Menachot 89

אילים דהיכא אי דהנהו דאיל הוא אי דעצרת דתורת כהנים הויה כתיב בהו

And which rams are meant? Will you say those of the above occasions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As prescribed in the Book of Numbers; v. prec. note.');">¹</span>

לעולם דעצרת דתורת כהנים והכי קאמר לא אילים דתורת כהנים מעכבי ליה לאיל דחומש הפקודים ולא איל דחומש הפקודים מעכב להו לאילים דתורת כהנים

But only one ram is spoken of there!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas our Mishnah speaks of rams in the plural.');">²</span> Or will you say those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are offered with the two loaves; v. Lev. XXIII, 18: And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs . . and one young bullock and two rams; they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord.');">³</span>

אלא פרים דאפילו אהדדי לא מעכבי ואילים דהכא ודהכא הוא דלא מעכבי אינהו מעכבי

But the expression 'shall be' is used with regard to them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. prec. note. The expression 'shall be' invariably implies indispensability of every item and detail; thus conflicting with our MISHNAH:');">⁴</span> - In truth those of Pentecost which are ordained in the Book of Leviticus are meant, and [the Mishnah] teaches that neither the [absence of the] rams which are ordained in Leviticus will invalidate the ram ordained in Numbers nor will [the absence of] the ram ordained in Numbers invalidate the rams ordained in Leviticus.

תנא מילי מילי קתני

Then [the position is this, is it not], that in regard to the bullocks even [though they are ordained in one passage the absence of] one does not invalidate the other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if one bullock was lost the other may nevertheless be offered.');">⁵</span> whereas in regard to the rams the absence of what is ordained in one passage does not invalidate what is ordained in another passage, but of what is ordained in one passage the absence of one invalidates the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two rams offered with the two loaves on Pentecost, ordained in Lev. XXIII, 18, are indispensable to each other, and one cannot be offered without the other.');">⁶</span>

(יחזקאל מו, א) וביום החדש (תקח) פר בן בקר תמים וששה כבשים ואיל תמימים יהיו פר מה ת"ל

- The Tanna dealt with different conditions in each case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the position as described is quite correct, and the Tanna of our Mishnah was in no way concerned with the facts that the cases of the bullocks and of the rams were not on all fours.');">⁷</span> And in the day of the new moon it shall be a young bullock without blemish; and six lambs and a ram; they shall be without blemish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLVI, 6.');">⁸</span>

לפי שנאמר בתורה פרים ומנין שאם לא מצא שנים מביא אחד ת"ל פר

Why does the text say, 'A bullock'? It is because in the Torah it says, [Two] bullocks;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 11.');">⁹</span>

ששה כבשים מה ת"ל לפי שכתב בתורה שבעה ומנין שאם לא מצא שבעה יביא ששה ת"ל ששה

but whence do I know that if two are not to be found one must be brought? The text therefore says, 'A bullock'.

ומנין שאם לא מצא ששה יביא חמשה חמשה יביא ארבעה ארבעה יביא שלשה שלשה יביא שנים ואפילו אחד ת"ל ולכבשים כאשר תשיג ידו

Again why does the text say.' Six lambs'?

ומאחר דכתיב הכי ששה כבשים למה לי דכמה דאפשר להדורי מהדרינן

It is because in the Torah it says. Seven lambs;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 11.');">⁹</span>

ומנין (לאילים שבת"כ) שמעכבין זה את זה ת"ל יהיו

but whence do I know that if seven are not to be found six must be brought? The text therefore says, Six lambs.

(יחזקאל מה, יח) כה אמר ה' אלהים בראשון באחד לחודש תקח פר בן בקר תמים וחטאת את המקדש חטאת עולה היא א"ר יוחנן פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדורשה

And whence do I know that if six are not to be found five are to be brought, and if not five four, and if not four three, and if not three two, or even one? The text therefore says.

רב אשי אמר מילואים הקריבו בימי עזרא כדרך שהקריבו בימי משה

And lambs according as his means suffice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLVI, 7.');">¹⁰</span> But since this is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That less than the prescribed number of seven may be brought.');">¹¹</span>

תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדורשה אמר לו ר' יוסי מלואים הקריבו בימי עזרא כדרך שהקריבו בימי משה אמר לו תנוח דעתך שהנחת דעתי

why does the text say, 'six lambs'? To indicate that we must make every effort to obtain as many as possible.

(יחזקאל מד, לא) וכל נבלה וטרפה מן העוף ומן הבהמה לא יאכלו הכהנים כהנים הוא דלא יאכלו הא ישראל אכלי א"ר יוחנן פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדורשה

And whence do I know that [the absence of] one invalidates the others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if there were seven (or any lesser number of) lambs each one is indispensable and the absence of one of them would prevent the offering ihbnu of the others. So Rashi; but v. Tosaf. s.v. , and Sh. Mek. n. 3.');">¹²</span> Because the text says.

רבינא אמר כהנים איצטריך ליה ס"ד אמינא הואיל ואשתרי מליקה לגבייהו תשתרי נמי נבילה וטרפה קמ"ל

They shall be.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLVI, 6. This expression indicates indispensability ,tyju ,tyju');">¹³</span> Thus saith the Lord God, In the first month, in the first day of the month thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and thou shalt offer it as a sin-offering in the sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLV, 18. The word rendered in the versions 'and thou shalt purify' is understood as though it were read 'and a sin-offering'.');">¹⁴</span>

(יחזקאל מה, כ) וכן תעשה בשבעה בחודש מאיש שוגה ומפתי וכפרתם את הבית שבעה

A sin-offering'? But surely it is burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The special sacrifices of the New Moon were burnt-offerings, v. Num. XXVIII, 11.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר ר' יוחנן אלו שבעה שבטים שחטאו ואף על פי שאין רובה של קהל

- R'Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This means that it is beyond our power to reconcile this verse with the ordinance of the Torah and will be explained by Elijah the Prophet, the herald of the Messianic era, who is to make the truth known.');">¹⁶</span> R'Ashi said, [It refers to] the special consecration-offering [to be] offered in the time of Ezra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sh. Mek. n. 4.');">¹⁷</span>

חודש אם חדשו ואמרו חלב מותר מאיש שוגה ומפתי מלמד שאין חייבין אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה

just as it was offered in the time of Moses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For on the eighth day of the consecration of the Sanctuary in the time of Moses, which coincided with the New Moon of Nisan, sin-offerings, and not the usual burnt-offerings, were brought. The prophet Ezekiel foretells a similar consecration of the Temple on the New Moon in the future, when in place of the usual burnt-offerings sin-offerings will be offered.');">¹⁸</span> There has also been taught [a Baraitha] to the same effect: R'Judah says, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זכור אותו האיש לטוב וחנינא בן חזקיה שמו שאלמלא הוא נגנז ספר יחזקאל שהיו דבריו סותרין דברי תורה מה עשה העלה שלש מאות גרבי שמן וישב בעלייה ודרשו:

But R'Jose said to him, [It refers to] the consecration-offering [to be offered in the time of Ezra just as it was offered in the time of Moses. He replied, May your mind be at ease for you have set mine at ease.

א"ר שמעון אם היו להם פרים מרובין [וכו']:

The priests shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself [nebelah], or is torn [trefah], whether it be fow beast.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 31.');">¹⁹</span> Is it only the priests that may not eat such but the Israelites may?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not; for nebelah and trefah are expressly forbidden in the Torah to all Israelites, v. Deut. XIV, 21, and Ex. XXII, 30.');">²⁰</span>

ת"ר (יחזקאל מו, ז) ואיפה לפר ואיפה לאיל יעשה מנחה ולכבשים כאשר תשיג ידו ושמן הין לאיפה א"ר שמעון וכי מדת פרים ואילים אחת היא

- R'Johanan said, This passage will be interpreted by Elijah in the future. Rabina said, It was necessary [to repeat this prohibition] for the priests, for I might have thought that since they are permitted [to eat] a bird-offering of which the head had been nipped off at the neck,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bird-offerings were not slaughtered in the usual manner but their heads were nipped off at the neck, v. Lev. I, 15. After the application of the blood as prescribed, the priests were allowed to eat the flesh of the bird, although for profane purposes such nipping would render the bird nebelah.');">²¹</span>

אלא שאם היו להם פרים מרובין ולא היו נסכים יביאו פר אחד ונסכיו ואל יקרבו כולן בלא נסכים ואם היו להם

they are also permitted to eat nebelah and trefah; we are therefore told [that i is not so]. And so thou shalt do on the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple; so shall ye make atonement for the house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLV, 20. asjc vgcac vgca asj');">²²</span> 'Seven',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression , 'on the seventh day of the month' is interpreted separately, meaning seven, and the new moon.');">²³</span> says R'Johanan, refers to a sin committed by seven tribes, even though they do not constitute the majority of the community.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to the special sin-offering of a bullock brought on behalf of the community when the whole community or the greater part thereof or even the majority of the tribes had committed a sin by acting upon the erroneous ruling of the Beth din; v. Lev. IV, 13.');">²⁴</span> 'New [moon]', that is, they decided a new law saying, [e.g. ,] that fat is permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the fat is forbidden by the Torah on penalty of kareth; v. Lev. VII, 25.');">²⁵</span> 'For every one that erreth and for him that is simple' this teaches that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the community.');">²⁶</span> are liable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To bring the special sin-offering of a bullock.');">²⁷</span> only if the ruling [of the Beth din was made] in ignorance and the transgression [of the community] was committed in error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the people acted in accordance with the new ruling of the Beth din and actually ate forbidden fat.');">²⁸</span> Rab Judah said in the name of Rab, That man is to be remembered for good, and Hanina B'Hezekiah is his name; for were it not for him the Book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed, since its sayings contradicted the words of the Torah. What did he do? He took up with him three hundred barrels of oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To serve him for lighting.');">²⁹</span> and remained there in the upper chamber until he had explained away everything. R'SIMEON SAID, IF THEY HAD [MEANS ENOUGH FOR] THE MANY BULLOCKS etc. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And he shall prepare a meal-offering, an ephah for the bullock, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs according as his means suffice, and a bin of oil to an ephah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLVI, 7.');">³⁰</span> R'Simeon asked, Is the quantity [of flour for a meal-offering] the same for bullocks as for rams?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not, for the quantity of flour for the meal-offering which accompanied the offering of a bullock was three tenths of an ephah whereas that which accompanied a ram was two tenths. V. Num. XV, 6, 9.');">³¹</span> But it signifies that if they had [means enough for] the many bullocks but had not [means enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings. And if they had [means enough for]