Menachot 90

אילים מרובין ולא היה להן איפתן יביאו איל אחד ואיפתו ולא יקרבו כולם בלא איפות:

the many rams but had not [means enough for] the meal-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'their ephahs'.');">¹</span> they should bring one ram and its meal-offering and should not offer them all without meal-offerings.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הפר והאילים והכבשים והשעיר אין מעכבין את הלחם ולא הלחם מעכבן

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BULLOCK,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animals here enumerated are the special offerings prescribed for Pentecost, cf. Lev. XXIII, 17-19; the bullock, the two rams and the seven lambs for burnt-offerings, and the he-goat for a sin-offering.');">²</span> OR THE RAMS, OR THE LAMBS OR THE HE-GOAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two loaves; cf. ibid. 17.');">³</span>

הלחם מעכב את הכבשים ואין הכבשים מעכבין את הלחם דברי ר"ע

NEITHER DOES THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATE THEM. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the two lambs for peace-offerings; ibid. 19.');">⁴</span>

אמר ר"ש בן ננס לא כי אלא הכבשים מעכבין את הלחם והלחם אינו מעכב הכבשים שכן מצינו כשהיו ישראל במדבר מ' שנה קרבו כבשים בלא לחם אף כאן יקרבו כבשים בלא לחם

BUT THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE BREAD-OFFERING. SO R'AKIBA.

אמר ר"ש הלכה כדברי בן ננס אבל אין הטעם כדבריו

R'SIMEON B. NANOS SAID, IT IS NOT SO, BUT RATHER THE [ABSENCE OF THE] LAMBS INVALIDATES THE BREAD-OFFERING, WHILST THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE LAMBS; FOR SO WE FIND IT WAS THE CASE THAT WHEN THE ISRAELITES WERE IN THE WILDERNESS FOR FORTY YEARS THEY OFFERED THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only flour from the Land of Israel was to be used for the Bread-offering and the 'Omer-offering; v. infra 83b.');">⁵</span> THEREFORE NOW TOO THEY MAY OFFER THE LAMBS WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING.

שכל האמור בחומש הפקודים קרב במדבר וכל האמור בתורת כהנים אין קרב במדבר משבאו לארץ קרבו אלו ואלו

R'SIMEON SAID, THE HALACHAH IS ACCORDING TO THE WORDS OF BEN NANOS BUT THE REASON IS NOT AS HE STATED IT; FOR EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS, BUT NOT EVERY OFFERING STATED IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS WAS OFFERED IN THE WILDERNESS; HOWEVER, WHEN THEY CAME INTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL THEY OFFERED BOTH KINDS. WHY THEN DO I SAY THAT THE LAMBS MAY BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE BREAD-OFFERING?

מפני מה אני אומר יקרבו כבשים בלא לחם מפני שהכבשים מתירין את עצמן ולא הלחם בלא כבשים שאין לו מי יתירנו:

BECAUSE THE LAMBS RENDER THEMSELVES PERMISSIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sprinkling of the blood of the lambs renders the sacrificial portions permissible for sacrifice and the rest of the flesh permissible to be eaten; thus the validity of the lambs is in no wise dependent on the bread-offering.');">⁶</span> AND [WHY DO I SAY THAT] THE BREAD-OFFERING MAY NOT BE OFFERED WITHOUT THE LAMBS?

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן (ויקרא כג, יח) והקרבתם על הלחם חובה על הלחם שבעת כבשים תמימים אע"פ שאין לחם

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT RENDERS IT PERMISSIBLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is the slaughtering of the lambs that renders the bread-offering permissible to be eaten, so that in the absence of the lambs there is naught to render the bread-offering permissible.');">⁷</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: And ye shall present with the bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 18.');">⁸</span>

א"כ מה ת"ל על הלחם מלמד שלא נתחייבו בכבשים קודם שנתחייבו בלחם דברי ר' טרפון

that is, as an obligation with the bread-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one may not be offered without the other.');">⁹</span> seven lambs without blemish,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁰</span>

ר"ע אומר יכול הן הן כבשים האמורים כאן הן הן כבשים האמורים בחומש הפקודים אמרת כשאתה מגיע אצל פרים ואילים אינן הן אלא הללו באין בגלל עצמן והללו באין בגלל לחם

that is, even though there is no bread-offering. Then why does the verse say, 'With the bread'?

נמצא מה שאמור בחומש הפקודים קרב במדבר ומה שאמור בתורת כהנים לא קרב במדבר

To teach that there was no obligation to bring the lambs before there was the obligation to bring the bread-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this obligation only commenced when they entered the Land of Israel.');">¹¹</span> This is the view of R'Tarfon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. are added the words: 'R. Akiba says'. They are not found in the parallel passage in the Sifra and in all extant MSS., and are struck out by Sh. Mek. V. Glosses of Strashun a.l.');">¹²</span>

ודלמא פרים ואילים לאו אינהו הא כבשים אינהו נינהו מדהני אישתנו הני נמי דאחריני

You might think that the lambs stated here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Lev. ibid. where the verse reads: And ye shall present seven lambs . . and one young bullock and two rams.');">¹³</span> are the identical ones which are stated in the Book of Numbers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 27: Two young bullocks, one ram, and seven lambs.');">¹⁴</span>

ופרים ואילים ממאי דאישתנו דלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא אי בעי פר ושני אילים ליקרב אי בעי שני פרים ואיל אחד ליקרב מדאישתני סדרן ש"מ אחריני נינהו:

but you must say that this is not the case, for when you come to the bullocks and the rams it is evident that they are not the identical ones;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the number of each kind is different in each passage.');">¹⁵</span> but these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those animals stated in Numbers are offered as additional sacrifices and are not related to the bread-offering.');">¹⁶</span>

הלחם מעכב את הכבשים: מ"ט דר"ע

are brought on their own account, whilst those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in Leviticus.');">¹⁷</span> are brought on account of the bread-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the bread-offering was not offered in the wilderness the sacrifices stated in connection with it were similarly not offered in the wilderness.');">¹⁸</span>

גמר יהיו מתהיינה

It will thus be seen that those offerings stated in the Book of Numbers were offered in the wilderness but those stated in the Book of Leviticus were not offered in the wilderness. Perhaps the bullocks and the rams [of the two Books] are not the identical ones, but the lambs are the identical ones?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the number of lambs is seven in each passage.');">¹⁹</span>

מה להלן לחם אף כאן לחם

- Since those [the former] are certainly different ones,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the number of animals of each kind is different in the two texts.');">²⁰</span> these [the latter] too are not the identical ones.

ובן ננס גמר יהיו [יהיו] מה להלן כבשים אף כאן כבשים

And why must one say that the bullocks and the rams are different ones? perhaps the Divine Law meant to say, If it is so desired one bullock and two rams are to be offered or, if preferred, two bullocks and one ram? - Since the order is different<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. the verses of Lev. and Num. supra p. 274, nn. 8 and 9. The fact that in Lev. the seven lambs are stated in the verse before the bullock and the rams and in Num. after them signifies that they are not the identical ones.');">²¹</span>

ובן ננס נמי נילף מתהיינה מה להלן לחם אף כאן לחם דנין יהיו מיהיו ואין דנין יהיו מתהיינה

they must be other sacrifices. THE [ABSENCE OF THE] BREAD-OFFERING INVALIDATES THE LAMBS.

מאי נפקא מינה התנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זהו שיבה זהו ביאה

What is the reason for R'Akiba's view? - He infers the expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 20: And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they uhvh shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. Now the expression 'they shall be' implies that the offering cannot be dispensed with, but the doubt is as to which offering is meant, whether the bread-offering or the two lambs. vbhhv, ,kx');">²²</span> from the other expression 'they shall be' [tiheyenah]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17: , they shall be of fine flour; this clearly refers to the bread-offering. uhvh');">²³</span>

ה"מ היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן

as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering, so in the former it refers to the bread-offering. Ben Nanos, however, infers the expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 20: And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they uhvh shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. Now the expression 'they shall be' implies that the offering cannot be dispensed with, but the doubt is as to which offering is meant, whether the bread-offering or the two lambs. vbhhv, ,kx');">²²</span>

ור"ע נמי לילף יהיו מיהיו דנין דבר שמתנה לכהן מדבר שמתנה לכהן לאפוקי הני דעולות נינהו

from the other expression 'they shall be' [yiheyu]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 18: . This expression clearly refers to the seven lambs and the other burnt-offerings.');">²⁴</span> as in the latter case it refers to the lambs, so in the former it refers lambs.

ואיבעית אימא בקרא גופיה קא מיפלגי (ויקרא כג, כ) קדש יהיו לה' לכהן ר"ע סבר אי זהו דבר שכולו לכהן הוי אומר זה לחם

And why does not Ben Nanos infer [yiheyu] from tiheyenah, [and say:] as in the latter case it refers to the bread-offering so in the former it refers to the bread-offering? - One may infer yiheyu from yiheyu<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being identical expressions.');">²⁵</span> but one may not infer yiheyu from tiheyenah.

ובן ננס מי כתיב קודש יהיו לכהן קודש יהיו לה' לכהן כתיב איזהו דבר שמקצתו לה' ומקצתו לכהן הוי אומר אלו כבשים

But what does this [variation] matter? Was it not taught in the school of R'Ishmael that in the verses, And the priest shall come again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 39 and 44. The reference is to the treatment of a leprous spot in the walls of a house.');">²⁶</span>

ור"ע מי כתיב קדש יהיו לה' ולכהן לה' לכהן כתיב כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן:

and And the priest shall come in,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 275, n. 8.');">²⁷</span> 'coming again' and 'coming in' have the same import [for purposes of inference]? - That is permissible only where there is no identical expression [on which to base the inference], but where an identical expression exists, the inference must be drawn from the identical expression.

אמר ר' יוחנן הכל מודים

And why does not R'Akiba infer yiheyu from yiheyu? - One should infer that [offering] which provides a gift to the priest from that which provides a gift to the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two lambs for the peace-offerings provided a gift to the priest, for after the burning of the sacrificial portions the flesh was eaten by the priests, and so, too, did the two loaves, for they were entirely eaten by the priests.');">²⁸</span> but the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the seven lambs etc.');">²⁹</span> are burnt-offerings. Alternatively I can say that they differ on the interpretation of this very verse: They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 20.');">³⁰</span> R'Akiba maintains, What is it that is entirely for the priest? I should say, It is the Bread-offering. And Ben Nanos, [what does he say]? Does the verse say, 'They shall be holy to the priest'? It says, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest' What is it that is partly to the Lord and partly for the priest? I should say, It is the lambs. And R'Akiba [wh does he say to this]? - Does the verse say, 'They shall be holy to the Lord and for the priest'? It says, 'To th Lord for the priest'. It is as stated by R'Huna, for R'Huna said, God<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Name'.');">³¹</span> acquired it and granted it to the priest. R'Johanan said, All agree