Menachot 45a

אֵילִים דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דְּהָנְהוּ – דְּאַיִל הוּא, אִי דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

The Gemara asks: The mishna mentioned rams, in plural; on which festival are multiple rams offered? If the mishna is referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on those days of the new moon and Shavuot as prescribed in the book of Numbers, these offerings include only one ram and not two. And if it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, a term of being is written about them in the verse: “They shall be a burnt offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:18). This term indicates that the offerings must be sacrificed exactly as prescribed in order to be valid. Consequently, one may not sacrifice fewer than two rams.

לְעוֹלָם דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא אֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מְעַכְּבִי לֵיהּ לְאַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, וָלֹא אַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים מְעַכֵּב לְהוּ לְאֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים.

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the two rams of Shavuot that are prescribed in Leviticus, and this is what the mishna is saying: Failure to sacrifice the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus, does not prevent the sacrifice of the ram of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers. Similarly, failure to sacrifice the ram of the additional offering, prescribed in the book of Numbers, does not prevent the sacrifice of the rams that accompany the two loaves, as prescribed in Leviticus.

אֶלָּא, פָּרִים – דַּאֲפִילּוּ אַהֲדָדֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי, וְאֵילִים – דְּהָכָא וּדְהָכָא הוּא דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי, אִינְהוּ מְעַכְּבִי.

The Gemara challenges: But if that is the explanation, then when the mishna mentions bulls and sheep it means that even the bulls or sheep of the additional offering prescribed in the book of Numbers do not prevent each other from being sacrificed, i.e., the inability to sacrifice one of the bulls or sheep does not prevent one from sacrificing the rest. But when the mishna mentions rams, it is the rams mentioned here in Leviticus that do not prevent sacrifice of the rams mentioned there, in Numbers, and vice versa; but the failure to sacrifice one of those rams in Leviticus does prevent sacrifice of the other. Consequently, although the mishna mentions bulls, rams, and sheep together, the halakha is not the same with regard to these different animals.

תַּנָּא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna teaches each statement individually, i.e., the halakha applies to each of the animals listed in a different manner.

״וּבְיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ (תִּקַּח) פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים וָאַיִל תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ״, ״פַּר״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

§ The Gemara cites a baraita with regard to the offerings sacrificed on the New Moon: The verse states: “And on the day of the new moon, a young bull without blemish; and six lambs, and a ram; they shall be without blemish” (Ezekiel 46:6) The baraita asks: Why does the verse state “a bull” when the verse in the Torah requires two bulls, as it is stated: “And on your New Moons you shall present a burnt offering to the Lord: Two young bulls, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without blemish” (Numbers 28:11)?

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה ״פָּרִים״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פַּר״.

The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Two young bulls,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than two bulls under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find two bulls, he brings one? Therefore, the verse states: “A young bull,” in the singular, to teach that even if one has only one bull it should be sacrificed.

״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״שִׁבְעָה״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁבְעָה יָבִיא שִׁשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״.

The baraita discusses the continuation of the verse in Ezekiel, which mentions “six lambs.” Why does the verse state only six lambs when the verse in the Torah requires seven? The baraita answers: Since it is stated in the Torah with regard to the offering of the New Moon: “Seven lambs,” one might think that it is not acceptable to bring fewer than seven lambs under any circumstances. From where is it derived that if one did not find seven lambs, he should bring six? Therefore, the verse in Ezekiel states: “Six lambs,” to teach that in the absence of all seven lambs one should sacrifice six.

וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁשָּׁה, יָבִיא חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשָּׁה יָבִיא אַרְבָּעָה, אַרְבָּעָה יָבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״.

And from where is it derived that if he did not find six lambs, he should bring five; and that if he did not find five lambs, he should bring four; and that if he did not find four lambs, he should bring three; and that if he did not find three lambs, he should bring two; and that if he could not find even two lambs, he should bring even one lamb? Therefore, the next verse in Ezekiel states: “And for the lambs as his means suffice” (Ezekiel 46:7), indicating that one should bring however many lambs one is able to bring.

וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב הָכִי, ״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ לְמָה לִי? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַדּוֹרֵי, מְהַדְּרִינַן.

The Gemara asks: But once this is written, why do I need the previous verse to state “six lambs,” indicating that if one does not have seven lambs he should bring six? The Gemara answers: It teaches that although the minimal obligation is satisfied with even one lamb, nevertheless, to the degree that it is possible to seek more lambs, we seek them.

וּמִנַּיִן (לְאֵילִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים) שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיוּ״.

The Gemara presents another halakha derived from these verses: And from where is it derived that failure to slaughter some of the required two bulls and seven sheep of the additional offering on Shavuot prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “They shall be” (Numbers 28:31); the term “they shall be” indicates that the offerings must be brought precisely as prescribed.

״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהִים בָּרִאשׁוֹן בְּאֶחָד לַחוֹדֶשׁ תִּקַּח פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְחִטֵּאתָ אֶת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ״. ״חַטָּאת״ – עוֹלָה הִיא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “So says the Lord God: In the first month, on the first day of the month, you shall take a young bull without blemish; and you shall purify [ veḥitteita ] the Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 45:18). The Gemara asks: Since this verse speaks of the first of Nisan, which is a New Moon, why does it state “you shall purify [ ḥitteita ],” which indicates the sacrifice of a sin offering [ ḥatat ], when in fact each of the two bulls sacrificed on the New Moon is a burnt offering (see Numbers 28:11)? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, and in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִילּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה.

Rav Ashi says: It is possible to explain that this verse is not referring to the additional offerings sacrificed on the New Moon but rather to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration of the Tabernacle in the days of Moses. When the Temple service was restored in the Second Temple, the Jewish people observed eight days of inauguration, initiating the priests in the Temple service, from the twenty-third of Adar through the New Moon of Nisan. During these eight days, they offered a bull for a sin offering in addition to the offerings of the inauguration, just as had been done at the inauguration of the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 9:2).

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מִלּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה. אָמַר לוֹ: תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ דַּעְתִּי.

The Gemara comments that this discussion with regard to the interpretation of the verse in Ezekiel is also taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it. Rabbi Yosei said to Rabbi Yehuda: This verse is referring to the offerings of the inauguration that they sacrificed later in the days of Ezra, similar to the offerings that were sacrificed during the period of inauguration in the days of Moses. Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Yosei: May your mind be at ease, as you have put my mind at ease with this interpretation of the verse.

״וְכׇל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִן הָעוֹף וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה לֹא יֹאכְלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – כֹּהֲנִים הוּא דְּלֹא יֹאכְלוּ, הָא יִשְׂרָאֵל אָכְלִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ.

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “The priests shall not eat of anything that dies of itself, or is torn, whether it be fowl or beast” (Ezekiel 44:31). The Gemara asks: Is it only the priests who may not eat an unslaughtered animal carcass or an animal that was torn and now has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [ tereifa ], but an ordinary Jew may eat them? In fact, these items are prohibited for consumption by all. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This passage is indeed difficult, but in the future Elijah the prophet will interpret it.

רָבִינָא אָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשְׁתְּרִי מְלִיקָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, תִּשְׁתְּרֵי נָמֵי נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Ravina said that it was necessary for the verse to emphasize that these prohibitions apply to priests for the following reason: It might enter your mind to say that since pinching is permitted with regard to priests, therefore an animal carcass or a tereifa should also be permitted for them. A bird sin offering is killed by a priest pinching the nape of its neck. This is not a valid method of slaughter and would generally render a bird or animal an unslaughtered carcass, yet the priests are permitted to partake of the bird sin offering. Consequently, one might think that the prohibitions against eating an animal carcass or a tereifa in general do not apply to priests. Therefore, the verse teaches us that these prohibitions apply to priests as well.

״וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי וְכִפַּרְתֶּם אֶת הַבָּיִת״, ״שִׁבְעָה״?

§ The Gemara discusses the meaning of another difficult verse in Ezekiel: “And so shall you do on the seventh of the month for every one that errs, and for him that is simple; so shall you make atonement for the house” (Ezekiel 45:20). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression “on the seventh of the month”? There are no special offerings that are sacrificed on the seventh day of any month.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל קָהָל.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The verse must be reinterpreted as referring to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought when the majority of the Jewish people have sinned as a result of following a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin. These seven alluded to in the verse are seven tribes who sinned. In such a case, a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought even though the number of individuals who sinned are not the majority of the congregation. Because the majority of the individuals in the majority of the tribes have sinned, it is considered a sin of the congregation and not sins of many individuals.

״חֹדֶשׁ״ – אִם חִדְּשׁוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֵלֶב מוּתָּר, ״מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.

Similarly, the word “month [ ḥodesh ]” is to be interpreted as meaning that a bull for an unwitting communal sin is brought if the court innovated [ ḥiddeshu ] a new halakha contradicting the Torah, e.g., if they said that eating forbidden fat is permitted. The continuation of the verse: “For every one that errs, and for him that is simple,” teaches that the Sanhedrin is liable to sacrifice the bull for unwitting communal sin only for a matter that was hidden from the Sanhedrin, i.e., about which the Sanhedrin issued a mistaken ruling, and accompanied by unwitting action by the majority of the community, who relied on the mistaken ruling.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זָכוּר אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לַטּוֹב, וַחֲנִינָא בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא הוּא נִגְנַז סֵפֶר יְחֶזְקֵאל, שֶׁהָיוּ דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. מֶה עָשָׂה? הֶעֱלָה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן, וְיָשַׁב בַּעֲלִיָּיה וּדְרָשׁוֹ.

The Gemara concludes the discussion of specific difficult verses in Ezekiel with the following general statement: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: That man is remembered for good, and Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya is his name. As were it not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed and not included in the biblical canon, because various details of its contents appear to contradict statements of the Torah. What did Ḥanina ben Ḥizkiyya do? He brought up to his upper story three hundred jugs [ garbei ] of oil for light so that he could study even at night, and he sat isolated in the upper story and did not move from there until he homiletically interpreted all of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed to contradict verses in the Torah.

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין [וְכוּ׳].

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: If the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should rather bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵיפָה לַפָּר וְאֵיפָה לָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה מִנְחָה וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הִין לָאֵיפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִדַּת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אַחַת הִיא?

Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita : The verse states: “And he shall prepare a meal offering, an ephah for the bull, and an ephah for the ram, and for the lambs as his means suffice, and a hin of oil to an ephah” (Ezekiel 46:7). Rabbi Shimon says: Is the measure of the meal offering accompanying bulls and rams the same, as stated in this verse that it is an ephah for each? In fact, this is not the halakha , as the meal offering accompanying a bull is three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour (see Numbers 15:9), whereas the meal offering accompanying a ram is only two-tenths of an ephah (see Numbers 15:6).

אֶלָּא, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיוּ נְסָכִים – יָבִיאוּ פַּר אֶחָד וּנְסָכָיו, וְאַל יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּן בְּלֹא נְסָכִים. וְאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם

Rather, the verse teaches that if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for the numerous bulls that are required to be sacrificed on that day but they did not also have sufficient funds for the accompanying libations, they should bring one bull and its libations, and they should not sacrifice all of them without libations. And similarly, if the Temple treasurers had sufficient funds for