the majority of the congregation. Because the majority of the individuals in the majority of the tribes have sinned, it is considered a sin of the congregation and not sins of many individuals.
״חֹדֶשׁ״ – אִם חִדְּשׁוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֵלֶב מוּתָּר, ״מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.
Similarly, the word “month [ḥodesh]” is to be interpreted as meaning that a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought if the court innovated [ḥiddeshu] a new halakha contradicting the Torah, e.g., if they said that eating forbidden fat is permitted. The continuation of the verse: “For every one that errs, and for him that is simple,” teaches that the Sanhedrin is liable to sacrifice the bull for unwitting communal sin only for a matter that was hidden from the Sanhedrin, i.e., about which the Sanhedrin issued a mistaken ruling, and accompanied by unwitting action by the majority of the community, who relied on the mistaken ruling.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, וַחֲנִינָא בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִגְנַז סֵפֶר יְחֶזְקֵאל, שֶׁהָיוּ דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מֶה עָשָׂה? הֶעֱלָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן, וְיָשַׁב בַּעֲלִיָּיה וּדְרָשׁוֹ.
The Gemara concludes the discussion of specific difficult verses in Ezekiel with the following general statement: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: That man is remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name. As were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed and not included in the biblical canon, because various details of its contents appear to contradict statements of the Torah. What did Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya do? He brought up to his upper story three hundred jugs [garbei] of oil for light so that he could study even at night, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed to contradict verses in the Torah.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵיפָה לַפָּר וְאֵיפָה לָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה מִנְחָה וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הִין לָאֵיפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִדַּת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אַחַת הִיא?
Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall prepare a meal offering, an ephah for the bull, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs as his means suffice, and a hin of oil to an ephah” (Ezekiel 46:7). Rabbi Shimon says: Is the measure of the meal offering accompanying bulls and rams the same, as stated in this verse that it is an ephah for each? In fact, this is not the halakha, as the meal offering accompanying a bull is three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour (see Numbers 15:9), whereas the meal offering accompanying a ram is only two-tenths of an ephah (see Numbers 15:6).
אֶלָּא, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיוּ נְסָכִים – יָבִיאוּ פַּר אֶחָד וּנְסָכָיו, וְאַל יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּן בְּלֹא נְסָכִים. וְאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם
Rather, the verse teaches that if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations. And similarly, if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for
אֵילִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן אֵיפָתָן – יָבִיאוּ אַיִל אֶחָד וְאֵיפָתוֹ, וְלֹא יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא אֵיפוֹת.
the numerous rams that are required to be sacrificed on that day and they did not also have sufficient funds for the ephah, i.e., the prescribed measure, of flour for all of the rams, they should bring one ram and its ephah of flour, and they should not sacrifice all of them without their ephahs of flour.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּר וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשָּׂעִיר – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכְּבָן.
MISHNA: On Shavuot there is an obligation to sacrifice burnt offerings, a sin offering, and peace offerings together with the offering of the two loaves. The burnt offerings consist of a bull, two rams, and seven sheep. A goat is brought for the sin offering. Two sheep are brought as peace offerings and waved together with the two loaves. Failure to sacrifice the bull, the rams, and the sheep, which are all brought as burnt offerings, and the goat that is brought as a sin offering, does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves, and they are sacrificed nevertheless. Failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying animal offerings.
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב הַכְּבָשִׂים, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה קָרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: No, rather the opposite is true. Failure to sacrifice the peace offering of two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves, but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep. As we found that when the Jewish people were in the wilderness for forty years after the exodus from Egypt, they sacrificed the two sheep as a peace offering on Shavuot without the two loaves, as the two loaves may be brought only from wheat grown in Eretz Yisrael after the Jewish people entered the land. Here too, whenever wheat is unavailable, they should sacrifice the two sheep without the two loaves. However, the two loaves are not sacrificed without the peace offering of two sheep.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס, אֲבָל אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו.
Rabbi Shimon says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas that failure to sacrifice the two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but the reason for that ruling is not in accordance with his statement.
שֶׁכׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְכׇל הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אֵין קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ קָרְבוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ.
As all the offerings that must be sacrificed on Shavuot that are stated in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), i.e., two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep as additional offerings and a goat as a sin offering, were sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. But all the offerings stated in Leviticus (see 23:18–20), i.e., the offerings accompanying the two loaves, were not sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. Not only were the two loaves not sacrificed, but the accompanying offerings, including the peace offering of the two sheep, were also not sacrificed, because it was only when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael that these additional offerings and those offerings accompanying the two loaves were sacrificed. Neither the additional offerings of Shavuot nor the two loaves, and the offerings that accompany them, were sacrificed in the wilderness, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.
מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכְּבָשִׁים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם בְּלֹא כְּבָשִׂים – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ.
Rather, for what reason do I nevertheless say that the sheep should be sacrificed without the loaves, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas? It is due to the fact that the sheep permit themselves, as the sprinkling of their blood and the burning of the portions consumed on the altar renders it permitted to partake of their meat. And why are the loaves not sacrificed without the sheep? It is because there is no item to permit the loaves, as the loaves are permitted only after the sheep are sacrificed.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם״ – חוֹבָה עַל הַלֶּחֶם, ״שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִים״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לֶחֶם.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches the halakhot of the sacrifices that generally accompany the two loaves on Shavuot in a case when the two loaves are not available. The Gemara cites a relevant baraita. The Sages taught: The verse that mandates these offerings states: “And you shall sacrifice with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bull, and two rams” (Leviticus 23:18). The phrase “and you shall sacrifice with the bread” indicates that it is obligatory to sacrifice these burnt offerings with the loaves of bread, and if the loaves are not available, then these offerings are not sacrificed. The continuation of the verse: “Seven lambs without blemish,” teaches that the lambs are sacrificed even if there are no loaves available.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל הַלֶּחֶם״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּכְּבָשִׂים קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
If so, that the animal offerings may be sacrificed even without loaves, what is the meaning when the verse states “with the bread”? It teaches that they were not obligated to sacrifice the sheep before they were obligated to sacrifice loaves, i.e., they became obligated to sacrifice all of these offerings only when they entered Eretz Yisrael. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים כָּאן הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים? אָמַרְתָּ, כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אֵינָן הֵן, אֶלָּא הַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וְהַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל לֶחֶם.
Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the sheep mentioned here in Leviticus, which accompany the two loaves, are the very same ones mentioned in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), in the passage prescribing the additional offerings. You must say when you reach the bulls and rams that are enumerated in the two passages that the offerings mentioned in one are not those mentioned in the other, as the number of bulls and rams are not equal. Whereas in Leviticus the verse requires the sacrifice of one bull and two rams, in Numbers the verse requires the sacrifice of two bulls and one ram. Rather, the two passages are referring to different offerings. These mentioned in Numbers come upon the altar for their own sake, and those mentioned in Leviticus come upon the altar for the sake of the two loaves.
נִמְצָא, מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים – קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וּמַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – לֹא קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר.
It is therefore found that the offerings that are mentioned in the book of Numbers were sacrificed even when the Jewish people were in the wilderness and could not bring the offering of the two loaves, but the offerings that are mentioned in Leviticus were not sacrificed in the wilderness, due to the fact that the two loaves could not be sacrificed in the wilderness.
וְדִלְמָא פָּרִים וְאֵילִים לָאו אִינְהוּ, הָא כְּבָשִׂים אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ? מִדְּהָנֵי אִישְׁתַּנּוֹ, הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the bulls and rams mentioned in Numbers are not those mentioned in Leviticus, but the sheep mentioned in Numbers are the same as those mentioned in Leviticus. The Gemara explains: From the fact that these bulls and rams are different, it is apparent that those sheep are also different offerings.
וּפָרִים וְאֵילִים, מִמַּאי דְּאִישְׁתַּנּוֹ? דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בָּעֵי פַּר וּשְׁנֵי אֵילִים לִיקְרַב, אִי בָּעֵי שְׁנֵי פָּרִים וְאַיִל אֶחָד לִיקְרַב! מִדְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי סִדְרָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But from where is it proven that the bulls and rams in Numbers are different offerings than the bulls and rams mentioned in Leviticus? Perhaps they are actually the same offerings, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: If you want, sacrifice a bull and two rams, as the verse states in Leviticus; and if you want, sacrifice two bulls and one ram, as the verse states in Numbers. The Gemara answers: From the fact that the order of the offerings is different in the two passages, as the verse in Leviticus mentions the sheep, then the bull, and then the rams, whereas the verse in Numbers mentions the bulls, then the ram, and then the sheep, one may conclude from it that they are different offerings.
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?
§ The mishna teaches: Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva?
גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
The Gemara answers: He derived the halakha based upon a verbal analogy between two verses. One verse states: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). The term “they shall be” indicates that it is essential that the offering be brought precisely as commanded, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the loaves or to the sheep brought as peace offerings. This is clarified by means of a verbal analogy from the verse: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be [tihyena] of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).
מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם.
The verbal analogy teaches that just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep, so too here it is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep. Consequently, failure to bring the loaves prevents sacrifice of the sheep, but failure to sacrifice the sheep does not prevent the bringing of the loaves.
וּבֶן נַנָּס, גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ ״יִהְיוּ״, מָה לְהַלָּן כְּבָשִׂים, אַף כָּאן כְּבָשִׂים.
The Gemara asks: And how did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents the bringing of the loaves but failure to bring the loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the sheep, derive his ruling? He derived the halakha through a verbal analogy between the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest,” and the verse that states, concerning the seven sheep brought as burnt offerings: “They shall be [yihyu] a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). Just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the sheep, so too here it is referring to sheep rather than loaves.
וּבֶן נַנָּס נָמֵי נֵילַף מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם? דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas also, we should derive the halakha based upon a verbal analogy from the word tihyena as Rabbi Akiva does, and conclude that just as there it is referring to the loaves, so too here it is referring to the loaves. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the identical form yihyu, and one should not derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the term tihyena.
מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זֶהוּ שִׁיבָה, זֶהוּ בִּיאָה.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not the words are identical? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha which applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week likewise applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Certainly, if the halakha can be derived via a verbal analogy with the words veshav and uva, the even slighter difference in form between yihyu and tihyena should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ – מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.
The Gemara answers: This matter applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it. But where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from the identical term rather than from tihyena.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי לֵילַף ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״? דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הָנֵי דְּעוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara challenges: And let Rabbi Akiva also derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy to the identical term yihyu, as Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas does. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha concerning an item that is given as a gift to the priest, such as the loaves or the sheep brought as peace offerings, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:20, from the halakha concerning an item that is also a gift to the priest, i.e., the two loaves, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:17. This is to the exclusion of these seven sheep that are mentioned in Leviticus 23:18, which are burnt offerings and wholly consumed by the altar, and are not a gift to the priest. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu in verse 20 from the term tihyena in verse 17, rather than from the term yihyu in verse 18.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּקְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה לֶחֶם.
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation for the basis of their divergent opinions: And if you wish, say instead that they disagree about the interpretation of the verse itself: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). Rabbi Akiva holds: Which item is entirely given to the priest? You must say that it is the loaves of bread. Therefore he concludes that the word yihyu is referring to the loaves of bread, and if they are not sacrificed, the two sheep cannot be sacrificed as peace offerings.
וּבֶן נַנָּס: מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַכֹּהֵן״?! ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לַה׳ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים.
The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the priest, in which case one should interpret it as Rabbi Akiva does? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood in the following manner: Which item is partially given to the Lord and partially given to the priest? You must say that it is the sheep, which are sacrificed as a peace offering, part of which is burned on the altar and part of which is consumed by the priests. Consequently, the word yihyu should be understood as referring to the sheep, and if they are not sacrificed, the two loaves cannot be sacrificed either.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ וְלַכֹּהֵן״? ״לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.
The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the Lord and for the priest? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood to mean that it is given to the Lord, and it is then given by Him entirely to the priests, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The Lord acquired it initially and then gave it to the priest.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים
§ With regard to the dispute in the mishna about whether failure to sacrifice the two sheep as peace offerings prevents the bringing of the two loaves or vice versa, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone concedes
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Menachot 45
אֵילִים דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דְּהָנְהוּ – דְּאַיִל הוּא, אִי דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
The Gemara asks: The mishna mentioned rams, in plural; on which festival are multiple rams offered? If the mishna is referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on those days of the new moon and Shavuot as prescribed in the book of Numbers, these offerings include only one ram and not two. And if it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, a term of being is written about them in the verse: “They shall be a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). This term indicates that the offerings must be sacrificed exactly as prescribed in order to be valid. Consequently, one may not sacrifice fewer than two rams.
לְעוֹלָם דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא אֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מְעַכְּבִי לֵיהּ לְאַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, וָלֹא אַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים מְעַכֵּב לְהוּ לְאֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that are prescribed in Leviticus, and this is what the mishna is saying: Failure to sacrifice the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, does not prevent the sacrifice of the ram of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers. Similarly, failure to sacrifice the ram of the additional offering, prescribed in the book of Numbers, does not prevent the sacrifice of the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus.
אֶלָּא, פָּרִים – דַּאֲפִילּוּ אַהֲדָדֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי, וְאֵילִים – דְּהָכָא וּדְהָכָא הוּא דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי, אִינְהוּ מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara challenges: But if that is the explanation, then when the mishna mentions bulls and sheep it means that even the bulls or sheep of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers do not prevent each other from being sacrificed, i.e., the inability to sacrifice one of the bulls or sheep does not prevent one from sacrificing the rest. But when the mishna mentions rams, it is the rams mentioned here in Leviticus that do not prevent sacrifice of the rams mentioned there, in Numbers, and vice versa; but the failure to sacrifice one of those rams in Leviticus does prevent sacrifice of the other. Consequently, although the mishna mentions bulls, rams, and sheep together, the halakha is not the same with regard to these different animals.
תַּנָּא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna teaches each statement individually, i.e., the halakha applies to each of the animals listed in a different manner.
״וּבְיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ (תִּקַּח) פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים וָאַיִל תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ״, ״פַּר״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?
§ The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the offerings sacrificed on the New Moon: The verse states: “And on the day of the new moon, a young bull without blemish; and six lambs, and a ram; they shall be without blemish” (Ezekiel 46:6) The baraita asks: Why does the verse state “a bull” when the verse in the Torah requires two bulls, as it is stated: “And on your New Moons you shall present a burnt offering to the Lord: Two young bulls, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish” (Numbers 28:11)?
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה ״פָּרִים״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פַּר״.
The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Two young bulls,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than two bulls under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find two bulls, he brings one? Therefore, the verse states: “A young bull,” in the singular, to teach that even if one has only one bull it should be sacrificed.
״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״שִׁבְעָה״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁבְעָה יָבִיא שִׁשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״.
The baraita discusses the continuation of the verse in Ezekiel, which mentions “six lambs.” Why does the verse state only six lambs when the verse in the Torah requires seven? The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Seven lambs,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than seven lambs under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find seven lambs, he should bring six? Therefore, the verse in Ezekiel states: “Six lambs,” to teach that in the absence of all seven lambs one should sacrifice six.
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁשָּׁה, יָבִיא חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשָּׁה יָבִיא אַרְבָּעָה, אַרְבָּעָה יָבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״.
And from where is it derived that if he did not find six lambs, he should bring five; and that if he did not find five lambs, he should bring four; and that if he did not find four lambs, he should bring three; and that if he did not find three lambs, he should bring two; and that if he could not find even two lambs, he should bring even one lamb? Therefore, the next verse in Ezekiel states: “And for the lambs as his means suffice” (Ezekiel 46:7), indicating that one should bring however many lambs one is able to bring.
וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב הָכִי, ״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ לְמָה לִי? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַדּוֹרֵי, מְהַדְּרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: But once this is written, why do I need the previous verse to state “six lambs,” indicating that if one does not have seven lambs he should bring six? The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the minimal obligation is satisfied with even one lamb, nevertheless, to the degree that it is possible to seek more lambs, we seek them.
וּמִנַּיִן (לְאֵילִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים) שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיוּ״.
The Gemara presents another halakha derived from these verses: And from where is it derived that failure to slaughter some of the required two bulls and seven sheep of the additional offering on Shavuot prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “They shall be” (Numbers 28:31); the term “they shall be” indicates that the offerings must be brought precisely as prescribed.
״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחוֹדֶשׁ תִּקַּח פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְחִטֵּאתָ אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ״. ״חַטָּאת״ – עוֹלָה הִיא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “So says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish; and you shall purify [veḥitteita] the Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 45:18). The Gemara asks: Since this verse speaks of the first of Nisan, which is a New Moon, why does it state “you shall purify [ḥitteita],” which indicates the sacrifice of a sin offering [ḥatat], when in fact each of the two bulls sacrificed on the New Moon is a burnt offering (see Numbers 28:11)? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, and in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִילּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה.
Rav Ashi says: It is possible to explain that this verse is not referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on the New Moon but rather to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration of the Tabernacle in the days of Moses. When the Temple service was restored in the Second Temple, the Jewish people observed eight days of inauguration, initiating the priests in the Temple service, from the twenty-third of Adar through the New Moon of Nisan. During these eight days, they offered a bull for a sin offering in addition to the offerings of the inauguration, just as had been done at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 9:2).
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִלּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה. אָמַר לוֹ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ דַּעְתִּי.
The Gemara comments that this discussion with regard to the interpretation of the verse in Ezekiel is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: This verse is referring to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration in the days of Moses. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: May your mind be at ease, as you have put my mind at ease with this interpretation of the verse.
״וְכׇל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִן הָעוֹף וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְלוּ, הָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אָכְלִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “The priests shall not eat of anything that dies of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast” (Ezekiel 44:31). The Gemara asks: Is it only the priests who may not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass or an animal that was torn and now has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], but an ordinary Jew may eat them? In fact, these items are prohibited for consumption by all. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.
רָבִינָא אָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשְׁתְּרִי מְלִיקָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, תִּשְׁתְּרֵי נָמֵי נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Ravina said that it was necessary for the verse to emphasize that these prohibitions apply to priests for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say that since pinching is permitted with regard to priests, therefore an animal carcass or a tereifa should also be permitted for them. A bird sin offering is killed by a priest pinching the nape of its neck. This is not a valid method of slaughter and would generally render a bird or animal an unslaughtered carcass, yet the priests are permitted to partake of the bird sin offering. Consequently, one might think that the prohibitions against eating an animal carcass or a tereifa in general do not apply to priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us that these prohibitions apply to priests as well.
״וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי וְכִפַּרְתֶּם אֶת הַבָּיִת״, ״שִׁבְעָה״?
§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “And so shall you do on the seventh of the month for every one that errs, and for him that is simple; so shall you make atonement for the house” (Ezekiel 45:20). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression “on the seventh of the month”? There are no special offerings that are sacrificed on the seventh day of any month.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל קָהָל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse must be reinterpreted as referring to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought when the majority of the Jewish people have sinned as a result of following a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin. These seven alluded to in the verse are seven tribes who sinned. In such a case, a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought even though the number of individuals who sinned are not the majority of the congregation. Because the majority of the individuals in the majority of the tribes have sinned, it is considered a sin of the congregation and not sins of many individuals.
״חֹדֶשׁ״ – אִם חִדְּשׁוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֵלֶב מוּתָּר, ״מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.
Similarly, the word “month [ḥodesh]” is to be interpreted as meaning that a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought if the court innovated [ḥiddeshu] a new halakha contradicting the Torah, e.g., if they said that eating forbidden fat is permitted. The continuation of the verse: “For every one that errs, and for him that is simple,” teaches that the Sanhedrin is liable to sacrifice the bull for unwitting communal sin only for a matter that was hidden from the Sanhedrin, i.e., about which the Sanhedrin issued a mistaken ruling, and accompanied by unwitting action by the majority of the community, who relied on the mistaken ruling.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, וַחֲנִינָא בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִגְנַז סֵפֶר יְחֶזְקֵאל, שֶׁהָיוּ דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מֶה עָשָׂה? הֶעֱלָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן, וְיָשַׁב בַּעֲלִיָּיה וּדְרָשׁוֹ.
The Gemara concludes the discussion of specific difficult verses in Ezekiel with the following general statement: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: That man is remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name. As were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed and not included in the biblical canon, because various details of its contents appear to contradict statements of the Torah. What did Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya do? He brought up to his upper story three hundred jugs [garbei] of oil for light so that he could study even at night, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed to contradict verses in the Torah.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵיפָה לַפָּר וְאֵיפָה לָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה מִנְחָה וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הִין לָאֵיפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִדַּת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אַחַת הִיא?
Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall prepare a meal offering, an ephah for the bull, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs as his means suffice, and a hin of oil to an ephah” (Ezekiel 46:7). Rabbi Shimon says: Is the measure of the meal offering accompanying bulls and rams the same, as stated in this verse that it is an ephah for each? In fact, this is not the halakha, as the meal offering accompanying a bull is three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour (see Numbers 15:9), whereas the meal offering accompanying a ram is only two-tenths of an ephah (see Numbers 15:6).
אֶלָּא, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיוּ נְסָכִים – יָבִיאוּ פַּר אֶחָד וּנְסָכָיו, וְאַל יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּן בְּלֹא נְסָכִים. וְאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם
Rather, the verse teaches that if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations. And similarly, if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for
אֵילִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן אֵיפָתָן – יָבִיאוּ אַיִל אֶחָד וְאֵיפָתוֹ, וְלֹא יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא אֵיפוֹת.
the numerous rams that are required to be sacrificed on that day and they did not also have sufficient funds for the ephah, i.e., the prescribed measure, of flour for all of the rams, they should bring one ram and its ephah of flour, and they should not sacrifice all of them without their ephahs of flour.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּר וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשָּׂעִיר – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכְּבָן.
MISHNA: On Shavuot there is an obligation to sacrifice burnt offerings, a sin offering, and peace offerings together with the offering of the two loaves. The burnt offerings consist of a bull, two rams, and seven sheep. A goat is brought for the sin offering. Two sheep are brought as peace offerings and waved together with the two loaves. Failure to sacrifice the bull, the rams, and the sheep, which are all brought as burnt offerings, and the goat that is brought as a sin offering, does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves, and they are sacrificed nevertheless. Failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying animal offerings.
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב הַכְּבָשִׂים, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה קָרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: No, rather the opposite is true. Failure to sacrifice the peace offering of two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves, but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep. As we found that when the Jewish people were in the wilderness for forty years after the exodus from Egypt, they sacrificed the two sheep as a peace offering on Shavuot without the two loaves, as the two loaves may be brought only from wheat grown in Eretz Yisrael after the Jewish people entered the land. Here too, whenever wheat is unavailable, they should sacrifice the two sheep without the two loaves. However, the two loaves are not sacrificed without the peace offering of two sheep.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס, אֲבָל אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו.
Rabbi Shimon says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas that failure to sacrifice the two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but the reason for that ruling is not in accordance with his statement.
שֶׁכׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְכׇל הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אֵין קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ קָרְבוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ.
As all the offerings that must be sacrificed on Shavuot that are stated in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), i.e., two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep as additional offerings and a goat as a sin offering, were sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. But all the offerings stated in Leviticus (see 23:18–20), i.e., the offerings accompanying the two loaves, were not sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. Not only were the two loaves not sacrificed, but the accompanying offerings, including the peace offering of the two sheep, were also not sacrificed, because it was only when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael that these additional offerings and those offerings accompanying the two loaves were sacrificed. Neither the additional offerings of Shavuot nor the two loaves, and the offerings that accompany them, were sacrificed in the wilderness, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.
מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכְּבָשִׁים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם בְּלֹא כְּבָשִׂים – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ.
Rather, for what reason do I nevertheless say that the sheep should be sacrificed without the loaves, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas? It is due to the fact that the sheep permit themselves, as the sprinkling of their blood and the burning of the portions consumed on the altar renders it permitted to partake of their meat. And why are the loaves not sacrificed without the sheep? It is because there is no item to permit the loaves, as the loaves are permitted only after the sheep are sacrificed.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם״ – חוֹבָה עַל הַלֶּחֶם, ״שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִים״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לֶחֶם.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches the halakhot of the sacrifices that generally accompany the two loaves on Shavuot in a case when the two loaves are not available. The Gemara cites a relevant baraita. The Sages taught: The verse that mandates these offerings states: “And you shall sacrifice with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bull, and two rams” (Leviticus 23:18). The phrase “and you shall sacrifice with the bread” indicates that it is obligatory to sacrifice these burnt offerings with the loaves of bread, and if the loaves are not available, then these offerings are not sacrificed. The continuation of the verse: “Seven lambs without blemish,” teaches that the lambs are sacrificed even if there are no loaves available.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל הַלֶּחֶם״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּכְּבָשִׂים קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
If so, that the animal offerings may be sacrificed even without loaves, what is the meaning when the verse states “with the bread”? It teaches that they were not obligated to sacrifice the sheep before they were obligated to sacrifice loaves, i.e., they became obligated to sacrifice all of these offerings only when they entered Eretz Yisrael. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים כָּאן הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים? אָמַרְתָּ, כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אֵינָן הֵן, אֶלָּא הַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן, וְהַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל לֶחֶם.
Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the sheep mentioned here in Leviticus, which accompany the two loaves, are the very same ones mentioned in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), in the passage prescribing the additional offerings. You must say when you reach the bulls and rams that are enumerated in the two passages that the offerings mentioned in one are not those mentioned in the other, as the number of bulls and rams are not equal. Whereas in Leviticus the verse requires the sacrifice of one bull and two rams, in Numbers the verse requires the sacrifice of two bulls and one ram. Rather, the two passages are referring to different offerings. These mentioned in Numbers come upon the altar for their own sake, and those mentioned in Leviticus come upon the altar for the sake of the two loaves.
נִמְצָא, מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים – קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וּמַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – לֹא קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר.
It is therefore found that the offerings that are mentioned in the book of Numbers were sacrificed even when the Jewish people were in the wilderness and could not bring the offering of the two loaves, but the offerings that are mentioned in Leviticus were not sacrificed in the wilderness, due to the fact that the two loaves could not be sacrificed in the wilderness.
וְדִלְמָא פָּרִים וְאֵילִים לָאו אִינְהוּ, הָא כְּבָשִׂים אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ? מִדְּהָנֵי אִישְׁתַּנּוֹ, הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the bulls and rams mentioned in Numbers are not those mentioned in Leviticus, but the sheep mentioned in Numbers are the same as those mentioned in Leviticus. The Gemara explains: From the fact that these bulls and rams are different, it is apparent that those sheep are also different offerings.
וּפָרִים וְאֵילִים, מִמַּאי דְּאִישְׁתַּנּוֹ? דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בָּעֵי פַּר וּשְׁנֵי אֵילִים לִיקְרַב, אִי בָּעֵי שְׁנֵי פָּרִים וְאַיִל אֶחָד לִיקְרַב! מִדְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי סִדְרָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But from where is it proven that the bulls and rams in Numbers are different offerings than the bulls and rams mentioned in Leviticus? Perhaps they are actually the same offerings, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: If you want, sacrifice a bull and two rams, as the verse states in Leviticus; and if you want, sacrifice two bulls and one ram, as the verse states in Numbers. The Gemara answers: From the fact that the order of the offerings is different in the two passages, as the verse in Leviticus mentions the sheep, then the bull, and then the rams, whereas the verse in Numbers mentions the bulls, then the ram, and then the sheep, one may conclude from it that they are different offerings.
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?
§ The mishna teaches: Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva?
גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
The Gemara answers: He derived the halakha based upon a verbal analogy between two verses. One verse states: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). The term “they shall be” indicates that it is essential that the offering be brought precisely as commanded, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the loaves or to the sheep brought as peace offerings. This is clarified by means of a verbal analogy from the verse: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be [tihyena] of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).
מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם.
The verbal analogy teaches that just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep, so too here it is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep. Consequently, failure to bring the loaves prevents sacrifice of the sheep, but failure to sacrifice the sheep does not prevent the bringing of the loaves.
וּבֶן נַנָּס, גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ ״יִהְיוּ״, מָה לְהַלָּן כְּבָשִׂים, אַף כָּאן כְּבָשִׂים.
The Gemara asks: And how did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents the bringing of the loaves but failure to bring the loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the sheep, derive his ruling? He derived the halakha through a verbal analogy between the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest,” and the verse that states, concerning the seven sheep brought as burnt offerings: “They shall be [yihyu] a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). Just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the sheep, so too here it is referring to sheep rather than loaves.
וּבֶן נַנָּס נָמֵי נֵילַף מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם? דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas also, we should derive the halakha based upon a verbal analogy from the word tihyena as Rabbi Akiva does, and conclude that just as there it is referring to the loaves, so too here it is referring to the loaves. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the identical form yihyu, and one should not derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the term tihyena.
מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זֶהוּ שִׁיבָה, זֶהוּ בִּיאָה.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not the words are identical? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha which applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week likewise applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Certainly, if the halakha can be derived via a verbal analogy with the words veshav and uva, the even slighter difference in form between yihyu and tihyena should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ – מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.
The Gemara answers: This matter applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it. But where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from the identical term rather than from tihyena.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי לֵילַף ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״? דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הָנֵי דְּעוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara challenges: And let Rabbi Akiva also derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy to the identical term yihyu, as Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas does. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha concerning an item that is given as a gift to the priest, such as the loaves or the sheep brought as peace offerings, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:20, from the halakha concerning an item that is also a gift to the priest, i.e., the two loaves, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:17. This is to the exclusion of these seven sheep that are mentioned in Leviticus 23:18, which are burnt offerings and wholly consumed by the altar, and are not a gift to the priest. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu in verse 20 from the term tihyena in verse 17, rather than from the term yihyu in verse 18.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּקְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה לֶחֶם.
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation for the basis of their divergent opinions: And if you wish, say instead that they disagree about the interpretation of the verse itself: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). Rabbi Akiva holds: Which item is entirely given to the priest? You must say that it is the loaves of bread. Therefore he concludes that the word yihyu is referring to the loaves of bread, and if they are not sacrificed, the two sheep cannot be sacrificed as peace offerings.
וּבֶן נַנָּס: מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַכֹּהֵן״?! ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לַה׳ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים.
The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the priest, in which case one should interpret it as Rabbi Akiva does? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood in the following manner: Which item is partially given to the Lord and partially given to the priest? You must say that it is the sheep, which are sacrificed as a peace offering, part of which is burned on the altar and part of which is consumed by the priests. Consequently, the word yihyu should be understood as referring to the sheep, and if they are not sacrificed, the two loaves cannot be sacrificed either.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ וְלַכֹּהֵן״? ״לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.
The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the Lord and for the priest? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood to mean that it is given to the Lord, and it is then given by Him entirely to the priests, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The Lord acquired it initially and then gave it to the priest.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים
§ With regard to the dispute in the mishna about whether failure to sacrifice the two sheep as peace offerings prevents the bringing of the two loaves or vice versa, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone concedes
