Menachot 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty: If indeed the Mishna is speaking of the additional offering of Rosh Chodesh and the additional offering of Shavuot mentioned in the passage of Pinhas,

“rams”

written in our Mishna, which implies two,

where is this?

Where are there two rams?

If it refers to those

of Rosh Chodesh and Shavuot,

there is only one ram,

as only one ram is sacrificed on each of them; so what is the meaning of: “The rams do not prevent one another”?

And if the Mishna’s intention is to refer to the offerings

of Shavuot mentioned in Torat Kohanim,

as in the book of Leviticus, in the passage of Emor, there is also a passage concerning the offerings of Shavuot, which constitutes a separate set of offerings brought together with the two loaves, as explained below [45b], and two rams are indeed mentioned there—this too cannot be said, since

“they shall be” is written concerning them,

as it says there: “They shall be a burnt-offering,” and the expression “they shall be” indicates that the matter is indispensable. If so, when part of the offering is absent, it is impossible to sacrifice the remainder?

And we answer:

Actually,

the statement “rams,” in the plural, refers to the offerings

of Shavuot

mentioned in the passage of Emor

in Torat Kohanim.

And although the offerings of Shavuot mentioned there in Torat Kohanim are indispensable to one another, the tanna taught us here a different law,

and this is what it is saying:

The rams mentioned in the two passages concerning the Shavuot offering do not prevent one another. Therefore,

it is not the rams of Torat Kohanim

brought together with the two loaves

that prevent

the absence of

the ram of the book of Numbers

brought as an additional offering.

And

so, conversely,

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

when it is absent,

the rams of Torat Kohanim [The Mishna may likewise be interpreted as saying that 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 similarly, the sheep of the two loaves and of the additional offerings do not prevent one another].

And we raise a difficulty:

Rather,

according to this interpretation, it follows that the Mishna is interpreted differently in its various clauses. For

the bulls

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

do not prevent one another,

one from the other,

even

though they constitute a single offering, so that if one does not have enough, he brings one. Whereas the

“rams”

mentioned in the Mishna with regard to Shavuot are only

those here

of the passage of Emor

and those here

of the passage of Pinhas;

they are what do not prevent one another

when one is absent from the other, since they were not written together and each passage is fulfilled independently of the other. But

they,

the rams themselves mentioned in the very same passage, do

prevent

one another, since only in the passage of Emor are two rams mentioned, and these are indispensable to one another, as it is stated there: “They shall be”!

And we answer: Indeed,

the tanna

of our Mishna

taught it clause by clause:

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 in a different manner as well.

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

And on the day of the new moon,

that is, Rosh Chodesh,

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

A bull

in the singular—

what does this teach?

For in the Torah, two bulls are stated for the Rosh Chodesh offering. And for what exposition was this variation in Ezekiel’s verse stated? Rather, the verse came to teach you: Do not say,

since the Torah states “bulls”

in the plural, this number

is indispensable.

And from where do we know that if he did not find two, he brings one? The verse says

in Ezekiel:

“a bull”!

This implies only one, teaching that when two are unavailable, one is brought.

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

“six sheep,”

whereas in the Torah, seven are stated for the Rosh Chodesh offering.

What does this teach?

Certainly, the variation in Ezekiel cannot be understood according to its simple meaning; rather, it must serve some exposition.

Since the Torah states seven,

I would say that this number is indispensable.

And from where do we know that if he did not find seven, he brings six? The verse says

in Ezekiel:

“six”

sheep!

And from where do we know that if he did not find six, he brings five,

for perhaps it is impossible to bring fewer than the six stated in Ezekiel? The verse continues to specify: If he did not find

five, he brings four;

if he did not find

four, he brings three;

if 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 to what his hand can attain.”

From here it is also derived that even if he has only one sheep, he brings it.

And we raise a difficulty:

And once it is written as such,

“according to what his hand can attain,” which implies even one, then the statement

“six sheep,”

which we interpreted as teaching that if he did not find seven he brings six,

why do I need it?

This can be learned from “according to what his hand can attain.”

And we answer: It teaches you

that

although one sheep suffices after the fact, nevertheless

to the extent that it is possible to seek [to pursue] 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, decreasing the number only in accordance with what is lacking.

And from where

do we know that if they have the required number but brought fewer than that number, or brought bulls without rams,

that they prevent one another,

so that in such a case the deficiency disqualifies the entire offering?

The verse says

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

shall be,”

which is an expression indicating indispensability. And what we learned—that they may bring fewer than the required number—applies only when they do not have the required number 11 .

It is written in Ezekiel, chapter 45: “

Thus said 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 the offerings of Rosh Chodesh, since the first day of Nisan requires no offering other than the Rosh Chodesh offering.

And we raise a difficulty: The wording of the verse in Ezekiel, “and you shall purify the Sanctuary,” implies that it is a sin-offering. But is a bull brought as a

sin-offering

on Rosh Chodesh? The bulls of Rosh Chodesh

are burnt-offerings,

as it is stated: “And on your new moons you shall offer a burnt-offering to the Lord: bulls, sons of cattle,” and so on. Although a sin-offering is also brought—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 it contains difficulties, until

Elijah

comes,

who will expound it in the future.

Rav Ashi said:

I will explain it: The verse is not speaking of the Rosh Chodesh offering. Rather, Ezekiel was prophesying about the future, concerning the dedication of the Second Temple, saying:

The inauguration offerings were brought 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 were brought 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,

as follows,

in accordance with the views of both Rabbi Yohanan and Rav Ashi:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

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

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

The inauguration offerings were brought in the days of Ezra, in the manner in which they were brought in the days of Moses, in accordance with Rav Ashi’s interpretation.

Rabbi Yehuda reconsidered and accepted Rabbi Yosei’s interpretation, and

said to him: Let your mind be at ease, for you have set my mind at ease !

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

They shall not eat any carcass or animal torn by beasts, whether bird or animal, the priests.”

And we wonder: Is it that

the priests

alone

shall not eat

a carcass or an animal torn by beasts,

but Israelites may eat them!?

Are not all Israelites commanded concerning this?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

We do not know how to interpret this passage until

Elijah

comes,

who will expound it in the future.

Ravina said:

I will explain the verse:

It was necessary for it to state “the priests”

to prohibit them specifically with the prohibition against a carcass or an animal torn by beasts. 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 an animal torn by beasts, by the breaking of its neck, and it is also a carcass, since melika is performed with the fingernail, from the back of the neck, and not through slaughter—and nevertheless it is permitted

to them

the priests to eat an animal slaughtered through melika. If so, one might mistakenly conclude that

it should also be permitted

for priests to eat any

carcass or animal torn by beasts,

such as the melika of a non-sacred bird.

It teaches us

the verse that the prohibition against a carcass and an animal torn by beasts in its entirety applies to priests as well.

The Gemara further interprets another verse in Ezekiel, written there in chapter 45: “

And so you shall do on the seventh of the month, because of anyone who sins unwittingly or through foolishness; and you shall make atonement for the Temple.”

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 brought for an unwitting communal transgression, and expounded it as follows: “

So you shall do

on the seventh

of the month”—

Rabbi Yohanan said:

You shall do so in order to atone for the Temple: a sin-offering bull brought as the bull for an unwitting communal transgression. And the word “on the seventh” refers to—

These are

seven

tribes that sinned

following an erroneous ruling of the Great Sanhedrin [which ruled erroneously]. They are considered the majority of the congregation because they constitute the majority in number of the tribes,

even though they do not constitute

in the number of their members

the majority of the congregation

of all Israel, since the number of members of the other five tribes is greater than theirs. Nevertheless, they are obligated to bring the bull for an unwitting communal transgression, because the seven tribes that sinned constitute the majority of the twelve tribes. The verse alludes to this with the word “in the

month,”

which is interpreted as follows:

If they renewed

the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin erroneously

and said that a certain fat,

such as the fat atop the stomach,

is permitted

for consumption because, in their opinion, it is not forbidden fat but ordinary suet, and the seven tribes acted according to their ruling, they must bring the bull for an unwitting communal transgression.

The verse contains another allusion concerning the offering for an unwitting transgression: From the words

“because of anyone who sins unwittingly or through foolishness,”

it is implied that there is here both “unwittingness” in the ruling and, in addition, “foolishness,” meaning that the people were led into error in practice.

This teaches that they are liable only for an unwitting transgression,

which is the erroneous ruling of the Great Sanhedrin,

together with an unwitting act,

that the people ate unwittingly on the basis of the court’s ruling.

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

They sought to hide it because

its words

at the end of the book, concerning the offerings, appeared to be

contradicting the words of the Torah,

as we find in the verses mentioned above—for example, concerning the Rosh Chodesh offering: the Torah states two bulls, whereas Ezekiel states one bull.

What did

Hanina ben Hezekiah

do? He brought up three hundred jugs of oil

to provide light at night and study by their light,

and he sat in an upper room and expounded

the Book of Ezekiel. Thus the Book of Ezekiel was not hidden away, after its words had been properly interpreted by him.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon said: If they had

many bulls

but did not have libations, they should bring one bull with its libations, and 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, shall he make as a meal-offering. And for the sheep

according to what his hand can attain. And a hin of oil

—not a beautiful one.””

Rabbi Shimon said:

This verse cannot be interpreted according to its plain meaning.

Are the measures for bulls and rams the same?

For for a bull he brings three tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and for a ram two tenths; how, then, 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 for the day’s offering,

but they did not have

money for

libations,

they should bring one bull

alone, and with the remaining money they should bring

its libations, and they should not sacrifice

the bulls

all of them without libations.

In the verse in Ezekiel, “ephah” is understood to mean “the appropriate measure.” The verse informs you that it is preferable to bring an “ephah for a bull,” giving it its proper measure “according to what his hand can attain,” and to bring only one bull, rather than to bring two without the libations appropriate for them.