Talmud - Menachot 45b מנחות מ״ה ב׳

the numerous rams that are required to be sacrificed on that day and they did not also have sufficient funds for the ephah, i.e., the prescribed measure, of flour for all of the rams, they should bring one ram and its ephah of flour, and they should not sacrifice all of them without their ephahs of flour.

MISHNA: On Shavuot there is an obligation to sacrifice burnt offerings, a sin offering, and peace offerings together with the offering of the two loaves. The burnt offerings consist of a bull, two rams, and seven sheep. A goat is brought for the sin offering. Two sheep are brought as peace offerings and waved together with the two loaves. Failure to sacrifice the bull, the rams, and the sheep, which are all brought as burnt offerings, and the goat that is brought as a sin offering, does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves, and they are sacrificed nevertheless. Failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying animal offerings.

Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas says: No, rather the opposite is true. Failure to sacrifice the peace offering of two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves, but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep. As we found that when the Jewish people were in the wilderness for forty years after the exodus from Egypt, they sacrificed the two sheep as a peace offering on Shavuot without the two loaves, as the two loaves may be brought only from wheat grown in Eretz Yisrael after the Jewish people entered the land. Here too, whenever wheat is unavailable, they should sacrifice the two sheep without the two loaves. However, the two loaves are not sacrificed without the peace offering of two sheep.

Rabbi Shimon says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas that failure to sacrifice the two sheep prevents the bringing of the two loaves but failure to bring the two loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but the reason for that ruling is not in accordance with his statement.

As all the offerings that must be sacrificed on Shavuot that are stated in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), i.e., two bulls, one ram, and seven sheep as additional offerings and a goat as a sin offering, were sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. But all the offerings stated in Leviticus (see 23:18–20), i.e., the offerings accompanying the two loaves, were not sacrificed when the Jewish people were in the wilderness. Not only were the two loaves not sacrificed, but the accompanying offerings, including the peace offering of the two sheep, were also not sacrificed, because it was only when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael that these additional offerings and those offerings accompanying the two loaves were sacrificed. Neither the additional offerings of Shavuot nor the two loaves, and the offerings that accompany them, were sacrificed in the wilderness, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas.

Rather, for what reason do I nevertheless say that the sheep should be sacrificed without the loaves, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas? It is due to the fact that the sheep permit themselves, as the sprinkling of their blood and the burning of the portions consumed on the altar renders it permitted to partake of their meat. And why are the loaves not sacrificed without the sheep? It is because there is no item to permit the loaves, as the loaves are permitted only after the sheep are sacrificed.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches the halakhot of the sacrifices that generally accompany the two loaves on Shavuot in a case when the two loaves are not available. The Gemara cites a relevant baraita. The Sages taught: The verse that mandates these offerings states: “And you shall sacrifice with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bull, and two rams” (Leviticus 23:18). The phrase “and you shall sacrifice with the bread” indicates that it is obligatory to sacrifice these burnt offerings with the loaves of bread, and if the loaves are not available, then these offerings are not sacrificed. The continuation of the verse: “Seven lambs without blemish,” teaches that the lambs are sacrificed even if there are no loaves available.

If so, that the animal offerings may be sacrificed even without loaves, what is the meaning when the verse states “with the bread”? It teaches that they were not obligated to sacrifice the sheep before they were obligated to sacrifice loaves, i.e., they became obligated to sacrifice all of these offerings only when they entered Eretz Yisrael. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that the sheep mentioned here in Leviticus, which accompany the two loaves, are the very same ones mentioned in the book of Numbers (see 28:27), in the passage prescribing the additional offerings. You must say when you reach the bulls and rams that are enumerated in the two passages that the offerings mentioned in one are not those mentioned in the other, as the number of bulls and rams are not equal. Whereas in Leviticus the verse requires the sacrifice of one bull and two rams, in Numbers the verse requires the sacrifice of two bulls and one ram. Rather, the two passages are referring to different offerings. These mentioned in Numbers come upon the altar for their own sake, and those mentioned in Leviticus come upon the altar for the sake of the two loaves.

It is therefore found that the offerings that are mentioned in the book of Numbers were sacrificed even when the Jewish people were in the wilderness and could not bring the offering of the two loaves, but the offerings that are mentioned in Leviticus were not sacrificed in the wilderness, due to the fact that the two loaves could not be sacrificed in the wilderness.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the bulls and rams mentioned in Numbers are not those mentioned in Leviticus, but the sheep mentioned in Numbers are the same as those mentioned in Leviticus. The Gemara explains: From the fact that these bulls and rams are different, it is apparent that those sheep are also different offerings.

The Gemara asks: But from where is it proven that the bulls and rams in Numbers are different offerings than the bulls and rams mentioned in Leviticus? Perhaps they are actually the same offerings, and this is what the Merciful One is saying: If you want, sacrifice a bull and two rams, as the verse states in Leviticus; and if you want, sacrifice two bulls and one ram, as the verse states in Numbers. The Gemara answers: From the fact that the order of the offerings is different in the two passages, as the verse in Leviticus mentions the sheep, then the bull, and then the rams, whereas the verse in Numbers mentions the bulls, then the ram, and then the sheep, one may conclude from it that they are different offerings.

§ The mishna teaches: Failure to bring the two loaves prevents sacrifice of the accompanying peace offering of two sheep, but failure to sacrifice the two sheep does not prevent the bringing of the two loaves; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva?

The Gemara answers: He derived the halakha based upon a verbal analogy between two verses. One verse states: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs; they shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). The term “they shall be” indicates that it is essential that the offering be brought precisely as commanded, but it is unclear whether this is referring to the loaves or to the sheep brought as peace offerings. This is clarified by means of a verbal analogy from the verse: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be [tihyena] of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).

The verbal analogy teaches that just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep, so too here it is referring to the loaves rather than the sheep. Consequently, failure to bring the loaves prevents sacrifice of the sheep, but failure to sacrifice the sheep does not prevent the bringing of the loaves.

The Gemara asks: And how did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents the bringing of the loaves but failure to bring the loaves does not prevent sacrifice of the sheep, derive his ruling? He derived the halakha through a verbal analogy between the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest,” and the verse that states, concerning the seven sheep brought as burnt offerings: “They shall be [yihyu] a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). Just as there the requirement that it be done as prescribed is referring to the sheep, so too here it is referring to sheep rather than loaves.

The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas also, we should derive the halakha based upon a verbal analogy from the word tihyena as Rabbi Akiva does, and conclude that just as there it is referring to the loaves, so too here it is referring to the loaves. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the identical form yihyu, and one should not derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy using the term tihyena.

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether or not the words are identical? Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses? The verse states: “And the priest shall return [veshav] on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: “And the priest shall come [uva] and look” (Leviticus 14:44). This returning and this coming have the same meaning, and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the halakha which applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week likewise applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week. Certainly, if the halakha can be derived via a verbal analogy with the words veshav and uva, the even slighter difference in form between yihyu and tihyena should not prevent the application of a verbal analogy.

The Gemara answers: This matter applies only when there are no terms that are identical to it. But where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive the verbal analogy from terms identical to it rather than from the terms that are not precisely identical. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu from the identical term rather than from tihyena.

The Gemara challenges: And let Rabbi Akiva also derive the meaning of the term yihyu from a verbal analogy to the identical term yihyu, as Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas does. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha concerning an item that is given as a gift to the priest, such as the loaves or the sheep brought as peace offerings, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:20, from the halakha concerning an item that is also a gift to the priest, i.e., the two loaves, which are the subject of Leviticus 23:17. This is to the exclusion of these seven sheep that are mentioned in Leviticus 23:18, which are burnt offerings and wholly consumed by the altar, and are not a gift to the priest. Consequently, it is preferable to derive the meaning of the term yihyu in verse 20 from the term tihyena in verse 17, rather than from the term yihyu in verse 18.

The Gemara presents an alternative explanation for the basis of their divergent opinions: And if you wish, say instead that they disagree about the interpretation of the verse itself: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest” (Leviticus 23:20). Rabbi Akiva holds: Which item is entirely given to the priest? You must say that it is the loaves of bread. Therefore he concludes that the word yihyu is referring to the loaves of bread, and if they are not sacrificed, the two sheep cannot be sacrificed as peace offerings.

The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the priest, in which case one should interpret it as Rabbi Akiva does? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood in the following manner: Which item is partially given to the Lord and partially given to the priest? You must say that it is the sheep, which are sacrificed as a peace offering, part of which is burned on the altar and part of which is consumed by the priests. Consequently, the word yihyu should be understood as referring to the sheep, and if they are not sacrificed, the two loaves cannot be sacrificed either.

The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this? He would say: Is it in fact written: They shall be [yihyu] holy for the Lord and for the priest? It is written in the verse: “They shall be [yihyu] holy to the Lord for the priest.” Therefore, it should be understood to mean that it is given to the Lord, and it is then given by Him entirely to the priests, in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: The Lord acquired it initially and then gave it to the priest.

§ With regard to the dispute in the mishna about whether failure to sacrifice the two sheep as peace offerings prevents the bringing of the two loaves or vice versa, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everyone concedes

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 45b examines the Shavuot offerings, detailing whether the two loaves and the accompanying sheep peace offering depend on each other.