Menachot 82b — the Talmud in English

You may say: with regard to the Passover of later generations, which requires the placing of the blood, and

so too the burning of the sacrificial portions

upon the altar!?

He said to him

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva:

For it says [

Exodus 13:5 ]: “

And you shall perform this service

of the Passover

in this month,”

to say:

that all the services of this month —

like this

like the Passover of Egypt. Just as the Passover of Egypt did not come from unconsecrated [funds], so too the Passover of later generations that is performed in this month may come only from unconsecrated [funds].

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rabbi Akiva, who at first rejected the words of Rabbi Eliezer because one does not derive what is possible from what is impossible, and then again raised a different difficulty, because the Passover of Egypt did not require the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar:

And Rabbi Akiva

what is his reasoning!? For in either case there is a difficulty:

If he holds

if he indeed holds

that one does not derive what is possible from what is impossible,

as when he initially raised the difficulty, then there is a difficulty:

let him stand by his statement

let him remain with this difficulty; and why was it necessary for him to add another refutation!?

And

if he recanted

if Rabbi Akiva recanted and conceded to Rabbi Eliezer that one does derive what is possible even from what is impossible,

and this reason that he did not derive from the Passover of Egypt

is only

because of this refutation,

which he raised: What is there to say about the Passover of Egypt, which does not require the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar? Then there is a difficulty:

the Passover

that Israel performed in the

wilderness proves it,

for it too came only from unconsecrated [funds] — since there was no tithe in the wilderness before they entered the Land — and it required the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar!?

And we answer: What Rabbi Akiva added and raised as a difficulty —

he said it according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer:

According to me,

there is no need for this difficulty, because even without this difficulty

one does not derive what is possible from what is impossible —

but

according to you, who say “

one does derive what is possible from what is impossible,” there is a difficulty:

then there is a difficulty:

What is there to say about the Passover of Egypt, which does not require the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar? You may say this with regard to the Passover of later generations, which requires the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar.

And he said to him

he answered him concerning this

Rabbi Eliezer:

for it is written, “

And you shall perform.”

And

we raise a difficulty against

Rabbi Eliezer:

why was it necessary to derive it from “And you shall perform”?

Let him say to him

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Akiva, concerning his second refutation:

The Passover in the wilderness proves it,

for it required the placing of the blood and the sacrificial portions, yet it came only from unconsecrated [funds].

And we answer: What Rabbi Eliezer derived from “And you shall perform” —

he said it to him according to the words of Rabbi Akiva:

According to me, one does derive what is possible from what is impossible, and if because of this refutation

it is also not difficult, for

the Passover in the wilderness proves it —

but

according to you, who say “

one does not derive what is possible from what is impossible,”

for it is written, “

And you shall perform.”

And we raise a difficulty:

And even so —

for it is written, “And you shall perform” —

let him refute

Rabbi Akiva could have refuted him: One does not derive what is possible from what is impossible. That is to say, since the answer “And you shall perform” does not come to refute his second refutation, but to refute his first refutation, that one does not derive what is possible from what is impossible, then what sort of answer is this? For there is still a difficulty: Do we indeed derive what is possible from what is impossible!?

He said

Rabbi Sheshet explained:

This means,

that is, we necessarily learn from this beraita that

one does not answer against a hekesh,

and “And you shall perform” is a hekesh, and one does not answer against it: One does not derive what is possible from what is impossible.

And in the study hall it was said

in the beit-midrash, the place where Torah is spread — they raised a difficulty against our Mishna, which derives for all the offerings that they come only from unconsecrated [funds], by means of a hekesh to the Passover:

And does a matter learned by means of a hekesh,

namely, the Passover of later generations, which is learned by means of a hekesh from the Passover of Egypt, which comes only from unconsecrated [funds],

return and teach

about other offerings

by means of a hekesh,

from “And you shall slaughter the Passover to the Lord your God, sheep and cattle,” that they too should come only from unconsecrated [funds]!?

And we answer:

It was stated as a general principle, that the entire Passover is one matter.

That is to say, all the offerings are learned from all the Passovers together, because it is one name of Passover and one law applies to them.

The Gemara adds to explain:

And Rabbi Akiva —

who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer’s derivation —

the Passover, that it comes only from unconsecrated [funds], from where does he derive it?

That is to say, from where does he learn with regard to all the offerings that they come only from unconsecrated [funds], since according to his view it is impossible to derive this from the Passover!?

And we answer: He derives it from that which Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer.

That is to say, from the same verse that Shmuel expounded in the name of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one matter, Rabbi Akiva learns with regard to offerings that they come only from unconsecrated [funds].

For Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, to explain the verse [

Leviticus 7:37 ]: “

This is the law of the burnt offering

of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the ordination offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace offerings,”

all of which is a superfluous verse, since “This is the law of” was already stated with regard to each one of them; rather, the verse comes to compare all the offerings mentioned in this verse with one another: “

Burnt offering”

comes to teach:

Just as a burnt offering requires a service vessel,

as he explains and proceeds,

so too every

other offering mentioned in the verse

requires a vessel

of service.

The Gemara asks:

What is it?

With which vessel are we dealing?

If you say a basin,

that is, a service vessel for receiving the blood, from which it is cast upon the altar; with regard to a burnt offering we would have to learn this from the statement of the verse before the revelation at Sinai [

Exodus 24:5 ]: “And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings, and they slaughtered peace offerings to the Lord, bulls. And Moses took half of the blood [of the burnt offering and of the peace offerings] and placed it in basins [vessels; two basins, one for half the blood of the burnt offering and one for half the blood of the peace offerings, to sprinkle them upon the people], and half of the blood he cast upon the altar” —

so it is impossible to say this; for in the verse “This is the law” “peace offerings” are also stated, and it too comes to teach concerning all the offerings that they should be like it, and

with regard to

the communal peace-offering sacrifices

it is also written “

and he placed it in basins,”

and we could learn from them concerning all the offerings that they require a vessel for receiving the blood, and “burnt offering” is not necessary for this.

Rather, “burnt offering,” which comes to teach about a vessel for the other offerings, refers to a

knife

for slaughtering, which should be a service vessel.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do we know concerning the burnt offering itself

that it requires a vessel?

We derive it from

as it is written

with regard to the binding of Isaac [

Genesis 22:10 ]: “

And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the slaughtering knife to slaughter his son,”

and

behold,

there it is a burnt offering

Isaac ascended upon the altar as a burnt offering,

for

behold,

it is written

with regard to the ram that Abraham found [there 13]: “

And he brought it up” —

the ram —

“as a burnt offering instead of his son,”

so it follows that his son was a burnt offering.

Shmuel continues to explain the verse in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: “

Meal offering”

comes to teach:

Just as a meal offering is eaten only by male members of the priesthood,

as is explicit in the verses,

so too every

offering mentioned in the verse

is eaten only by male members of the priesthood.

The Gemara asks:

What is it?

With regard to which offerings does the verse come to teach that they are to be eaten only by male members of the priesthood?

If

with regard to

a sin offering and a guilt offering

mentioned in the verse, it is impossible to say so, for: