Menachot 45b — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

if they had

money for

many rams

as required,

but did not have

money for their libations, according to

their measure,

which is the measure appropriate for them,

they shall bring one ram and its measure, and they shall not offer

the rams

all of them without the measures

appropriate for their libations.

Mishna:

In the section of Emor, two sets of offerings connected with bringing the two loaves on Shavuot are written.

A. Lambs, a bull, and rams

as burnt offerings,

and a goat

as a sin offering.

B.

Two peace-offering lambs,

with which the two loaves are waved, and the slaughter of the lambs sanctifies the two loaves and permits them to be eaten.

The offerings that come with the two loaves [those stated in the section of Emor], namely:

the bull, the rams, and the lambs,

which come as burnt offerings,

and the goat

offered as a sin offering—

do not prevent the loaves,

and it is offered even without them.

Nor do the loaves prevent them,

and they are offered even without the loaves.

All this concerns the burnt offerings and the sin offering. But concerning the two lambs, which are communal peace offerings, which are waved together with the loaves, and which also sanctify them and permit them to be eaten through their slaughter, the tannaim disagreed whether the lambs prevent the two loaves, or whether the two loaves prevent the lambs.

The loaves prevent the lambs,

and without loaves the peace-offering lambs are not offered.

But the lambs do not prevent the loaves,

and in the absence of lambs the loaves are brought without them,

the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Shimon ben Nannes said: It is not so,

but rather, the lambs are the ones

that prevent the loaves,

for the loaves are not offered without lambs.

And the loaves do not prevent the lambs,

but they are offered even without loaves. And the proof is this:

For we find that, when Israel were in the wilderness for forty years,

and it was impossible to bring loaves, since they come only from the produce of the Land of Israel, nevertheless

the lambs were offered without loaves.

And from here there is proof that

also here,

when there are no loaves,

lambs shall be offered without loaves.

Rabbi Shimon said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of ben Nannes,

that only the lambs prevent the loaves 2 .

But the reason

and the proof for this law

are not

as stated by ben Nannes, because he says that peace-offering lambs were offered in the wilderness, but that is not so!

For everything stated in the Book of Numbers,

the Additional-Musaf offerings of Shavuot stated in the Book of Numbers, in the section of Pinhas,

was offered in the wilderness. And everything stated in the Priestly Torah,

which is the Book of Leviticus, such as these seven lambs, a bull, and rams as burnt offerings, and the peace-offering lambs that come with the two loaves—

was not offered in the wilderness.

And if so, since the peace-offering lambs that come with the loaves, which are written in the section of Emor in the Book of Leviticus, were not offered before they came to the Land, there is no proof concerning their being offered even without the two loaves, because in the wilderness neither loaves nor lambs were offered;

and once they came to the Land, both these and those were offered.

And for what reason do I say in accordance with his view,

of ben Nannes, that

lambs shall be offered without loaves,

even though I disagree with his proof?

Because

the lambs permit themselves,

and also the two loaves, to be eaten; for the permission to eat the two lambs does not depend upon the performance of any “permitter” with the two loaves. Therefore, they may bring the lambs even at a time when they do not bring the two loaves.

But the loaves

come

without lambs,

because

there is no one to permit them,

since the two loaves are not permitted to be eaten until the lambs have been offered.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And you shall present with the bread seven yearling lambs without blemish, and one bullock and two rams. And you shall offer one goat for a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of peace offerings.”

And we expound this verse:

“And you shall present with the bread”—

И принесите вместе с хлебом» —

an obligation concerning the bread.

For it implies that from here the two lambs of Shavuot may not be offered without loaves, and the two loaves may not be offered without the two lambs.

And at the end of the verse it is written:

“Seven lambs without blemish”—

семь овец без порока» —

even though there is no bread!

For it is obvious that the seven lambs, which are burnt offerings and are written in this verse, do not prevent the loaves.

If so, what does it teach

at the beginning of the verse,

“with the bread”?

It teaches that they did not become obligated in the two lambs before they became obligated in the bread, the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.

Оно учит, что обязанность приносить двух овец не возникла до того, как возникла обязанность приносить хлебы. Таково мнение рабби Тарфона.

Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the lambs stated here,

in the Book of Leviticus, in the section of Emor,

are themselves

those

lambs stated

in the section of Pinhas

in the Book of Numbers,

and that there are not two separate sets of offerings.

You say: When you reach the bulls and rams,

you see that

they are not themselves.

For in the section of Emor one bull and two rams are written, whereas in the section of Pinhas two bulls and one ram are written.

Rather,

you learn that

these

in the Book of Numbers

come because of themselves for

an Additional-Musaf offering,

whereas these

in the Book of Leviticus

come because of the loaves.

It follows that what is stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness,

since it has no connection to the loaves,

whereas what is stated in the Priestly Torah,

which comes because of the loaves,

was not offered in the wilderness,

because they had not yet become obligated to bring the loaves.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps

only

the bulls and rams,

in which there is a difference between the sections,

are not themselves.

As for the lambs,

which are stated as seven in both sections,

they are themselves,

and the lambs mentioned in the section of Emor are the same as those in the section of Pinhas, and fourteen lambs are not offered, but only seven?

And we answer:

Since these,

the bulls and rams,

changed, these too

the lambs stated in the two sections are not the same lambs, but

they are others,

because the two sections are distinct.

And we refute this:

As for the bulls and rams,

whose number Scripture changed in the two sections,

from where do you know that they changed? Perhaps this is what the Merciful One said:

that the matter depends on one’s will—

if he wishes

to offer

one bull and two rams, let him offer them; if he wishes

to offer

two bulls and one ram, let him offer them?!

And we answer:

Since their order changed,

for in the section of Emor they are stated in this order: lambs, bull, rams, whereas in the section of Pinhas their order is: bulls, ram, lambs,

infer from this

from the change of order that

they are others,

and there are here two separate types of offerings: offerings because of the loaves, and Additional-Musaf offerings for the obligation of the day.

We learned in our Mishna:

“The loaves prevent the lambs, but the lambs do not prevent the loaves, the statement of Rabbi Akiva” 5 .

And we inquire concerning it:

What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason?

And we explain: From what is stated in the section of Emor, “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits as a wave offering before the Lord; with the two lambs they shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest,” and the expression “they shall be” is interpreted as indicating prevention. Yet it is still not explained whether “they shall be” was said concerning the lambs or concerning the bread. Rabbi Akiva learns by a gzera shava:

He derives “they shall be”

which is stated in this verse

from “they shall be”

which is stated above concerning the loaves, or the two loaves: “Fine flour they shall be.”

Just as there,

“they shall be” is said concerning

bread, so here

“they shall be” is said concerning

bread.

We explain the reasoning of ben Nannes:

And ben Nannes,

who disagrees and holds that specifically the lambs prevent the loaves, and the loaves do not prevent the lambs,

derives

by another gzera shava,

“they shall be” from “they shall be.” Just as there are lambs,

as is stated concerning the seven lambs,

“they shall be

a burnt offering to the Lord,”

so here,

where it is stated, “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest,” the meaning of “they shall be” as indicating prevention applies

to the lambs,

and not to the two loaves.

And we object:

And ben Nannes too,

who derives “they shall be” from the burnt-offering lambs to the peace-offering lambs,

should derive from “they shall be”

stated concerning bread, to bread resembling it:

Just as there it is bread, so here it is bread,

and he should not derive from the burnt-offering lambs to the peace-offering lambs, which are different offerings.

And we answer:

They derive “they shall be” from “they shall be”,

which are similar in wording,

but they do not derive “they shall be” from “they shall be”,

whose wording differs, even though the matter is more similar.

And we refute this:

What difference does it make

that the wording differs with regard to a gzera shava?

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught

concerning the afflictions of houses that one may derive by a gzera shava from

“And the priest shall return” and “And the priest shall come”,

because the meanings of the two words are equal:

Is this not returning, and is this not coming?

And we answer:

These words

that precision of wording is not decisive apply

where there is nothing similar to it,

so that a gzera shava may be learned according to the meaning,

but where there is something similar to it

in the similarity of the wording,

we derive from what is similar to it,

and although it is possible to learn in another manner—with greater similarity between the matters being learned—we derive only from what is similar in wording.

And we return to objecting to Rabbi Akiva:

And Rabbi Akiva too should derive “they shall be” from “they shall be”,

since the similarity of wording should be preferred over the similarity of the matter!?

And we explain: He holds:

They derive

the two loaves, which are

something given to a priest, from something given to a priest,

bread and peace-offering lambs; therefore, he derives from “Fine flour they shall be,” which is stated concerning the loaves.

To exclude

the possibility of deriving by a gzera shava from

these

seven lambs,

which are burnt offerings,

and the priest has nothing from them, since they are entirely burned; therefore it is not fitting to learn from them concerning the loaves. Rather, similarity of the matter is preferable to similarity of the wording.

We explain their dispute concerning whether the lambs prevent or the loaves prevent in another manner:

And if you wish, I can say that they disagree concerning the verse itself,

and not concerning a gzera shava, but concerning what is stated:

“They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest,”

and the expression “they shall be” teaches prevention.

Rabbi Akiva holds

that it speaks of the bread, and his reason is:

What is something that is entirely for the priest

and has no portion for the altar?

You must say, this is the bread,

and not the lambs, for even in peace offerings there is a portion for the altar, namely, their sacrificial portions.

And ben Nannes

holds:

Is it written, “They shall be holy for the priest”?

For had it been written so, it would indeed imply that it concerns something entirely for the priest. But

“They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest” is written,

and therefore the verse is interpreted as follows:

What is something part of which is for the Lord and part of which is for the priest?

You must say, these are the lambs,

which are offered as peace offerings! For the priest takes from them the portion eaten according to the law of communal peace offerings, and concerning them the verse says the expression of prevention, “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest.”

And we are astonished:

And Rabbi Akiva,

why did he not hold to interpret it in this manner, and why did he infer from the expression “to the Lord, for the priest” that it concerns something entirely for the priest?

And we answer:

Is it written, “They shall be holy to the Lord and for the priest”,

with the connecting letter vav? For then it would be interpreted as referring to something given to both of them.

“To the Lord, for the priest” is written,

without the connecting vav, and therefore it cannot be interpreted according to ben Nannes. And the mention of “to the Lord” concerning bread that is entirely for the priest is

in accordance with Rav Huna. For Rav Huna said: He acquired it for the Lord, and gave it to the priest!

That is, the priests receive it from the table of the Most High. If so, the verse speaks of the bread, concerning which the verse says the expression of prevention—“they shall be.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Although we learned in our Mishna that according to Rabbi Akiva the lambs do not prevent the loaves, and according to Rabbi Shimon and ben Nannes the loaves do not prevent the lambs, all this applies before a connection has been formed between them,