Menachot 83b — the Talmud in English

What does he derive from it

? What does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verse?

And we answer:

It is needed for him

—Rabbi Akiva needs this verse

to

expound it

in accordance with Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

From where do we know concerning the surplus of the Paschal offering

—for example, one who set aside money for his Paschal offering and some of it remained—

that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering

[he should bring a peace-offering with it]?

As it is stated: “

And you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord

your God, sheep and cattle

.” But does not a Paschal offering come only from sheep and goats

and not from cattle?

Rather

, this comes to teach concerning

the surplus of the Paschal offering

that it

shall be for an offering that comes from sheep or cattle

, namely, a peace-offering. And we ask:

And

is

this

—that the surplus of a Paschal offering is used for a peace-offering—derived

from here

[from the verse “And you shall sacrifice”]

?

But

it is derived from the teaching of Shmuel’s father

[it is learned from the teaching of Shmuel’s father],

as it is written

[Leviticus 3:6]: “

And if his offering for a peace-offering is from the flock

,” and the Torah need not have said “for a peace-offering,” since the entire passage deals with peace-offerings,

and Shmuel’s father said

: The verse comes to teach concerning

an offering that comes from the flock

—namely, a Paschal offering, which comes only from the flock—

that

its surplus

shall be for a peace-offering?

The Gemara continues to raise a difficulty:

And still

, is

it from here

—from “if his offering is from the flock”—that

it is derived

that the surplus of a Paschal offering shall be used for a peace-offering? But

it is derived from there

! And it was taught in a beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning peace-offerings (Leviticus 3:6): “And if his offering for a peace-offering to the Lord is from the flock, male or female, he shall offer an unblemished one. If he brings a sheep as his offering … And if his offering is a goat, he shall bring it before the Lord.” The Torah need not have said, “If he brings a sheep as his offering,” since the passage is discussing animals from the flock, and the law of a goat is stated separately. It would therefore have been understood that the first passage concerns a sheep. Rather, it comes to teach: “

A sheep

—to include

also

the Paschal offering, for its fat-tail

—so that it is offered on the altar, as is explicitly stated in the Torah concerning a sheep brought as a peace-offering.

When it says “

if a sheep

” [the word “if” is superfluous]:

1.

To include a Paschal offering whose second year has passed

[which is unfit as a Paschal offering, because it must be one year old], and one brought another offering in its place; this remaining one is “the surplus of a Paschal offering”—

2.

And

to include additional

peace-offerings brought because of the Paschal offering

, namely, the fourteenth-day festival peace-offering brought together with the Paschal offering when there are many participants, so that the Paschal offering will be eaten when the participants are already satiated—

For all the requirements of a peace-offering

, with regard to

requiring the laying of hands, accompanying meal-offerings, and the waving of the breast and thigh

, even though a Paschal offering does not require all of these.

When it says

in the passage concerning peace-offerings,

“and if it is a goat,”

the subject is interrupted, teaching concerning the goat

of a peace-offering

that it does not require a fat-tail

on the altar, unlike a sheep.

If so, the question arises: Why do we need all three of these verses to teach that the surplus of a Paschal offering is brought as a peace-offering?

And we explain:

Three verses are written

, and all of them are necessary:

One

verse

for

a Paschal offering whose

appointed time has passed

[the time for the Paschal offering has passed]

and whose year has passed

—the year of the offering—and one brought another in its place; it shall be used as a peace-offering.

And one

verse

for one whose appointed time has passed but whose year has not passed

, teaching that it shall be a peace-offering.

And one

verse

for one whose appointed time has not passed and whose year has not passed

—one slaughtered the Paschal offering that he had set aside before its appointed time—and it teaches us that it is valid as a peace-offering.

And all are necessary

—all the verses are needed to teach these three cases:

For if it had taught us

only concerning a Paschal offering whose

appointed time and year had passed

that it becomes a peace-offering, I would have said: This is

because it has been entirely rejected

as a Paschal offering—

But when its appointed time has passed but its year has not passed,

it is still

fit

to be offered

as the second Paschal offering, I might say that it does not

become a peace-offering; therefore, it teaches us that it does.

And if it had taught us

only concerning a Paschal offering whose

appointed time had passed but whose year had not passed

that it is a peace-offering, I would have said that this is because

it has been rejected

at least

from the first Paschal offering

, and therefore it is a peace-offering—

But

a Paschal offering whose

appointed time and year have not passed, since it is even fit for the first Paschal offering, I might say that it does not become a peace-offering, but rather becomes disqualified.

он не будет шламим, а станет непригодным.

It is necessary.

We have completed the chapter “The Thanksgiving-offering was brought.”

MISHNA:

All the public offerings and the individual’s offerings,

that is, all the meal-offerings, whether those of the public or those of an individual,

may come:

they

from

the produce of

the Land and

they

from

the produce of

outside the Land—

They

from the new [

from the new produce]

and

they

from

the old—

except for the omer,

which comes on the day after the first Festival day of Passover,

and the two loaves,

which come on Shavuot,

for they may come only from the new and from the Land.

And all of them [

all the meal-offerings]

may come only from the choicest,

that is, although they come from the old, which is not as choice as the new, nevertheless they should bring from the choicest species.

And what is their choicest?

That which comes from

Mikhmis

and

Zinat [

these are names of places]

the alpha [

it is first and choice in rank, like alpha, which in Greek is the letter aleph, the first of the letters]

for fine flour.

Second to them:

Kofarim

in the valley.

That is, there are two places, each of which is called “Kefar,” and the village that sits in the valley has produce that is choice for fine flour.

All the lands

in the Land of Israel [Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee]

were fit

to bring from them the omer and the two loaves,

except

that

from here—

from these places that were mentioned—

they would bring

them, since it is a mitzva to bring from the choicest.

GEMARA:

We learned in the Mishna: “Except for the omer and the two loaves, which may come only from the new and from the Land”:

The Mishna—

which implies that the omer and the two loaves “may not come except from the new,” and even if he brought them from the old, they are disqualified— is

not like this tanna,

who holds that they are fit even when made from the old—

For it was taught in a beraita: An omer that comes from the old

is

fit,

and likewise

the two loaves that come from the old

are

fit, except that he has omitted a mitzva.

And the Gemara explains:

The omer,

which is fit even when made from the old, is because

it is written [Leviticus 2:14]: “And if you bring a meal-offering of first fruits [the meal-offering of the omer] to the Lord, roasted grain of fire, crushed ripe grain

you shall bring the meal-offering of your first fruits,”

and the wording “you shall bring” comes to include: you shall bring it from anywhere,

even from the

old

produce that is in the

upper chamber.

The two loaves,

which are fit even when made from the old, are because

it is written [Leviticus 23:16]: “Until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall bring a new meal-offering to the Lord. From your settlements you shall bring two loaves of waving, two tenths, they shall be fine flour, they shall be baked leavened, first fruits to the Lord,” and from this verse we learn two laws:

A. “

A.

From your settlements you shall bring”

and not from outside the Land.

and not from outside the Land.

B. “

From your settlements

you shall bring”

even from the

old

produce that is in the

upper chamber.

And we object to this: how can it be learned from that same verse that it is fit even from the upper chamber,

for you have already excluded it [

for we have already expounded it concerning outside the Land]!?

And we answer:

The verse says “

you shall bring”

from anywhere,

even from the upper chamber.

And we still object:

but

this

particular

verse, “you shall bring,”

is needed [

it is needed] to teach:

Whenever you bring

leavened bread

from another place,

that is, any other leavened bread that you bring as an offering, namely the loaves of thanksgiving, ten of which were leavened,

it is like this,

like the two loaves: just as each loaf of the two loaves—which come leavened, as it is stated, “they shall be baked leavened”—is from one tenth [for it is written, “two, two tenths”], so each loaf of the ten loaves that you bring for thanksgiving shall be from one tenth, as explained above, 77b.

And we answer:

if so,

if the verse came only to teach one law,

let the verse write “

you shall bring”

without a vav,

what is “

you shall bring,” but certainly

it follows from it

that we learn

from this verse

two

laws: the two loaves are fit even from the upper chamber, and each of the leavened loaves of the thanksgiving-offering comes from one tenth.

And we object concerning both the omer and the two loaves, when you say that if he brought them from the old, they are fit:

But it is written

in both this and that

“first”,

for:

It is stated concerning the omer [Leviticus 23:10]: “And you shall bring the omer of the first of your harvest to the priest.”

And it is stated concerning the two loaves [Leviticus 2:11]: “[For every leaven and every honey you shall not offer from it a fire-offering to the Lord]. You shall offer

a first-offering [the two loaves that come from leaven, and first fruits from the fruit] to the Lord, but they shall not ascend upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance”—

And we answer:

for the mitzva,

they must come from the new, because “first” is stated concerning them; but if he brought them from the old, they are fit, as was expounded above.

And we still object: how can you say concerning the two loaves that they may come from the old?

It is written

further concerning the two loaves [Leviticus 23:16]: “Until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall bring a meal-offering

new

to the Lord,” [and in Numbers 28:26: “And on the day of the first fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the Lord, at your Festival of Weeks”]:

And since Scripture repeated this law [“a first-offering” and “a new meal-offering”] to teach that it comes from the new, we hold that when Scripture repeats a matter, it is to make it indispensable; so how can you say that the two loaves that come from the old are fit!?

And we answer:

this—“

new”—

is needed

to teach

as it was taught:

Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov said: The two loaves that come from the old are fit,

and how do I uphold “new”?

That it shall be

itself

new for all the meal-offerings

that come from the new. That is, they should bring the two loaves before they bring any meal-offering from the new, but the two loaves themselves come even from the old. The Gemara adds to explain the law of produce that comes from outside the Land:

Thus far they do not disagree,

the tanna of our Mishna and the tanna of the beraita,

except concerning the new,

whether it is indispensable for the omer and the two loaves—