Menachot 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

What does he derive from it—

what does Rabbi Akiva expound from this verse?

And we answer:

He requires it—

Rabbi Akiva needs this verse

to

expound it

in accordance with Rav Naḥman; as Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

From where is it derived concerning the surplus of the Pesach offering—

for example, one set aside money for his Pesach offering and some remained—

that it is sacrificed as a shelamim

—that he should bring shelamim offerings with it?

As it is stated: “

; and:

And you shall slaughter the Pesach offering to

; and:

the Lord your God, from the flock and the herd,”

but does not the Pesach offering come only from sheep and goats,

and not from cattle?—

Rather,

it comes to teach concerning

the surplus of the Pesach offering

that it

shall be for an offering that comes from the flock and from the herd,

namely, a shelamim. And we challenge this:

And

if

this—

that the surplus of a Pesach offering becomes a shelamim—

is derived from here [from “And you shall slaughter”],

[from the verse “And you shall sacrifice”]

is it really so!?

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: “

Rashi explained in a manuscript: for an offering that comes from the flock and from the herd, namely, a shelamim; ; and:

And if his offering is from the flock for a shelamim offering,”

and it was unnecessary for the verse to say “for a shelamim offering,” since the entire passage is dealing with shelamim offerings,

and Shmuel’s father said:

the verse comes to teach concerning

an offering that comes from the flock—

namely, the Pesach offering, which comes only from the flock—that its

shall be

surplus

for a shelamim offering!?

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

And still,

does

from here—from “If his offering is from the flock”—

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

derive

that the surplus of the Pesach offering shall be for a shelamim, when

it is derived from there!?

And it was taught in a beraita:

It is written in the passage concerning shelamim offerings [Leviticus 3:6]: “And if his offering is from the flock for a shelamim offering to the Lord, male or female, he shall offer an unblemished animal. If he brings a sheep as his offering … And if his offering is a goat, he shall bring it before the Lord.” It was unnecessary for the verse to say, “If he brings a sheep as his offering,” since the passage is dealing with the flock, and the law of a goat is stated separately; consequently, we would know that the first passage is referring to a sheep. Rather, it comes to teach: “

A sheep,”

to include

also

the Pesach offering for the tail-fat,

to offer it upon the altar, as is explicitly stated in the Torah concerning a sheep brought as a shelamim.

When it says “

; and:

If a sheep” [the superfluous word “if”]:

” [the word “if” is superfluous]:

a.

To include a Pesach offering whose year has passed

[which is unfit as a Pesach offering, since it must be one year old,] and he brought another one; this one that remains is “the surplus of the Pesach offering”—

b.

And

to include another

shelamim offering brought because of the Pesach offering,

namely, the festival offering of the fourteenth of Nisan, which is brought together with the Pesach offering—when there are many who will eat it—in order that the Pesach offering be eaten when one is satiated—

For all the mitzvot of a shelamim,

with regard to

requiring semikha, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh,

even though the Pesach offering does not require all of these.

When it says in the passage concerning shelamim offerings

“

And if it is a goat,”

the subject is interrupted; this teaches concerning the goat

of a shelamim offering

that it does not require a tail-fat

for the altar, as does a sheep.

If so, the question arises: why do we need all three of these verses to teach that the surplus of a Pesach offering is brought as a shelamim!?

And we explain:

Three verses are written,

and all of them are necessary:

One

verse

for

a Pesach offering whose

appointed time has passed

[the Pesach has passed]

and whose year has passed

of the offering, and he brought another one; it shall be a shelamim.

And one

verse

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

that it shall be a shelamim.

And one

verse

for one whose appointed time has not passed and whose year has not passed, where he sacrificed the Pesach offering that he had set aside before its appointed time; this teaches us that it is valid under the status of a shelamim.

—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 had it been taught to us

only with regard to a Pesach offering whose

appointed time and year have passed,

that it shall be a shelamim, I would have said: this is

because it has been entirely disqualified

from being a Pesach offering—

But when its appointed time has passed but its year has not passed, since it is

still

fit

to be sacrificed

as a Pesach Sheni offering, I might say that it shall not

be a shelamim; this teaches us otherwise.

And if it had been taught to us

only with regard to a Pesach offering whose

appointed time has passed but whose year has not passed,

that it is a shelamim, I would have said that this is because

it has been disqualified

in any event

from being the first Pesach offering,

and therefore it is a shelamim—

But

a Pesach offering whose

appointed time has not passed and whose year has not passed, since it is even fit for the first Pesach offering, I might say that it shall not be a shelamim, but shall become disqualified.

This passage continues the explanation.

It is necessary.

We have completed the chapter “The Thanksgiving Offering Was Brought”

Mishna:

All the communal and individual offerings,

that is, all the meal-offerings, whether communal or individual,

may be brought:

they

may be brought from

the produce of

the Land, and

they

may be brought from

the produce of

outside the Land —

They

may be brought from the new [

from the new produce ]

and

they

may be brought from

the old —

Except for the Omer,

which is brought on the day after the first Festival day of Passover,

and the two loaves,

which are brought on Shavuot,

which may be brought only from the new produce and from the Land.

And all of them [

all the meal-offerings ]

may be brought only from the choicest

, meaning, even though they may be brought from the old produce, which is not as choice as the new, nevertheless, one must bring from the choicest variety.

And what is their choicest?

That which comes from

Mikhmis

and

Zinata [

these are names of places ],

the first [

it is first and superior in quality, like alfa, which in Greek is the name of the first letter of the alphabet ]

for fine flour.

Second to them:

Kufrayim

in the valley.

That is, there are two places, each called Kefar, and the village situated in the valley produces the choicest grain for fine flour.

All the lands

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

were fit

to bring the Omer and the two loaves from them,

except

that

from here —

from the places listed here —

they would bring

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “Except for the Omer and the two loaves, which may be brought only from the new produce and from the Land”:

The Mishna —

which implies that the Omer and the two loaves “may be brought only from the new produce,” and that even if one brought them from the old produce, they are invalid — is

not in accordance with this tanna,

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

As it is taught in a beraita: An Omer brought from the old produce

is

valid,

and likewise

the two loaves brought from the old produce

are

valid, but he has failed to fulfill the mitzva.

The Gemara explains:

The Omer,

which is valid even when made from the old produce, is so 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 fresh grain in fire, crushed kernels of ripe grain,

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

the wording “you shall bring” comes to include: You may bring it from any place,

even from the

old produce that is in

the upper chamber.

The two loaves,

which are valid even when made from the old produce, are so because

it is written [

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

A.

“

From your settlements you shall bring”

and not from outside the Land.

B.

“

From your settlements

you shall bring”

even from the old produce in

the upper chamber.

upper chamber.

And we challenge this: How can it be learned from that verse that even produce from the upper chamber is valid,

when you have already used it

[to derive the law concerning outside the Land]!?

And we answer:

The verse says “

you shall bring”

from any place,

even from the upper chamber.

The Gemara still asks:

But

this

word

of the verse, “you shall bring,”

is needed

to teach [it is necessary] the following:

Whenever you bring

leavened bread

from another place,

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

it shall be like this

like the two loaves: Just as each loaf of the two loaves—which are brought leavened, as it is stated, “they shall be baked leavened”—is made from one-tenth [as it is written, “two, two-tenths”], so too each leavened loaf among the ten loaves brought with the thanksgiving-offering shall be made from one-tenth, as explained above, 77b.

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse came only to teach one law,

the verse should write “

you shall bring”

without a vav;

why does it say “

you shall bring”?

Rather, certainly

derive from this

verse

two

laws: The two loaves are valid even from produce in the upper chamber, and each leavened loaf of the thanksgiving-offering is made from one-tenth.

And we challenge both the case of the Omer and the case of the two loaves, where you say that if one brought them from the old produce, they are valid:

But it is written,

in both cases,

“first,”

as:

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

And it is stated concerning the two loaves [Leviticus 2:11]: “[For any leaven or any honey you shall not offer from it an offering made by fire to the Lord. An offering of the first produce [the two loaves brought from leaven, and first fruits from produce] you shall offer them to the Lord, but they shall not ascend upon the altar for a pleasing aroma

” — Does this not mean that they are brought specifically from the first of the new produce!?

And we answer:

As a mitzva,

they must be brought from the new produce, because they are called “first”; but if one brought them from the old produce, they are valid, as derived above.

The Gemara still asks: How can you say that the two loaves may be brought from the old produce?

Is it not written

again concerning the two loaves [Leviticus 23:16]: “Until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall offer a

new

meal-offering 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”]:

Since the verse repeated this law [“an offering of the first produce” and “a new meal-offering”] to teach that it is brought from the new produce, we maintain that whenever the Torah repeats a matter, it is to make it indispensable. How, then, can you say that the two loaves brought from the old produce are valid!?

And we answer:

This — “

new” —

is needed

to teach

as it is taught:

Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yaakov said: The two loaves brought from the old produce are valid,

and how do I understand “new”?

That it shall be

itself

new for all the meal-offerings

brought from the new produce. That is, the two loaves must be brought before any meal-offering from the new produce is brought, but the two loaves themselves may be brought even from the old produce. The Gemara continues to clarify the law of produce brought from outside the Land:

They disagree only

the tanna of our Mishna and the tanna of the beraita

with regard to the new produce,

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