Menachot 45a — the Talmud in English

And we object: If indeed the Mishna is speaking of the additional offering of the New Moon and the additional offering of Shavuot that are stated in the portion of Pinhas,

“rams”

written in our Mishna, which implies two,

where is that?

Where are there two rams?

If it is those

of the New Moon and Shavuot, behold,

there is one ram,

for in each of them only one ram is sacrificed; and what is the meaning of “the rams do not prevent”?

And if the Mishna’s intention is to the offerings

of Shavuot of Torat Kohanim,

for also in the Book of Leviticus, in the portion of Emor, there is a portion of offerings of Shavuot, which are a separate arrangement of offerings that come with the two loaves, as explained below [45b], and there indeed two rams are mentioned—this too cannot be said, for

“they shall be” is written concerning them,

as it is stated there, “they shall be a burnt-offering,” and the expression “they shall be” indicates prevention; and if so, when part of the offering is absent, it is impossible to sacrifice the remainder?

And we answer:

In fact,

what was stated, “rams,” in the plural, refers to the offerings

of Shavuot,

mentioned in the portion of Emor

of Torat Kohanim.

And although the offerings of Shavuot mentioned there in Torat Kohanim prevent one another, the tanna taught us here another law,

and this is what he said:

The rams mentioned in the two portions concerning the offering of Shavuot do not prevent one another. Therefore:

It is not the rams of Torat Kohanim

that come with the two loaves

that prevent

in their absence

the ram of the Book of Numbers

that comes as an additional offering.

And

likewise concerning the other side—

it is not the ram of the Book of Numbers that prevents them,

in its absence,

the rams of Torat Kohanim [Likewise, the Mishna should be explained: The two bulls of the additional offerings do not prevent the bull of the two loaves, nor does the bull of the two loaves prevent the two bulls of the additional offerings; and likewise, the sheep of the two loaves and of the additional offerings do not prevent one another].

And we object:

But,

according to this explanation it emerges that the Mishna is interpreted in different ways. For

the bulls

and likewise the sheep of Shavuot mentioned in the portion of Pinhas

do not prevent even one another,

one from the other,

they do not prevent,

despite their being one offering—for if he does not have [the full number], he brings one—whereas the

“rams”

mentioned in the Mishna concerning Shavuot are only

those here

of the portion of Emor,

and those here

of the portion of Pinhas:

they are the ones that do not prevent

one another in their absence, since they were not written together and each portion is fulfilled independently of the other; but

they themselves,

the rams stated in that same portion, indeed

do prevent

one another, for only in the portion of Emor were two rams stated, and these prevent one another, since it is stated there, “they shall be”!

And we answer: Indeed,

the tanna

of our Mishna

teaches separate matters,

he stated each matter separately, so that each of the matters in the Mishna—the bulls, the rams, and the sheep—is interpreted independently, and even in a different manner.

The following verse was stated by the prophet Ezekiel, chapter 46, and it contains changes from what is stated in the Torah; these are expounded in the Gemara: “

And on the day of the New Moon

it is the New Moon,

a young bull without blemish, and six sheep and a ram without blemish shall be.”

A bull

in the singular—

what does it teach?

For in the Torah it is stated concerning the offering of the New Moon that there are two bulls! And for what exposition was the change in the verse in Ezekiel stated? Rather, the verse comes to teach you: Do not say,

since it is stated in the Torah “bulls”

in the plural, this number

is indispensable.

And from where is it derived that if he did not find two, he brings one? The verse says

in Ezekiel—

“a bull”!

which implies only one: when he does not have two, he brings one.

And we explain the continuation of the verse in Ezekiel, where it is stated:

“six sheep,”

whereas in the Torah it is stated that seven are offered for the New Moon,

what does it teach?

Certainly, the change in Ezekiel is not to be understood according to its plain meaning, but for some exposition.

Since it is written in the Torah “seven,”

I would say that this number is indispensable.

And from where is it derived that if he did not find seven, he brings six? The verse says

in Ezekiel—

“six”

sheep!

And from where is it derived that if he did not find six, he brings five,

for perhaps it is impossible to bring fewer than the six stated in Ezekiel? And it specifies further: From where is it derived that if he did not find

five, he brings four,

and he did not find

four, he brings three,

and he did not find

three, he brings two, and even if

he has only

one

he brings it—

the verse says

in Ezekiel: “

And for the sheep, according as his hand can reach.”

And from here also, if he has only one sheep, he brings it.

And we object:

And since it is written thus,

“according as his hand can reach,” which implies even one, if so, why do I need what is stated,

“six sheep,”

which we explained as teaching that if he did not find seven he brings six?

What need is there for it?

It can be learned from “according as his hand can reach.”

And we answer: It teaches you

that

although after the fact he has fulfilled his obligation with one sheep, nevertheless

as much as it is possible to seek [to seek] after a number of animals close to the complete number,

we seek,

and even if he does not have seven, he should make an effort to bring six or five, and he decreases only in accordance with the deficiency.

And from where

is it derived that if they have the required number and they brought fewer than the number, or they brought bulls without rams, from where is it derived

that they prevent one another,

and in such a case the deficiency prevents the entire offering?

The verse says

in the verse of Ezekiel: “And six sheep and a ram without blemish

shall be,”

which is an expression of prevention. And what we learned—that they may also bring fewer than the number—means only when they do not have the required number 11 .

It is written in Ezekiel, chapter 45: “

Thus 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 the Sanctuary.”

According to its plain meaning, these are offerings of the New Moon, for the first day of Nisan requires no offering apart from the offering of the New Moon.

And we object: The wording of the verse in Ezekiel, “and you shall purify the Sanctuary,” implies that it is a sin-offering. But is a bull offered on the New Moon

a sin-offering?

For the bulls of the New Moon

are a burnt-offering,

as it is stated, “And at the beginnings of your months you shall offer a burnt-offering to the Lord: bulls, sons of cattle,” and so on. And although a sin-offering is also sacrificed—that is the goat—the bull is a burnt-offering and not a sin-offering.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

We do not know how to interpret this passage of Ezekiel, because there are difficulties in it , until

Elijah

comes, who

will in the future expound it.

Rav Ashi said,

I will explain it: The verse is not speaking of the offering of the New Moon. Rather, Ezekiel prophesies concerning what will occur in the future, at the dedication of the Second Temple, saying:

The inauguration offerings were sacrificed in the days of Ezra

on the first of Nisan, and they brought a bull as a sin-offering for the inauguration

in the manner in which they sacrificed in the days of Moses

a young bull as a sin-offering on the eighth day of the inauguration, on the first of Nisan.

It was taught likewise

in a beraita

thus,

in accordance with the view of both of them, Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Ashi:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

This passage—Elijah will in the future expound it, as Rabbi Yohanan held, that we do not know how to interpret it.

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

The inauguration offerings were sacrificed in the days of Ezra, in the manner in which they were sacrificed in the days of Moses, as Rav Ashi explained.

And Rabbi Yehuda returned and accepted Rabbi Yosei’s explanation and

said to him: May your mind be at rest, for you have set my mind at rest !

The Gemara encountered difficulty in interpreting another verse in Ezekiel. It is stated there, in chapter 44: “

And they shall not eat any carcass or torn animal, whether of bird or of animal, the priests.”

And we wonder: Are

the priests

alone

those who shall not eat

a carcass or a torn animal,

but Israelites eat them!?

Are not all Israel commanded concerning this?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

We do not know how to interpret this passage, until

Elijah

comes, and he

will in the future expound it.

Ravina said,

I will explain the verse:

It was necessary for him to state “the priests”

in order to prohibit them specifically with the prohibition of a carcass and a torn animal, for otherwise

it might enter your mind to say

that these prohibitions do not apply to priests,

since it was permitted

for them to eat the bird sin-offering through

melika,

and through melika the bird becomes a torn animal by the breaking of its neck, and it is likewise a carcass, since melika is performed with the fingernail and from the back of the neck, and not by slaughter—and nevertheless it was permitted

to them

the priests to eat the melika. If so, there would be room for error, and

it should also be permitted

for the priests to eat every

carcass and torn animal,

such as the melika of an unconsecrated bird .

It teaches us

the verse that the prohibition of a carcass and a torn animal in general also applies to priests.

And the Gemara further explains another verse in Ezekiel, which is written there in chapter 45: “

And so shall you do on the seventh day of the month, because of a man who errs and because of a simple one; and you shall atone for the House.”

The Sages likewise encountered difficulty with this verse, and it cannot be reconciled according to its plain meaning; they interpreted it as referring to the bull for an unwitting act concerning a matter, committed by the community, and this is how they expound it: “

So shall you do

on the seventh

of the month”—

Rabbi Yohanan said:

So shall you do in order to atone for the House: a sin-offering bull that comes as the bull for an unwitting act concerning a matter of the community. And what is written, “on the seventh,” means—

These are

seven

tribes that sinned

through the instruction of the Great Sanhedrin [which instructed in error], and they are considered the majority of the community because they are the majority of the number of the tribes;

even though they do not constitute

in the number of their people

the majority of the community

of all Israel, since the number of the people of the other five tribes is greater than theirs, nevertheless they are obligated to bring the bull for an unwitting act concerning a matter, because the seven tribes that sinned are the majority of the number of the twelve tribes. And concerning this the verse hints with the word “in the

month,”

whose meaning is:

If they renewed

the Great Sanhedrin’s instruction in error

and said that a certain fat

such as the fat upon the stomach

is permitted

to eat, because according to their opinion it is not forbidden fat but ordinary fat, and the seven tribes acted according to their instruction, they are obligated to bring the offering of the bull for an unwitting act concerning a matter of the community.

There is another hint in this verse concerning the offering for an unwitting act concerning a matter: From what the verse said, “

because of a man who errs and because of a simple one,”

it implies that there is here “error” in the instruction, and in addition to it “simplicity,” which is being led astray in action.

It teaches that they are liable only for an unwitting act concerning a matter,

which is the unwitting instruction of the Great Sanhedrin,

together with an unwitting act,

that the community ate unwittingly on the basis of the court’s instruction.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: That man is remembered for good, and Hanina ben Hizkiah was his name; for had it not been for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been hidden away.

For they sought to hide it because

its words were

at the end of the book, concerning the offerings , seemingly

contradicting the words of the Torah,

as we found in the verses mentioned above—for example, the offering of the New Moon: in the Torah two bulls are stated, whereas in Ezekiel one bull is stated.

What did

Hanina ben Hizkiah do?

He brought up three hundred jugs of oil

to illuminate with them at night and study by their light,

and he sat in an upper room and expounded

the Book of Ezekiel, and thereby the hiding away of the Book of Ezekiel was prevented, after his words were properly interpreted through him.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: If they had

many bulls

but did not have libations, he should bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations 17 .

The Sages taught:

It is stated in Ezekiel, chapter 46: “

And an ephah for a bull, and an ephah for a ram, he shall make as a meal-offering. And for the sheep

according as his hand can reach. And a hin of oil

not an ephah.””

Rabbi Shimon said:

This verse cannot be interpreted according to its plain meaning.

Is the measure for bulls and rams one and the same?

For for a bull he brings thirteen tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and for a ram two tenths, so how can it say, “an ephah for a bull and an ephah for a ram”?

Rather,

the verse comes to teach:

If they had

money for

many bulls

as required by the offering of the day,

but they did not have

money for

libations—

they shall bring one bull

alone, and with the remaining money they shall bring

its libations, and they shall not sacrifice

the bulls

all of them without libations.

And in the verse in Ezekiel, “ephah” is interpreted as meaning “the appropriate measure”: the verse comes to inform you that it is better to bring “an ephah for a bull,” giving it its measure “according as his hand can reach,” and to bring only one bull, than to bring two without the libations appropriate for them.