Menachot 164

תאמר בפסח דורות שטעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of the blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar?<a rel="footnote" href="#1">¹</a> The other replied. Behold it is written, And thou shalt keep this service in this month,<a rel="footnote" href="#2">²</a>

אמר לו הרי הוא אומר (שמות יג, ה) ועבדת את העבודה הזאת בחדש הזה שיהיו כל עבודות של חודש הזה כזה

[signifying] that all the services of this month should be like this.<a rel="footnote" href="#3">³</a> [Now let us consider the view of] R'Akiba. If he holds that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, then let him stand by that argument [in refutation];<a rel="footnote" href="#4">⁴</a>

ור' עקיבא אי סבר לה דאין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ליקו במילתיה

and if he retracted it, and the only reason why he did not derive the law from the Passover-offering in Egypt was that refutation [which he raised], but surely [that can be countered by] the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves [the reverse]!<a rel="footnote" href="#5">⁵</a> - He [R'Akiba] was arguing with R'Eliezer from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible; but even from your point of view, that one may infer the possible from the impossible, there is surely this refutation: This was so of the Passover-offering in Egypt since it did not require the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial parts upon the altar; will you say the same of the Passover-offering of later generations which requires the sprinkling of blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar?

אי הדר ביה והאי דלא גמר מפסח מצרים משום האי פירכא הוא פסח מדבר יוכיח

To this, however, R'Eliezer replied. It is written 'And thou shalt keep'. But should not R'Eliezer have replied that the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness proves the reverse?<a rel="footnote" href="#6">⁶</a>

לדבריו דר' אליעזר קאמר לדידי אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר לדידך דאמרת דנין אפשר משאי אפשר מה לפסח מצרים שכן אינו טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח תאמר בפסח דורות שטעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח

- He [R'Eliezer] was arguing with R'Akiba from his own standpoint. As for me, I hold that it is quite proper to infer the possible from the impossible; and as for that refutation of yours, it can be countered by the Passover-offering brought in the wilderness which proves the reverse; but even from your point of view, that it is not proper to infer the possible from the impossible, [I reply that there is written.] 'And tho shalt keep'. But even now let him raise this objection!<a rel="footnote" href="#7">⁷</a>

ואמר ליה רבי אליעזר ועבדת

- R'Shesheth answered, This proves that no objections can be entertained against a hekkesh.<a rel="footnote" href="#8">⁸</a> In the School garden<a rel="footnote" href="#9">⁹</a> it was asked, May that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh become the basis for another inference to be made from it again by a hekkesh?<a rel="footnote" href="#10">¹⁰</a>

ורבי אליעזר לימא ליה פסח מדבר יוכיח

- It is derived from the class, for all the Passover-offerings from one class.<a rel="footnote" href="#11">¹¹</a> And whence does R'Akiba derive the law that the Passover- offering may be brought only from what is unconsecrated? - He derives it from the following teaching of Samuel in the name of R'Eliezer:<a rel="footnote" href="#12">¹²</a> It is written, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.<a rel="footnote" href="#13">¹³</a>

לדבריו דרבי עקיבא קאמר ליה לדידי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ומשום האי פירכא פסח מדבר יוכיח לדידך דאמרת אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ועבדת

'Burnt-offering': as the burnt-offering requires a vessel, so all the other offerings require a vessel. ¹⁴ But with regard to the peace-offerings of the congregation it is also written, And put it in basins!<a rel="footnote" href="#15">¹⁵</a>

והשתא נמי ליפרוך אמר רב ששת זאת אומרת אין משיבין על ההיקש

- Rather it means a knife.<a rel="footnote" href="#16">¹⁶</a> And how do we know this of the burnt-offering itself? Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.<a rel="footnote" href="#17">¹⁷</a>

ובתרביצא אמור וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש בכללא איתמר פסח כוליה חדא מילתא היא

And there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son"&gt;.<a rel="footnote" href="#18">¹⁸</a> 'Meal- offering': as the meal-offering may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood, so all the other offerings may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood. Like peace-offerings; and as peace-offerings may be brought from Second Tithe, so it should also be with the Passover-offering.

ורבי עקיבא פסח דאינו בא אלא מן החולין מנא ליה נפקא ליה מהא דאמר שמואל משום ר' אליעזר (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה ולחטאת ולאשם ולמילואים ולזבח השלמים

Ex. XIII, 5. I.e., the Passover-offering of future generations offered in this month shall be like this one in that it be brought only from what is unconsecrated. Why then did he put forward another argument in refutation?

עולה מה עולה טעונה כלי אף כל טעון כלי מאי היא אילימא מזרק גבי זבחי שלמי ציבור נמי כתיב (שמות כד, ו) וישם באגנות

For it required the sprinkling of blood and offering of the sacrificial portions upon the altar - for an altar had already been set up - nevertheless it was brought only from what was unconsecrated since as yet the law of Second Tithe had not come into force. Why did he find it necessary to adduce this verse 'And thou shalt keep'? Even against the inference drawn from the verse 'And thou shalt keep' R. Akiba can put forward the objection that it is not right to infer the possible from the impossible.

אלא סכין ועולה גופה מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כב, י) וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט את בנו והתם עולה הוא דכתיב (בראשית כב, יג) ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו

V. Glos. The inference drawn from this verse is by hekkesh or analogy. The garden where scholars of the academy used to congregate for general discussions, v. Kaplan, The Redaction of the Talmud, pp. 240ff. V. tmhcr,cu htmhcr, ihpxunu rugvu however Tosaf. s.v. Cf. the expression ' in Rashi Yoma 62b, s.v. , and Zeb. 104a, s.v. . For it is desired in our Mishnah to conclude by a hekkesh from the Passoverofferings of later generations that all obligatory offerings shall be brought only from what is unconsecrated; but this law with regard to Passover-offerings of later generations is itself inferred by a hekkesh from the Passover-offering in Egypt, and it is an established rule that in matters appertaining to sacrifice one may not draw an inference by a hekkesh from that which has itself been inferred by a hekkesh. V. Zeb. 49b.

מנחה מה מנחה אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף כל אין נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה מאי אי חטאת ואשם

The Tanna of our Mishnah derives the law that the thank-offering must be brought only from what is unconsecrated by hekkesh from Passover-offerings in general, which include also the Passover-offering in Egypt. Zeb. 97b. Lev. VII, 37. For receiving the blood therein. This is expressly stated in connection with the burnt-offering, as it is written (Ex. XXIV, 5,6) : And he sent the young men of the children of Israel who offered burnt-offerings . . And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins. Ibid. 6. And in verse 5 it is written, And sacrificed peace-offerings. I.e., the instrument used for the slaughtering shall be something detached from the ground and not a flint or a reed that is attached to the ground (Rashi Zeb. 98a) . Aliter: one must use a knife for the slaughtering and not kill the beast by tearing its organs with the hands as is the case with a bird-offering whose head is nipped by the priest with his finger. Gen. XXII, 10. The expression 'and took' implies something movable and not fixed. Ibid. 13.