Menachot Daf 45 (מנחות דף מ״ה)
Daf: 45 | Amudim: 45a – 45b | Date: 26 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (45a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
The Gemara questions which rams the mishna refers to
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵילִים דְּהֵיכָא? אִי דְּהָנְהוּ – דְּאַיִל הוּא, אִי דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – הֲוָיָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues from the previous daf’s discussion about which offerings prevent each other. The mishna stated that “rams” do not prevent each other, but the Gemara identifies a difficulty: the musaf offering in Numbers has only one ram, while the Leviticus rams accompanying the two loaves have “הויה” (a term of being) requiring them to be brought exactly as prescribed. This challenge sets up the next segment’s resolution by questioning which source the mishna could possibly be referring to.
Key Terms:
- הֲוָיָה = A biblical term indicating that the offering must be brought precisely as prescribed
- תוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים = The book of Leviticus, literally “the Torah of the Priests”
- חוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים = The book of Numbers, literally “the Book of the Census”
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The rams of Leviticus and Numbers do not prevent each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם דַּעֲצֶרֶת דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא אֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים מְעַכְּבִי לֵיהּ לְאַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים, וָלֹא אַיִל דְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים מְעַכֵּב לְהוּ לְאֵילִים דְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the difficulty by explaining that the mishna’s reference to “rams” not preventing each other refers to the relationship between the two different sources — Leviticus and Numbers. The Leviticus rams (accompanying the two loaves) and the Numbers ram (part of the musaf) are independent obligations. Even though the Leviticus rams have “הויה” requiring both to be brought together, this stringency only applies within the Leviticus set, not between the two biblical sources.
Key Terms:
- מְעַכְּבִין = Prevent; in this context, one offering’s absence preventing fulfillment of another
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
The mishna treats bulls, rams, and sheep inconsistently
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, פָּרִים – דַּאֲפִילּוּ אַהֲדָדֵי לָא מְעַכְּבִי, וְאֵילִים – דְּהָכָא וּדְהָכָא הוּא דְּלָא מְעַכְּבִי, אִינְהוּ מְעַכְּבִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a structural objection to the previous answer. If the mishna’s statement about “rams” means that Leviticus and Numbers rams don’t prevent each other (but within Leviticus they do prevent each other), then the mishna is using the same language for three different categories — bulls, rams, sheep — to describe different halakhic rules. For bulls and sheep, “not preventing” means even individual animals within the same source don’t prevent each other, while for rams it means only the cross-source relationship. This inconsistency in the mishna needs resolution.
Key Terms:
- אַהֲדָדֵי = Each other; used here to describe mutual prevention within the same set of offerings
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
The tanna teaches each item individually — they have different rules
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּא מִילֵּי מִילֵּי קָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara gives a concise but important resolution: the tanna of the mishna is not presenting a single unified rule for all three animals. Rather, each animal type is an independent statement with its own specific halakha. Bulls don’t prevent each other within the same source; the Leviticus rams don’t prevent the Numbers ram and vice versa; and similarly for sheep. This approach — that a mishna can list items together while applying different rules to each — is a standard Talmudic principle of interpretation.
Key Terms:
- מִילֵּי מִילֵּי = Each statement individually; a principle that items listed together may have different applicable rules
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Ezekiel prescribes fewer offerings than the Torah for the New Moon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וּבְיוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ (תִּקַּח) פַּר בֶּן בָּקָר תָּמִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים וָאַיִל תְּמִימִים יִהְיוּ״, ״פַּר״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?
English Translation:
§ 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)?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces an important baraita examining discrepancies between Ezekiel’s vision of Temple offerings and the Torah’s prescriptions. Ezekiel 46:6 lists one bull, six lambs, and one ram for the New Moon, while Numbers 28:11 prescribes two bulls, seven lambs, and one ram. Rather than seeing these as contradictions, the baraita derives practical halakha: the lower numbers in Ezekiel teach that when the full complement is unavailable, fewer offerings may still be brought. This approach is central to the Gemara’s broader theme of resolving apparent contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah.
Key Terms:
- יוֹם הַחֹדֶשׁ = The day of the New Moon (Rosh Chodesh), when additional offerings are brought
- מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = “What does the verse come to teach?” — a standard exegetical formula
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
One bull suffices when two are unavailable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה ״פָּרִים״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שְׁנַיִם מֵבִיא אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״פַּר״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita uses the singular “פר” in Ezekiel to derive a practical leniency: when two bulls are unavailable, one may still bring a single bull. This demonstrates the Talmudic approach that Ezekiel’s prophecy, while describing a future Temple, also serves as an exegetical source for deriving halakha. The principle emerging here is that the ideal number of offerings should be sought, but a partial fulfillment remains valid when the full complement is impossible.
Key Terms:
- מֵבִיא אֶחָד = He brings one; partial fulfillment of the obligation when the full amount is unavailable
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Six lambs suffice when seven are unavailable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה ״שִׁבְעָה״, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁבְעָה יָבִיא שִׁשָּׁה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שִׁשָּׁה״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same exegetical pattern continues with the lambs: the Torah prescribes seven, but Ezekiel mentions only six. The baraita derives that six lambs are acceptable when seven cannot be obtained. This consistent pattern — Ezekiel listing fewer animals than the Torah — builds toward the broader principle that the Torah’s numbers represent the ideal, while Ezekiel reveals that partial fulfillment remains valid in cases of necessity.
Key Terms:
- כְּבָשִׂים = Lambs; among the most common sacrificial animals in the Temple service
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Even a single lamb suffices — “as his means suffice”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא שִׁשָּׁה, יָבִיא חֲמִשָּׁה, חֲמִשָּׁה יָבִיא אַרְבָּעָה, אַרְבָּעָה יָבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָבִיא שְׁנַיִם, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the descending scale: while Ezekiel’s “six” teaches that one fewer than the Torah’s prescribed seven is acceptable, the phrase “as his means suffice” (כאשר תשיג ידו) extends this all the way down to even a single lamb. This phrase, borrowed from the Torah’s language for sliding-scale offerings of the poor, establishes a broad principle for communal offerings: whatever can be brought should be brought, and the inability to bring the full number does not exempt one from bringing what is available.
Key Terms:
- כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ = “As his means suffice”; a phrase indicating that the obligation scales to one’s ability
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
One must actively seek the maximum number of offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמֵאַחַר דִּכְתִיב הָכִי, ״שִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים״ לְמָה לִי? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַדּוֹרֵי, מְהַדְּרִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notices an apparent redundancy: if “as his means suffice” already teaches that even one lamb is enough, why does Ezekiel specifically mention “six”? The answer reveals an important principle — מהדרינן (we actively seek the maximum). It’s not enough to bring whatever is easily at hand; one must make a genuine effort to obtain as close to the ideal number as possible. The specific mention of “six” teaches that the goal always remains the full complement, and only genuine inability justifies bringing fewer.
Key Terms:
- מְהַדְּרִינַן = We seek; we make an effort to fulfill the mitzvah in its most complete form
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
“יהיו” teaches that Shavuot offerings prevent each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִנַּיִן (לְאֵילִים שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים) שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִהְיוּ״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment derives the principle of mutual prevention (עיכוב) from the word “יהיו” — “they shall be.” This word, implying a fixed state of being, teaches that the offerings described must be brought as a complete set. The word “יהיו” will become a crucial term later on this daf in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas about whether the two loaves prevent the two sheep or vice versa, making this derivation a key building block for the mishna’s discussion on 45b.
Key Terms:
- יִהְיוּ = “They shall be”; a term indicating that the prescribed set must be complete, and individual elements prevent each other
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Ezekiel calls a burnt offering a “sin offering” — Elijah will explain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״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.
English Translation:
§ 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 the 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara moves to another difficulty in Ezekiel’s prophecy. The word “וחטאת” suggests a sin offering (חטאת), but the New Moon bulls in Numbers are burnt offerings (עולות). Rabbi Yochanan’s striking response — that Elijah will come to explain this in the future — reflects the Talmudic recognition that some scriptural passages remain genuinely unresolved. This admission of interpretive limits is rare and highlights the unique challenges posed by Ezekiel’s vision of the future Temple.
Key Terms:
- חִטֵּאתָ = A term suggesting both “purify” and “sin offering” (חטאת), creating the ambiguity
- אֵלִיָּהוּ עָתִיד לְדוֹרְשָׁהּ = Elijah will interpret it in the future; a Talmudic formula for acknowledging unresolvable difficulties
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Ashi: Ezekiel refers to inauguration offerings in Ezra’s time
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מִילּוּאִים הִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ בִּימֵי מֹשֶׁה.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi offers an alternative to Rabbi Yochanan’s deferred answer. He suggests that Ezekiel is not describing the regular New Moon offerings at all, but rather the inauguration offerings (מילואים) that were brought when the Second Temple was established in Ezra’s time. Just as the Tabernacle’s inauguration included sin offerings (Leviticus 9:2), the Second Temple’s inauguration likewise included them. This resolves the difficulty: the word “חטאת” is accurate because it refers to inauguration sin offerings, not to the regular New Moon burnt offerings.
Key Terms:
- מִלּוּאִים = Inauguration offerings; sacrifices brought when initiating the Temple or Tabernacle service
- יְמֵי עֶזְרָא = The days of Ezra; the period of the Second Temple’s establishment
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
Tannaitic parallel: Rabbi Yosei satisfies Rabbi Yehuda with the inauguration explanation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita provides a Tannaitic parallel to the Amoraic debate, showing that the same positions existed in an earlier generation. Rabbi Yehuda (like Rabbi Yochanan) deferred to Elijah, while Rabbi Yosei (like Rav Ashi) offered the inauguration explanation. The touching exchange — “may your mind be at ease, as you have put my mind at ease” — reveals how deeply the apparent contradictions between Ezekiel and the Torah troubled the Sages, and how welcome a satisfying resolution was.
Key Terms:
- תָּנוּחַ דַּעְתְּךָ שֶׁהִנַּחְתָּ דַּעְתִּי = “May your mind be at ease as you have put my mind at ease”; an expression of gratitude for resolving a difficult question
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = “It is also taught likewise in a baraita”; indicates corroboration from a Tannaitic source
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Why does Ezekiel single out priests for a universal prohibition?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״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.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises yet another puzzling verse in Ezekiel. The Torah prohibits neveilah and treifah for all Jews (Exodus 22:30, Deuteronomy 14:21), yet Ezekiel specifically addresses this prohibition to priests, implying that non-priests might be permitted to eat them. Rabbi Yochanan again resorts to his formula that Elijah will explain this in the future. The pattern of Ezekiel containing seemingly contradictory statements underscores the broader theme of this section — the challenge of reconciling prophetic visions with Torah law.
Key Terms:
- נְבֵלָה = An animal that died without proper ritual slaughter; its consumption is prohibited
- טְרֵפָה = An animal with a wound or defect that will cause it to die within 12 months; prohibited for consumption
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina: Priests might have thought melikah exempts them from neveilah/treifah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: כֹּהֲנִים אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִשְׁתְּרִי מְלִיקָה לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, תִּשְׁתְּרֵי נָמֵי נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵפָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina offers a brilliant resolution that avoids deferring to Elijah. Priests perform melikah (pinching) on bird sin offerings — a method that would constitute neveilah if used outside the Temple context — and they eat the resulting meat. One might have extrapolated that since priests are already “permitted” a form of neveilah through melikah, they might be exempt from the general prohibition against neveilah and treifah. Ezekiel therefore specifically addresses priests to close this logical loophole: despite their unique privilege with melikah, the general prohibitions fully apply to them.
Key Terms:
- מְלִיקָה = Pinching; the method of killing a bird offering by pinching the back of its neck with the priest’s thumbnail
- סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = “It might enter your mind”; introduces a hypothetical reasoning that is ultimately rejected
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
What does “the seventh of the month” in Ezekiel mean?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי וְכִפַּרְתֶּם אֶת הַבָּיִת״, ״שִׁבְעָה״?
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara takes up another puzzling verse in Ezekiel. The “seventh of the month” doesn’t correspond to any known occasion for special offerings in the Torah. The plain meaning seems incomprehensible, prompting the Gemara to seek an allegorical or halakhic interpretation of both the word “שבעה” (seven) and the word “חודש” (month). This sets up Rabbi Yochanan’s creative reinterpretation in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- שִׁבְעָה בַחֹדֶשׁ = “The seventh of the month”; a mysterious Ezekiel reference with no parallel in Torah law
Segment 17
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: “Seven” means seven tribes who sinned
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים שֶׁחָטְאוּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רוּבָּהּ שֶׁל קָהָל.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan creatively reinterprets the verse by reading “שבעה” not as “the seventh day” but as “seven tribes.” The bull for an unwitting communal sin (פר העלם דבר של ציבור) is brought when the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follows it. Rabbi Yochanan teaches that seven out of twelve tribes constitutes a majority of tribes, even if the total number of individuals in those seven tribes is less than the majority of the entire population. This teaches that communal sin is determined by a majority of tribes, not a majority of individuals.
Key Terms:
- פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר = The bull for an unwitting communal sin; brought when the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous ruling
- שְׁבָטִים = Tribes; the twelve tribes of Israel, of which seven constitute a majority
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
“Chodesh” means the court innovated; both error in ruling and action are required
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״חֹדֶשׁ״ – אִם חִדְּשׁוּ וְאָמְרוּ חֵלֶב מוּתָּר, ״מֵאִישׁ שֹׁגֶה וּמִפֶּתִי״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִין אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues its creative reinterpretation of each word in the verse. “חודש” is read not as “month” but as the root חדש — “to innovate” — meaning the court innovated a new, erroneous ruling. “מאיש שוגה ומפתי” teaches the dual requirement: both an error in the court’s ruling (העלם דבר) and unwitting action by the community (שגגת מעשה) who followed it. Neither element alone suffices — a mistaken ruling without communal action, or communal sin without a mistaken ruling, does not trigger the communal sin offering. This is a key principle in the laws of the communal sin offering discussed in Masechet Horayot.
Key Terms:
- הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר = A matter hidden from the court; a mistaken ruling by the Sanhedrin
- שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה = Unwitting action; the community acting based on the court’s erroneous ruling
- חֵלֶב = Forbidden fat; a standard Talmudic example of a prohibition that might be erroneously permitted
Segment 19
TYPE: אגדתא
Chanina ben Chizkiyya saved Sefer Yechezkel with 300 jugs of oil
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This famous aggadic passage provides the dramatic conclusion to the Gemara’s series of difficult Ezekiel verses. The image of Chanina ben Chizkiyya — secluding himself in an attic with 300 jugs of oil to study by lamplight — vividly conveys both the magnitude of the challenge and the determination required to meet it. Without his heroic intellectual labor, the Book of Ezekiel would have been “hidden away” (גנז) — removed from the biblical canon. This passage also appears in Shabbat 13b and Chagigah 13a, underscoring its importance in Talmudic literature and the Sages’ awareness that canonical status required harmonization with Torah law.
Key Terms:
- נִגְנַז = Would have been suppressed/hidden away; removed from the biblical canon
- גַּרְבֵי שֶׁמֶן = Jugs of oil; used for lamplight to enable continuous nighttime study
- חֲנִינָא בֶּן חִזְקִיָּה = A Sage remembered for saving the Book of Ezekiel through his scholarship
Segment 20
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon: Better one offering with libations than many without
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין [וְכוּ׳].
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to Rabbi Shimon’s position from the mishna on the previous daf. His ruling establishes an important principle about the quality of sacrificial offerings: a properly complete sacrifice (with its required libations) is preferable to multiple incomplete ones. This reflects a deeper value in Temple law — that fulfilling a mitzvah properly, even partially, takes precedence over maximizing quantity at the cost of proper performance.
Key Terms:
- נְסָכִים = Libations; the wine and flour offerings that accompany animal sacrifices
- פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין = Numerous bulls; the multiple bulls required on certain festival days
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon questions Ezekiel’s equal measures for bulls and rams
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאֵיפָה לַפָּר וְאֵיפָה לָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה מִנְחָה וְלַכְּבָשִׂים כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ וְשֶׁמֶן הִין לָאֵיפָה״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: וְכִי מִדַּת פָּרִים וְאֵילִים אַחַת הִיא?
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon highlights another apparent contradiction between Ezekiel and the Torah. Ezekiel prescribes an equal ephah of flour for both bulls and rams, but the Torah differentiates: a bull requires three-tenths of an ephah and a ram requires only two-tenths. Rather than treating this as an intractable contradiction, Rabbi Shimon will use it as a springboard for deriving his ruling about bringing one offering with its proper libations rather than many without them. This demonstrates the Talmudic method of transforming apparent difficulties into sources for practical halakha.
Key Terms:
- אֵיפָה = An ephah; a dry measure used for flour and grain offerings
- מִנְחָה = Meal offering; the flour and oil offering that accompanies animal sacrifices
- הִין = A liquid measure used for oil and wine
Segment 22
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon derives the one-with-libations rule from Ezekiel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, שֶׁאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם פָּרִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיוּ נְסָכִים – יָבִיאוּ פַּר אֶחָד וּנְסָכָיו, וְאַל יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּן בְּלֹא נְסָכִים. וְאִם הָיוּ לָהֶם
English Translation:
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
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon resolves the difficulty in Ezekiel by explaining the verse’s purpose: the equal mention of “an ephah for the bull and an ephah for the ram” doesn’t mean the measures are actually equal. Rather, the verse teaches that each offering must be accompanied by its proper flour measure. When resources are insufficient for all offerings with their libations, one should bring a single complete offering rather than many incomplete ones. This baraita continues into the next amud with the parallel rule about rams.
Key Terms:
- וְאַל יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּן בְּלֹא נְסָכִים = “And they should not sacrifice all of them without libations”; the key ruling prioritizing quality over quantity
Amud Bet (45b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Same rule for rams: one with its ephah rather than all without
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵילִים מְרוּבִּין וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶן אֵיפָתָן – יָבִיאוּ אַיִל אֶחָד וְאֵיפָתוֹ, וְלֹא יִקְרְבוּ כּוּלָּם בְּלֹא אֵיפוֹת.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the baraita that began at the end of amud aleph, extending Rabbi Shimon’s principle from bulls to rams. The same logic applies: a single ram with its proper ephah of flour is preferable to multiple rams without their flour offerings. This creates a unified rule that applies across all categories of festival offerings — the completeness of each individual offering takes precedence over maximizing the total number of offerings.
Key Terms:
- אֵיפָתָן = Their ephah; the prescribed measure of flour that must accompany the ram
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
The burnt offerings and sin offering do not prevent the two loaves, and vice versa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַפָּר וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשָּׂעִיר – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכְּבָן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna introduces the topic of the Shavuot offerings, specifically the relationship between the two loaves (שתי הלחם) and the various animal offerings. The mishna first establishes the uncontested rule: the burnt offerings (bull, rams, sheep) and the sin offering (goat) do not prevent the two loaves, and the two loaves do not prevent them. This makes sense because these offerings have independent obligations from different biblical sources. The dispute that follows concerns specifically the two sheep brought as peace offerings, which are more closely linked to the two loaves.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם = The two loaves; special wheat loaves brought on Shavuot from the new grain
- שָׂעִיר = Goat; brought as a sin offering on Shavuot
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Akiva: The loaves prevent the sheep, but not vice versa
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵין הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva holds that the loaves are the primary element and the sheep are secondary. Without loaves, the sheep cannot be sacrificed — because the sheep exist “for the sake of the bread.” However, the loaves can stand alone without the sheep. His reasoning, which the Gemara will explain later, is based on a gezera shava (verbal analogy) that identifies the word “יהיו” (they shall be) with the loaves rather than the sheep. This position makes the loaves the enabling condition for the sheep.
Key Terms:
- מְעַכֵּב = Prevents; the absence of one element prevents the other from being offered
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas: The sheep prevent the loaves, not vice versa — proven from the wilderness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב הַכְּבָשִׂים, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה קָרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas takes the exact opposite position from Rabbi Akiva. He argues from historical precedent: during the forty years in the wilderness, the two sheep were sacrificed on Shavuot without the two loaves (since the loaves required Eretz Yisrael wheat). This proves that sheep can exist independently of the loaves. However, the loaves cannot be sacrificed without the sheep, because the loaves need the sheep to “permit” them through the waving ceremony. Rabbi Shimon (in the next segment) will agree with this conclusion but disagree with this reasoning.
Key Terms:
- בַּמִּדְבָּר = In the wilderness; the 40-year period when certain land-dependent offerings couldn’t be brought
- שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ = “As we found”; an argument from precedent
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon agrees with ben Nannas’s ruling but not his reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֶּן נַנָּס, אֲבָל אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon introduces a nuanced position: he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas’s practical conclusion (the sheep can be brought without the loaves, but not vice versa) but rejects his reasoning. This is a significant moment in the mishna because it illustrates how the same halakhic outcome can rest on entirely different logical foundations. Rabbi Shimon’s distinction will be elaborated in the next two segments, where he provides his own reasoning based on the concept of “matirin” — enabling elements.
Key Terms:
- הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי = “The halakha accords with the words of”; a formula for endorsing a position
- אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו = “The reason is not as he stated”; agreement on the conclusion but disagreement on the rationale
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon: Neither the loaves nor their sheep were offered in the wilderness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁכׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְכׇל הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים אֵין קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ קָרְבוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon directly contradicts Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas’s historical claim. He argues that in the wilderness, the sheep accompanying the two loaves (from Leviticus) were NOT sacrificed at all — only the musaf offerings from Numbers were brought. The Leviticus offerings and the Numbers offerings are two entirely separate sets, and the entire Leviticus set (loaves and their accompanying sheep alike) began only when the Jews entered the Land of Israel. This undermines ben Nannas’s proof from the wilderness that sheep were ever brought without loaves.
Key Terms:
- מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ = “From when they arrived in the Land”; the point when the Leviticus Shavuot offerings began
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Shimon’s reason: The sheep “permit themselves” — the loaves have no “permitter”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יִקְרְבוּ כְּבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכְּבָשִׁים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם בְּלֹא כְּבָשִׂים – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon provides his own elegant reasoning. The sheep are peace offerings whose blood-sprinkling and altar-burning “permit themselves” — i.e., these sacrificial procedures enable the priests to eat the remaining meat. The sheep don’t need the loaves for this process. But the loaves are a different matter: they become permitted for consumption only through the waving ceremony performed together with the sheep. Without the sheep, the loaves have no “matir” (enabling agent) and therefore cannot be offered. This conceptual framework — based on what enables what — is logically stronger than ben Nannas’s historical argument.
Key Terms:
- מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן = “They permit themselves”; the sacrificial procedures of the sheep enable their own consumption
- מַתִּיר = An enabling agent; the sacrificial element that permits something for consumption or use
- אֵין לוֹ מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ = “There is nothing to permit it”; the loaves lack an independent enabling agent
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Baraita: “With the bread” makes them obligatory, yet “seven lambs” teaches they can be brought alone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם״ – חוֹבָה עַל הַלֶּחֶם, ״שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לֶחֶם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its analysis of the mishna with a baraita that exposes an internal tension within a single verse. The phrase “with the bread” implies that these offerings depend on the bread, yet the verse continues to enumerate the offerings independently, suggesting they can be brought alone. This apparent contradiction within Leviticus 23:18 is precisely what generates the three-way dispute in the mishna. The baraita will now show that these Leviticus offerings are separate from the Numbers musaf offerings.
Key Terms:
- חוֹבָה עַל הַלֶּחֶם = “An obligation with the bread”; indicating that these offerings are bound to the two loaves
- אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לֶחֶם = “Even though there is no bread”; the independent listing suggests they can be offered alone
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Tarfon: “With the bread” means the sheep obligation began only in Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל הַלֶּחֶם״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּכְּבָשִׂים קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְחַיְּיבוּ בַּלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tarfon provides a chronological interpretation of “with the bread”: these Leviticus offerings only became obligatory when the obligation to bring the two loaves took effect — namely, upon entering the Land of Israel where grain could be grown. This interpretation supports Rabbi Shimon’s position in the mishna that the Leviticus offerings (including the two sheep) were not brought in the wilderness at all, undermining ben Nannas’s argument from wilderness precedent.
Key Terms:
- לֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ = “They were not obligated”; the obligation to bring these offerings hadn’t yet taken effect in the wilderness
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Akiva proves Leviticus and Numbers describe separate offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva establishes the crucial premise that Leviticus and Numbers describe entirely separate sets of offerings for Shavuot. The proof is compelling: the numbers of bulls and rams differ (Leviticus: one bull, two rams; Numbers: two bulls, one ram). If they were the same offerings, the Torah would not give contradictory numbers. This means the total Shavuot offerings are: three bulls, three rams, fourteen sheep (seven from each source), one goat, plus the two loaves with two sheep as peace offerings. This distinction is foundational for the entire dispute.
Key Terms:
- בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן = “For their own sake”; the Numbers offerings are independent musaf obligations
- בִּגְלַל לֶחֶם = “For the sake of the bread”; the Leviticus offerings accompany the two loaves
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Consequence: Numbers offerings were brought in the wilderness; Leviticus offerings were not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִמְצָא, מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּחוֹמֶשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים – קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר, וּמַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – לֹא קָרֵב בַּמִּדְבָּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment draws the practical conclusion from the previous argument. Since Leviticus and Numbers describe separate offerings, and since the Leviticus offerings are tied to the two loaves (which require Eretz Yisrael grain), it follows that none of the Leviticus offerings — including the two sheep peace offerings — were brought in the wilderness. This conclusion directly supports Rabbi Shimon’s challenge to ben Nannas: the sheep were never brought “without the loaves” in the wilderness; they simply weren’t brought at all.
Key Terms:
- קָרֵב = Was sacrificed; offered on the altar
- לֹא קָרֵב = Was not sacrificed; the Leviticus set was entirely absent in the wilderness
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Perhaps only the bulls and rams differ, but the sheep are the same?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא פָּרִים וְאֵילִים לָאו אִינְהוּ, הָא כְּבָשִׂים אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ? מִדְּהָנֵי אִישְׁתַּנּוּ, הָנֵי נָמֵי דְּאַחֲרִינֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a targeted objection: perhaps only the bulls and rams are different between the two passages (since their numbers clearly differ), but the seven sheep mentioned in both could be the same set. The Gemara’s response applies a principle of textual unity — since bulls and rams in both passages are demonstrably different, the sheep must also be different. The two passages describe two wholly separate sets of offerings, not a partial overlap.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּהָנֵי אִישְׁתַּנּוּ = “From the fact that these differ”; a principle that differences in part of a set imply differences throughout
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Perhaps the Torah gives two alternative combinations? No — the different order proves they’re separate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּפָרִים וְאֵילִים, מִמַּאי דְּאִישְׁתַּנּוֹ? דִּלְמָא הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: אִי בָּעֵי פַּר וּשְׁנֵי אֵילִים לִיקְרַב, אִי בָּעֵי שְׁנֵי פָּרִים וְאַיִל אֶחָד לִיקְרַב! מִדְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי סִדְרָן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַחֲרִינֵי נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents a creative counter-reading: perhaps Leviticus and Numbers present two alternative formulas for the same obligation, and one can choose either combination. The Gemara refutes this by pointing to the different order in which the animals are listed. Leviticus lists sheep-bull-rams while Numbers lists bulls-ram-sheep. If they described the same set of offerings, the order would be consistent. The difference in ordering demonstrates that these are two distinct sets of offerings — the Leviticus set accompanying the two loaves, and the Numbers set being the independent musaf.
Key Terms:
- סִדְרָן = Their order; the sequence in which the offerings are listed in each passage
- מִדְּאִישְׁתַּנִּי סִדְרָן = “From the fact that their order changed”; proves the offerings are distinct
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
What is Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?
English Translation:
§ 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions from establishing that the Leviticus and Numbers offerings are separate to analyzing the core dispute in the mishna. Having established the factual premise, it now asks for the scriptural reasoning behind each Tanna’s position. The answer will involve a sophisticated analysis of verbal analogies (gezera shava) and how different interpretive choices lead to opposite conclusions about whether the loaves or the sheep are the “essential” element.
Key Terms:
- מַאי טַעְמָא = “What is the reasoning?”; a standard Talmudic formula for seeking the scriptural basis of a position
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Akiva derives from a gezera shava: yihyu from tihyena
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning hinges on a gezera shava — a verbal analogy between matching keywords in two different verses. The word “יהיו” (they shall be) in Leviticus 23:20, which describes the waving ceremony, indicates that something is essential and cannot be omitted. But what does “they” refer to — the loaves or the sheep? Rabbi Akiva connects “יהיו” to “תהיינה” (the feminine form of “they shall be”) in Leviticus 23:17, which speaks exclusively about the loaves. This analogy establishes that the “essential” element is the bread.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = Verbal analogy; a hermeneutical rule deriving law by comparing identical or similar words in different verses
- יִהְיוּ = “They shall be” (masculine plural); found in Leviticus 23:20
- תִּהְיֶינָה = “They shall be” (feminine plural); found in Leviticus 23:17, referring to the loaves
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Conclusion: Just as “tihyena” refers to bread, so “yihyu” refers to bread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם, אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning. Since “תהיינה” in verse 17 clearly refers to loaves, and we derive “יהיו” in verse 20 from “תהיינה” through the gezera shava, the “essential” element identified by “יהיו” must also be the loaves. Therefore, the loaves are essential for the sheep (without loaves, no sheep), but the sheep are not essential for the loaves (without sheep, the loaves can still be brought). This is the exact opposite of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas’s position.
Key Terms:
- מָה לְהַלָּן… אַף כָּאן = “Just as there… so too here”; the standard formula for applying a gezera shava
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Ben Nannas derives from yihyu to yihyu — matching identical terms
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבֶן נַנָּס, גָּמַר ״יִהְיוּ״ ״יִהְיוּ״, מָה לְהַלָּן כְּבָשִׂים, אַף כָּאן כְּבָשִׂים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now explains Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas’s competing gezera shava. He also works with the word “יהיו” in Leviticus 23:20 but connects it to “יהיו” in Leviticus 23:18, where the identical term appears in reference to the seven sheep brought as burnt offerings. Since verse 18 clearly discusses sheep, he concludes that verse 20’s “יהיו” also refers to sheep. This makes the sheep the essential element: without sheep, no loaves. The key difference is which verse serves as the source for the analogy.
Key Terms:
- גָּמַר יִהְיוּ יִהְיוּ = “He derived [from] yihyu [to] yihyu”; a verbal analogy using identical terms
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why doesn’t ben Nannas learn from tihyena? Identical forms are preferred
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבֶן נַנָּס נָמֵי נֵילַף מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן לֶחֶם אַף כָּאן לֶחֶם? דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises the natural objection: why doesn’t ben Nannas also use Rabbi Akiva’s gezera shava from “תהיינה”? The answer introduces a methodological principle of gezera shava: when choosing between two possible analogies, an identical match is preferred over a merely similar one. “יהיו” to “יהיו” (identical forms) is a stronger connection than “יהיו” to “תהיינה” (same root but different conjugation). This principle — that identical verbal forms trump similar ones — becomes the crux of the dispute.
Key Terms:
- דָּנִין יִהְיוּ מִיִּהְיוּ = “We derive yihyu from yihyu”; identical verbal forms are preferred for gezera shava
- אֵין דָּנִין יִהְיוּ מִתִּהְיֶינָה = “We do not derive yihyu from tihyena”; non-identical forms are rejected when identical ones are available
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: The school of R’ Yishmael derives analogies even from non-identical words!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זֶהוּ שִׁיבָה, זֶהוּ בִּיאָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the previous answer’s premise. The school of Rabbi Yishmael famously derives a gezera shava between “ושב” (returning) and “ובא” (coming) — completely different words that merely share a similar concept. If such dissimilar terms can form a valid gezera shava, surely “יהיו” and “תהיינה” — which share the same root and differ only in grammatical form (masculine vs. feminine conjugation) — should also be valid. This threatens to undermine ben Nannas’s preference for the identical match.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = “The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught”; a Tannaitic tradition known for broader exegetical methods
- שִׁיבָה… בִּיאָה = “Returning… coming”; different words used interchangeably in a gezera shava about leprosy
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Non-identical words are used only when no identical match exists
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ – מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a precise distinction: the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s broad gezera shava (from dissimilar words like “שב” and “בא”) is valid only when there is no identical match available. When an identical term exists — as “יהיו” in verse 18 provides an exact match for “יהיו” in verse 20 — the identical match takes priority. This nuance preserves both Rabbi Yishmael’s broad principle and ben Nannas’s preference for the identical form: non-identical analogies are a fallback, not a first choice.
Key Terms:
- דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ = “That resembles it”; an identical verbal form
- מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן = “We derive from what resembles it”; identical forms are always preferred
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why doesn’t R’ Akiva prefer the identical match? Subject matter similarity overrides form
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי לֵילַף ״יִהְיוּ״ מִ״יִּהְיוּ״? דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן מִדָּבָר שֶׁמַּתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הָנֵי דְּעוֹלוֹת נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now asks the mirror question: if identical forms are preferred, why doesn’t Rabbi Akiva also use the “יהיו”-to-”יהיו” analogy? Rabbi Akiva responds with a competing principle: subject matter similarity can override formal identity. Verse 20 (containing the target “יהיו”) discusses items given to the priest (loaves and peace-offering sheep). Verse 17 (with “תהיינה”) also discusses a priestly gift (the loaves). But verse 18 (with the identical “יהיו”) discusses burnt offerings — consumed entirely on the altar, not given to priests. For Rabbi Akiva, the thematic match between priestly gifts trumps the formal identity of the words.
Key Terms:
- מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן = A gift to the priest; items given to the priest for consumption
- עוֹלוֹת = Burnt offerings; entirely consumed on the altar, not eaten by priests
Segment 22
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative explanation: They dispute the verse itself — R’ Akiva: “entirely to the priest” = bread
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, בִּקְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי: ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה לֶחֶם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an entirely different framework for the dispute, bypassing the gezera shava analysis altogether. Instead, the dispute centers on interpreting the words “קדש יהיו לה’ לכהן” (they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest) directly. Rabbi Akiva focuses on “לכהן” — “for the priest.” Which item goes entirely to the priest? The loaves, which are eaten entirely by priests. Therefore “יהיו” refers to the loaves, making them the essential element. This alternative approach shows how the same halakhic positions can be supported through different exegetical methods.
Key Terms:
- קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן = “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest”; the verse at the center of the dispute
- כּוּלּוֹ לַכֹּהֵן = “Entirely to the priest”; the loaves go completely to the priests
Segment 23
TYPE: גמרא
Ben Nannas: “To the Lord AND the priest” = sheep (partially for each)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבֶן נַנָּס: מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַכֹּהֵן״?! ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ לַה׳ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לַכֹּהֵן? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ כְּבָשִׂים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ben Nannas reads the verse differently by emphasizing both “לה’” (to the Lord) and “לכהן” (for the priest). He asks: which item is partially for God and partially for the priest? The sheep — as peace offerings, their fats are burned on the altar (God’s portion) while the meat is eaten by the priests (the priestly portion). The loaves, by contrast, go entirely to the priests. By reading “לה’ לכהן” as a dual destination, ben Nannas identifies the sheep as the referent of “יהיו,” making them the essential element. This brilliant textual reading perfectly mirrors Rabbi Akiva’s approach while reaching the opposite conclusion.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָתוֹ לַה׳ וּמִקְצָתוֹ לַכֹּהֵן = “Partially to the Lord and partially to the priest”; describes the peace offering’s dual distribution
- שְׁלָמִים = Peace offerings; offerings whose meat is shared between the altar, the priests, and the owner
Segment 24
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Akiva responds: “To the Lord FOR the priest” = God acquired it and gave it to the priest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מִי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ וְלַכֹּהֵן״? ״לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ כְּתִיב, כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva counters ben Nannas’s reading with a subtle grammatical argument. The verse doesn’t say “לה’ ולכהן” (to the Lord AND to the priest) with a conjunctive “ו” — which would imply two separate recipients. Rather, it says “לה’ לכהן” (to the Lord, for the priest), which Rabbi Akiva reads as a sequential process: God first acquires it (sanctification), then transfers it entirely to the priest. This reading, attributed to Rav Huna’s formulation, maintains that the item goes entirely to the priest — pointing to the loaves, not the sheep. The debate thus turns on the precise syntax of two Hebrew prepositions.
Key Terms:
- קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן = “God acquired it and gave it to the priest”; Rav Huna’s explanation of the transfer process
Segment 25
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: All agree on a common point (text continues on next daf)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים
English Translation:
§ 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
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends mid-statement with Rabbi Yochanan beginning to identify a point of consensus within the three-way dispute. The phrase “הכל מודים” (everyone concedes) signals that despite their disagreements about which element is essential, all parties agree on some underlying principle. The statement will be completed on the next daf (46a), leaving the reader in suspense about what common ground Rabbi Yochanan has identified among Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, and Rabbi Shimon.
Key Terms:
- הַכֹּל מוֹדִים = “Everyone concedes”; a formula indicating unanimous agreement on a particular point despite broader disagreement