1(אילים מרובין – בלא מנחתם).
(1) 
אֵילִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן אֵיפָתָן יָבִיאוּ אַיִל אֶחָד וְאֵיפָתוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא אֵיפוֹת.:
אֵילִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן אֵיפָתָן יָבִיאוּ אַיִל אֶחָד וְאֵיפָתוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא אֵיפוֹת.the numerous rams t hat 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.
אילים מרובים. כלומר דמים לקנות פרים ואילים כדי צרכן. ל״ה, ר״ל דמאי דקאמר אם היו להם פרים מרובים אינו ר״ל שיהיו להם הפרים ממש ודקאמר ר׳ שמעון שימכרו הפרים כדי שיקנו בהם נסכים שהרי כיון דהפרים ואילים קדושים אינם יכולין להמכר ולפדותן ולצאת לחולין אם לא שיוממו, וגם אין לומר דמיירי בפרים ואילים שלא הוקדשו שהרי היו לוקחין אותם מתרומת הלשכה, הילכך פי׳ רש״י דאינו ר״ל פרים אלא מיירי שיש בלשכה וביד הגזברי׳ דמים כדי לקנות פרים הצריכים לחג ואין בידם כל כך דמים כדי לקנות הפרים והנסכי׳ וקאמר דמוטב שיקנו קצת הפרים והנסכים הצריכים להם מלקנות כל הפרים הצריכים בלא נסכים ופרים ואילים דנקט לאו דוקא פרים ואילים אלא ר״ל דמי פרים ואילים:
כדי הבאתם של אילים מרובין כמספרם הראוי, ואולם לא היה להן מעות כדי הבאת איפתן (איפת המנחה) של כל האילים — יביאו איל אחד ואיפתו, ולא יקרבו כולם בלא איפות של מנחה.
the numerous rams t hat 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.
הכל
(2) מתני׳ מַתְנִיתִין : אהַפָּר וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשָּׂעִיר אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכְּבָן.
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 consists 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.
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 consists 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.
ב׳ פרים ואיל וכבשים ושעיר של מוסף עצרת שבחומש הפקודים ופר ואילים וכבשים ושעיר דתורת כהנים דחובות היום כולן קריבין בעצרת משבאו לארץ ושל מוסף היו קריבין תחלה ואח״כ של חובת היום:
הפר והאילים ושבעת הכבשים ושעיר אין מעכבין את הלחם והלחם מעכב את הכבשים אותן שני כבשים של זבח השלמים כשהיו ישראל במדבר קרבו כבשים של זבח שלמים בלא לחם שלא היה להם לחם במדבר ועוד משום דכתיב ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה משיכנסו לארץ ולא קודם:
מתני׳ הפר האילים והכבשים – דכתיבי בהאי קרא והקרבתם על הלחם שבעת כבשים תמימים בני שנה ופר בן בקר וגו׳ (ויקרא כג).
את הלחם – שתי הלחם דעצרת.
א משנה בחג השבועות מקריבים קרבנות עולה חטאת ושלמים. לעולה — פר, שני אילים ושבעה כבשים. לחטאת — שעיר. ולשלמים — שני כבשים המונפים עם שני הלחם. והקרבנות הקרבים לעולה, הפר והאילים והכבשים, והשעיר הקרב לחטאת — אין מעכבין את הקרבת שתי הלחם של חג השבועות. שאף אם לא הובאו הקרבנות הללו — מביאים את שתי הלחם. וכמו כן אף לא שתי הלחם מעכבן לקרבנות הללו, שאף אם לא הובאו שתי הלחם — מביאים את הקרבנות הללו.
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 consists 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.
הכל
(3) בהַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם דִּבְרֵי ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא .
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.
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.
ואולם הלחם מעכב את שני הכבשים הבאים לשלמים. ולכך אם לא הובאו שתי הלחם — אין מביאים את הכבשים. ואין הכבשים לשלמים מעכבין את הלחם, ולכך אם לא היו בידיהם כבשים לשלמים — מביאים את שתי הלחם. אלו דברי ר׳ עקיבא.
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.
הכל
(4) אָמַר ר״ש רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס לֹא כִּי אֶלָּא הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב הַכְּבָשִׂים שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבָּר מ׳ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה קָרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
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 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.
אף כאן יקרבו וכו׳ אבל אין הטעם כדבריו שאותן ב׳ כבשים של שלמים שהיו באין על הלחם לא קרבו כלל במדבר לפי שהן אמורים בת״כ עם הלחם וכל האמור בתורת כהנים לא קרבו במדבר לא פרים ולא אילים ולא כבשים ולא שעיר:
במדבר קרבו כבשים בלא לחם – כלומר בלא שתי הלחם הבאים עם שני כבשים שהרי עומר ושתי הלחם אינן באין אלא מן הארץ (לקמן דף פג:).
קרבו כבשים בלא לחם – פי׳ בקונטרס שלא היה להם אלא מן וקשה דבפ״ב דיומא (עה:) מוכח דאומות העולם היו מביאין להם מיני מאכל ובפ׳ שתי הלחם (לקמן צה.) נמי מוכח שהיה עמהם לחם הפנים במדבר והיו מקריבין מנחת העומר ואומר ר״ת דהיינו טעמא דכתיב כי תבואו אל הארץ ור״ע לטעמיה דכי תבואו לאו דווקא אבל ר״ש כרבי ישמעאל ספ״ק דקדושין (דף לז:) דביאה לאחר ישיבה מיהו קשה דאם כן אף קרבניהם לא יקריבו ויש לחלק (ונראה לפרש) משום דשתי הלחם איקרו ביכורים כדלקמן (דף מו:) ומה בכורים בארץ אף שתי הלחם כן ועוד דרשינן בהדיא פרק רבי ישמעאל (לקמן סט:) ממושבותיכם למעוטי ח״ל.
אמר ר׳ שמעון בן ננס: לא כי (אינו כן) כדברי ר׳ עקיבא, אלא היפוכם של דברים, שני הכבשים הבאים לשלמים — מעכבין את הלחם, ואילו שתי הלחם — אינו מעכב את הכבשים. וראיה לדבריו: שכן מצינו (מצאנו) כשהיו בני ישראל במדבר סיני, בצאתם ממצרים, כל אותן ארבעים שנה קרבו שני הכבשים של חג השבועות בלא שקרבו אתם שני הלחם, שהרי אין שתי הלחם באים אלא מתבואת ארץ ישראל, ולאחר שנכנסו אליה בני ישראל. ולכך, אף כאן בשעת הדחק, כאשר לא נמצאו להם שתי הלחם — יקרבו שני הכבשים בלא לחם. ואולם שתי הלחם אינם קרבים אלא אם כן קרבים אתם שני הכבשים.
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.
הכל
(5) אָמַר ר״ש רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס אֲבָל אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו.
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.
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.
הלכה כרבי שמעון בן ננס – תימה הילכתא למשיחא כדפריך פ׳ בית שמאי (זבחים מה.) ובפ׳ ד׳ מיתות (סנהדרין נא:) ובפרק עשרה יוחסין (קדושין עב.) גבי ממזרים פירשתי.
אמר ר׳ שמעון: אכן הלכה היא כדברי בן ננס במחלוקתו עם ר׳ עקיבא, ששני הכבשים מעכבים את שתי הלחם ואין שתי הלחם מעכב את שני הכבשים, אבל אין הטעם להלכה זו כדבריו (כנימוק שהביא).
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.
הכל
(6) שֶׁכׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר וְכׇל הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אֵין קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ קָרְבוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ.
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.
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.
שכל האמור בפרשת פנחס – כגון הנך דמוסף קרבו במדבר.
והאמור בת״כ – כגון הנך ז׳ כבשים ופר ואילים לעולה דעל הלחם ושני כבשים דשלמים לא קרבו במדבר כדאמר בגמ׳.
מפני שכל הקרבנות בחג השבועות האמור בחומש הפקודים (ספר במדבר), בפרשת פנחס (שם כח, כז), פר אחד ואיל אחד ושבעה כבשים לקרבנות המוספים — קרב בהיות בני ישראל במדבר, ואולם כל סדר הבאת הקרבנות בחג השבועות האמור בתורת כהנים (ספר ויקרא), הם קרבנות הבאים עם שתי הלחם — אין קרב בזמן שהיו ישראל במדבר, ולא רק שתי הלחם לא קרבו אז, אלא אף שני כבשי העצרת שאתם לא קרבו. שכן רק משבאו בני ישראל לארץ ישראל קרבו אלו ואלו, הן קרבנות המוספים של חג השבועות, והן שתי הלחם וקרבנותיהם ושלא כדברי בן ננס בדברי הסברו.
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.
הכל
(7) מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכְּבָשִׁים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם בְּלֹא כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ.:
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.
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.
אלא מפני מה בכל זאת אני אומר שהלכה כדברי בן ננס, ויקרבו שני הכבשים אף בלא שקרבו שתי הלחם? מפני שהכבשים מתירין את עצמן (את בשרם לאכילת כהנים) על ידי הקטרת אימוריהם על המזבח, ואף שלא הוקרב הלחם. ומדוע לא יקרב הלחם בלא שקרבים עמו שני הכבשים? מפני שאין לו ללחם מי שיתירנו, שלא הותר לאכילת כהנים אלא אחר הקרבת שני הכבשים.
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.
הכל
(8) גמ׳ גְּמָרָא : תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן {ויקרא כ״ג:י״ח} וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם חוֹבָה עַל הַלֶּחֶם שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִים אע״פ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לֶחֶם.
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.
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.
חובה על הלחם – סמוך ללחם (שני כבשים) מה ת״ל על הלחם שלא נתחייבו בכבשים האמורים כאן בתורת כהנים קודם שנתחייבו בלחם דהיינו לאחר כניסתן לארץ:
גמ׳ חובה על הלחם – דמשמע דאינן קריבין בלא לחם ולא לחם קרב בלא כבשים והדר כתיב שבעת כבשים דמשמע אע״פ שאין לחם.
ב גמרא שנינו במשנתנו דין הקרבת הקרבנות הבאים בחג השבועות עם שתי הלחם כאשר לא נמצאו להם שתי הלחם. ובענין זה תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים] בברייתא: נאמר בדין קרבנות אלה ״והקרבתם על הלחם שבעת כבשים תמימים בני שנה ופר בן בקר אחד ואילים שנים יהיו עולה לה׳...״ (ויקרא כג, יח). ודנים בכתוב זה: מה שנאמר ״והקרבתם על הלחם״ — הרי זה מורה כי חובה היא שיהיו הקרבנות הללו באים דווקא על הלחם, וכאשר אין להם שתי הלחם אין הקרבנות הללו קרבים. ואולם מה שנאמר לאחר מכן ״שבעת כבשים תמימים״ מורה שהריהם קרבים אף על פי שאין לחם,
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.
הכל
(9) א״כ אִם כֵּן מָה ת״ל תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַל הַלֶּחֶם מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּכְּבָשִׂים קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּלֶּחֶם דִּבְרֵי ר׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
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.
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.
ואם כן מעתה יש לשאול: מה תלמוד לומר (מלמדנו הנאמר) ״על הלחם״? הרי זה מלמד שלא נתחייבו בכבשים קודם שנתחייבו בלחם. אלו דברי ר׳ טרפון.
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.
הכל
(10) ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים כָּאן הֵן הֵן כְּבָשִׂים הָאֲמוּרִים בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים אָמַרְתָּ כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אֵינָן הֵן אֶלָּא הַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן וְהַלָּלוּ בָּאִין בִּגְלַל לֶחֶם.
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.
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.
אמרת כשאתה מגיע אצל פרים ואצל אילים של חומש הפקודים אינן הן של תורת כהנים ומה שאמור בתורת כהנים לא קרב במדבר הואיל ובאין בגלל לחם:
ר׳ עקיבא אומר: יכול אתה לומר כי הן הן הכבשים האמורים כאן (בפרשת ״אמור״ שבספר ויקרא, בקרבנות הבאים עם שתי הלחם), הן הן הכבשים האמורים בחומש הפקודים (בפרשת ״פינחס״ שבספר במדבר, בקרבנות המוספים), שבשני המקומות מדובר באותו קרבן עצמו. ואולם כנגד זה אמרת (עליך לומר), כי כשאתה מגיע אצל קרבנות הפרים והאילים הנמנים בשני המקראות הללו, ששונים הם זה מזה במספרם (בפרשת ״אמור״: פר אחד ושני אילים, ובפרשת ״פינחס״: שני פרים ואיל אחד) ומכאן שאינן הן קרבן אחד, אלא שני קרבנות אחרים, והללו שנאמרו בספר ויקרא באין בגלל עצמן, והללו שבספר במדבר באין בגלל לחם.
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.
הכל
(11) נִמְצָא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קָרַב בַּמִּדְבָּר וּמַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים לֹא קָרַב בַּמִּדְבָּר.
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.
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.
נמצא מעתה, כי מה שאמור בחומש הפקודים (ספר במדבר) — היה קרב אף בהיות בני ישראל במדבר סיני, שהרי אלה קרבנות הבאים לעצמם. ואילו מה שאמור בתורת כהנים (ספר ויקרא) — לא היה קרב במדבר, שהרי הקרבנות הללו באים משום הלחם, שלא קרב במדבר.
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.
הכל
(12) וְדִלְמָא פָּרִים וְאֵילִים לָאו אִינְהוּ הָא כְּבָשִׂים אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ מִדְּהָנֵי אִישְׁתַּנּוֹ הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
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 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.
ושואלים על דברי ר׳ עקיבא: ודלמא [ושמא] נאמר כי אמנם קרבנות הפרים והאילים הנזכרים בספר ויקרא לאו אינהו [אין הם] הקרבנות הנזכרים בספר במדבר, הא [הרי] מניינם של קרבנות הכבשים שווה בזה ובזה, ומעתה יש מקום לומר כי אינהו נינהו [אותם הקרבנות הם]! ומשיבים: מדהני אישתנו [מתוך שאלה, הפרים והאילים, השתנו, שקרבנות נבדלים הם], הני נמי דאחריני [אלה, הכבשים, גם כן אחרים].
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.
הכל
(13) וּפָרִים וְאֵילִים מִמַּאי דְּאִישְׁתַּנּוֹ דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא אִי בָּעֵי פַּר וּשְׁנֵי אֵילִים לִיקְרַב אִי בָּעֵי שְׁנֵי פָּרִים וְאַיִל אֶחָד לִיקְרַב מִדְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי סִדְרָן ש״מ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.:
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 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.
מדאישתני סדרן דהכא (אמר) קדים לז׳ כבשים ברישא דפר וב׳ אילים והתם ב׳ פרים ואיל אחד וז׳ כבשים לבסוף ש״מ כולהו אחריני נינהו:
מדאשתני סידרן – משמע אי לא אשתנו ה״א דחד נינהו וקשה דפרק בא לו (יומא ע:) מצריך (איל אחד) לאשמועינן איל האמור בת״כ זהו האמור בחומש הפקודים ואיכא דדריש התם מאחד מיוחד וי״ל דמדהכא כתיב פרים ושני אילים והכא כתיב איל ושני פרים ש״מ אי בעי קאמר מדלא כתיב ג׳ פרים וג׳ אילים והיינו כדרשא דהתם א׳ ולא שנים.
ושואלים: ופרים ואילים עצמם ממאי דאישתנו [ממה, מנין לנו, שהשתנו], דלמא [שמא] קרבן אחד הם, והכי קאמר רחמנא [כך אמרה התורה]: אי בעי [אם רוצה] אתה להקריבו בפר ושני אילים — יכול הוא ליקרב [שיקרב] כך, ואי בעי [אם רוצה] אתה להקריבו בשני פרים ואיל אחד — יכול הוא ליקרב [שיקרב] כך! ומשיבים: מדאישתני [מתוך שהשתנה] לא רק מספרם של הקרבנות המנויים בספר ויקרא ואלה שבספר במדבר, אלא אף סדרן (שכן סדר הקרבנות שבספר ויקרא הוא כבשים, פר, ואילים. ואילו זה שבספר במדבר הוא פרים, איל וכבשים) — שמע מינה אחריני נינהו [למד מכאן כי קרבנות אחרים הם].
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.
הכל
(14) הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים.: מ״ט מַאי טַעְמָא דר״ע דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא .
§ 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 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?
ג שנינו במשנתנו שלדעת ר׳ עקיבא הלחם מעכב את הבאתם של שני הכבשים ואין הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם. ודנים בשיטה זו: מאי טעמא [מה הטעם, מקור שיטתו] של ר׳ עקיבא?
§ 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?
הכל
(15) גָּמַר יִהְיוּ מִתִּהְיֶינָה.
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 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).
גמר יהיו מתהיינה – ואף על גב דקאי אלחם לבד ואכבשים לבד כדאי׳ בהקומץ [רבה] (לעיל כז.) מיהו מסתבר ליה דלא ניקום אעיכוב כבשים בלחם ותימה הוא.
— גמר [למד] את שיטתו זו מהיקש מקראות. שכן נאמר בפרשת ״אמור״ ״והניף הכהן אותם על לחם הבכורים תנופה לפני ה׳ על שני כבשים קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן״ (ויקרא כג, כ), והדגשת הכתוב ״יהיו״ מלמדת שרק באופן זה צריך לנהוג. ואולם מן הכתוב אין זה ברור אם עיכוב זה מתייחס ללחם או לכבשים. לכך למדים אנו בגזירה שווה את פירוש המלה ״יהיו״ שבפסוק זה מהמלה ״תהיינה״, שבדין שתי הלחם (״ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים סולת תהיינה...״. שם יז).
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).
הכל
(16) מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם.
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 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.
1 ומנא לן דהאי יהיו דלח׳ דגמר מסולת תהיינה מה להלן לחם הכא נמי בלחם כתיב הויה ולא אכבשים ובן ננס גמר יהיו מיהיו עולה לה׳ דכבשים הוו עולה ולא לחם אף האי יהיו אכבשים קאי:
1. נראה דצ״ל ומפיק ליה דהאי יהיו אלחם קאי דגמר מסולת וכו׳.
מה להלן מתייחסים הדברים לשתי הלחם ולא לכבשים, אף כאן מתייחסים הדברים לשתי הלחם, ולא לכבשים. ומכאן, שהלחם מעכב את הכבשים, ואולם הכבשים אינם מעכבים את הלחם.
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.
הכל
(17) וּבֶן נַנָּס גָּמַר יִהְיוּ [יִהְיוּ] מָה לְהַלָּן כְּבָשִׂים אַף כָּאן כְּבָשִׂים.
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 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.
ושואלים לצד השני: ובן ננס, הסבור שהלחם אינו מעכב את הכבשים, ואילו הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם, מה מקור שיטתו? גמר [למד] את שיטתו זו מגזירה שווה של המלה ״יהיו״ שבפסוקנו והמלה ״יהיו״ הנאמרת בעניינם של שבעת הכבשים. מה להלן (שם) מתייחסת המלה ״יהיו״ לכבשים, אף כאן היא מתייחסת לכבשים, ולא ללחם. ולכך סבור הוא כי הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם, ואילו הלחם אין מעכב את הכבשים.
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.
הכל
(18) וּבֶן נַנָּס נָמֵי נֵילַף מִתִּהְיֶינָה מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם דָּנִין יִהְיוּ מִיִּהְיוּ וְאֵין דָּנִין יִהְיוּ מִתִּהְיֶינָה.
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 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.
ובן ננס לילף יהיו מתהיינה – דהא דמו אהדדי טפי דתרוייהו מיירו בענין לחם ואף על גב דאמר טעמא במתניתין [שכן מצינו במדבר מ׳ שנה כו׳] דיהיו מיהיו לא דמו להדדי דחדא ז׳ כבשים וחדא שני כבשים ובתר דאסיק דיהיו מיהיו עדיף ליה פריך לר״ע כיון דעדיף אע״ג דלא דמו ובתוספתא [פ״ו] ובת״כ משמע דאמר ר״ע דבר שקול מי מכריע ואמר בן ננס אני אכריע.
ושואלים: ובן ננס נמי נילף [גם כן שילמד] כמו ר׳ עקיבא מהיקש המלים ״יהיו״ ו״תהיינה״, מה להלן לחם, אף כאן לחם! ומשיבים: לדעתו כאשר דנין גזירה שווה צריך שיהיו המלים זהות, ולכן למדים ״יהיו״ מ״יהיו״, ואין דנין ״יהיו״ מ״תהיינה״, שאין המילים שוות לגמרי.
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.
הכל
(19) מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ הָתָנָא דְּבֵי ר׳ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל {ויקרא י״ד:ל״ט} וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן זֶהוּ שִׁיבָה זֶהוּ בִּיאָה.
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 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.
ומקשים על כך: מאי נפקא מינה [מה יוצא מזה, מה משנה הדבר]? התנא דבי [והרי כבר שנה החכם של בית המדרש] של ר׳ ישמעאל גזירה שווה לענין נגעי בתים, שעיקרה הוא השוואת הכתוב ״ושב הכהן ביום השביעי וראה והנה פשה הנגע בקירות הבית״ (שם יד, לט), והכתוב הדומה לו ״ובא הכהן וראה והנה פשה הנגע בבית״ (שם מד), ודרש: זהו שיבה, זהו ביאה, כלומר, אף שאין שוויון בין מילים אלו יש ללמוד מהן גזירה שווה, וכל שנאמר בענין אחד שייך גם לשני. ומתוך כך ניתן להסיק שאפילו כשקיים הבדל בין המילים, כיון שתוכנן זהה — דנים גזירה שווה, וכל שכן כאן שהמילים נבדלות רק בצורה הדקדוקית!
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.
הכל
(20) ה״מ הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.
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 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.
ומשיבים: אכן לפעמים למדים גזירה שווה ממילים שאינן זהות, ואולם הני מילי [דברים אלה] הם דווקא היכא דליכא דדמי ליה [היכן שאין מקרא אחר שדומה לו בדיוק], אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה [היכן שיש מקרא אחר שדומה לו] — מדדמי ליה ילפינן [מהמקרא שדומה לו אנו לומדים]. ולכך יש ללמוד ״יהיו״ מ״יהיו״, ולא ״יהיו״ מ״תהיינה״.
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.
הכל
(21) ור״ע וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי לֵילַף יִהְיוּ מִיִּהְיוּ דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן לְאַפּוֹקֵי הָנֵי דְּעוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ.
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 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.
דנין דבר שמתנה לכהן – תימה אדרבה דנין דבר שממנו קרב למזבח מדבר שממנו קרב למזבח ויש לומר דהאי צד מסתבר ליה טפי כיון דאידי ואידי אלחם קיימי.
ושואלים לצד השני: ור׳ עקיבא נמי לילף [גם כן שילמד], כדרך שלמד בן ננס את משמע המלה ״יהיו״ מהיקש למלה ״יהיו״! ומשיבים: ר׳ עקיבא סבור שדנין דינו של דבר שהינו מתנה (נתינה) לכהן (כשתי הלחם הנאכלות לכהנים) מדינו של דבר אחר שאף הוא מתנה לכהן (כלחם וכבשי העצרת). לאפוקי הני [להוציא את אלה, שבעת הכבשים] שעולות הניתנות כולן למזבח נינהו [הן], ואינם מתנה לכהן.
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.
הכל
(22) וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא בִּקְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי {ויקרא כ״ג:כ׳} קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה לֶחֶם.
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 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.
ואיבעית אימא [ואם תרצה אמור] הסבר אחר למקור שיטותיהם השונות של ר׳ עקיבא ובן ננס. שכן בקרא גופיה קא מיפלגי [בפירוש הפסוק עצמו הם חלוקים, מהו עניינו], שאת הנאמר ״קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן״ ר׳ עקיבא סבר שיש לפרש: אי זהו דבר שכולו ניתן לכהן? הוי אומר: זה לחם, ומכאן שהכתוב ״יהיו״ מוסב על הלחם, שהוא המעכב את הכבשים.
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.
הכל
(23) וּבֶן נַנָּס מִי כְּתִיב קוֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַכֹּהֵן קוֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן כְּתִיב אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לַה׳ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לַכֹּהֵן הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים.
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 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.
ואילו בן ננס משיב: מי כתיב [האם נאמר] ״קדש יהיו לכהן״?! שאפשר היה אז לומר כהסברו של ר׳ עקיבא, והרי ״קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן״ כתיב [נאמר], ומשמעות הכתוב ליתן חלק לה׳ וחלק לכהן, ואיזהו דבר שמקצתו לה׳ ומקצתו לכהן? הוי אומר: אלו כבשים הקרבים לשלמים, שחלק מהם עולה על המזבח, וחלק אחר ניתן לכהנים לאכילה. ולכך הכתוב ״יהיו״ מתייחס לכבשים, ללמדנו שהם מעכבים את הלחם.
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.
הכל
(24) ור״ע וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִי כְּתִיב קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ וְלַכֹּהֵן לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן כְּתִיב כִּדְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.:
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.
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.
קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן – דמשולחן גבוה קזכו ועיקר מילתיה דרב הונא אגזל הגר איתמר בפ׳ הגוזל עצים בב״ק (דף קט:) האשם לה׳ לכהן.
דאמר רב הונא קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן – פירש בקונטרס סוף הגוזל קמא (ב״ק דף קט:) קאמר הכי וליתא דהתם קאמר בברייתא קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר והכא לא מצית אמרת הכי דקרבנות הרגל שוין לכל כדדרשינן פרק בתרא דסוכה (סוכה נה:) ותו דנתינה דהתם הוי לקדש בו את האשה ולכל צרכיו והכא לא הוי הכי כדאיתא בקדושין (דף נב:) המקדש בחלקו לא קידש אלא נראה לי דמילתא דרב הונא אהא איתמר.
ושואלים: ור׳ עקיבא מה הוא משיב על טענה זו? ומסבירים: מי כתיב [האם נאמר] ״קדש יהיו לה׳ ולכהן״?! שאפשר היה לומר שכוונתו חלק לה׳ וחלק לכהנים, והרי ״קדש יהיו לה׳ לכהן״ כתיב [נאמר], אלא הכוונה היא שבתחילה ניתנים הם לה׳, ומאת ה׳ הם ניתנים לכהן. וכדברי רב הונא, שאמר רב הונא: קנאו השם בתחילה, וחזר ונתנו לכהן.
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.
הכל
(25) אָמַר ר׳ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַכֹּל מוֹדִים
§ 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
§ 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
ד במשנה נזכרה מחלוקת אם שני הלחם מעכבים את הכבשים או להיפך. ומוסיפים, שעל כך אמר ר׳ יוחנן: הכל מודים
§ 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
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
מנחות מה: – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), קישורים מנחות מה:, עין משפט נר מצוה מנחות מה: – מהדורת על־התורה בסיועו של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), מיוחס לר׳ גרשום מנחות מה:, רש"י מנחות מה: – במנחות ע"ב:-צ"ד. (פרקים ז'-י') הפירוש המופיע במהדורתנו כפירוש רש"י הוא פירוש רש"י שהיה בפני ר' בצלאל אשכנזי שמופיע בדפוס וילנא כ"רש"י כתב יד". ומאידך, פירוש רש"י הנדפס בדפוס וילנא מופיע במהדורתנו כפירוש ה"מיוחס לרש"י"., תוספות מנחות מה:, ר׳ פרץ הכהן מנחות מה:, פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ מנחות מה:
Menachot 45b – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Kishurim Menachot 45b, Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Menachot 45b, Attributed to R. Gershom Menachot 45b, Rashi Menachot 45b, Tosafot Menachot 45b, R. Peretz HaKohen Menachot 45b, Steinsaltz Commentary Menachot 45b