Komentarz do Menachot 4:6

התכלת אינה מעכבת את הלבן – although it is a Mitzvah to place two threads of Tekhelet/blue and two threads of white or one thread of Tekhelet and three threads of white, nevertheless, this does not impair/invalidate by omission the other, and if he placed all four of them with Tekhelet or all four of them with white [threads], he has fulfilled his religious obligation.

Introduction In this mishnah we learn of cases where the absence of a part of a certain mitzvah does not prevent the fulfillment of the whole mitzvah.

תפלה של יד אינה מעכבת של ראש – Maimonides wrote, specifically that both (i.e., the Tefillin of the hand and the Tefillin of the head) are found with him. But only one of them is found with him, he should not put on the one until he has found the other since we make a decree lest he error and rely always on the one [only]. But this is not according to the Halakha, for the one who says this in the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 44a) retracted based upon the strength of what he was questioned but rather one who does not have [in order to fulfill] the two commandments, he should not even observe the one commandment, is to be read as a question [in astonishment]! But the Halakha is that whether both (i.e., the Tefillin of the arm and Tefillin of the head are found with him or whether they are not found with him, they do not impair/invalidate by omission the other, and so have admitted all of my teachers/Rabbis that this is the Halakhic practice.

The [absence of the] blue [in the tzitzit] does not invalidate the white, neither does the [absence of the] white invalidate the blue. Tzitzit consist of white and blue strands (Numbers 15:38). If one makes tzitzit with only white or only blue strands, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. Today most people wear tzitzit with only white threads because for many years rabbis did not know how to make the blue threads. However, recently people re-discovered how the blue threads were made. Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly more common to see people with tzitzit made of blue and white.

הסולת והשמן – of the libations of the meal-offering.

The [absence of the] hand-tefillin does not invalidate the head-tefillin, neither does the [absence of the] head-tefillin invalidate the hand-tefillin. Tefillin are worn on the head and arm. These are two separate mitzvoth, so if a person wears one and not the other, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of wearing that particular piece of tefillin.

אין מעכבין את היין – of the libations that if they brought the wine without the fine flour and the oil, he offers as a libation.

The [absence of the] fine flour and the oil does not invalidate the wine, neither does the [absence of the] wine invalidate them. A minhah that is accompanied by libations comes with three elements: flour, oil and wine. If one offers one or two of these elements, but not the others, he has fulfilled the mitzvah of that which he offered.

המתנות של מזבח החיצון – as, for example, the four gifts of the sin-offering.

The [omission of one of the] sprinklings [of the blood] on the outer altar does not invalidate the rest. Some sacrifices require the blood of the animal to be sprinkled on the outer altar, either four times or twice (see Zevahim 5:3-7). If he omits one of the sprinklings he has still fulfilled the mitzvah (see Zevahim 4:1).

אין מעכבות זו את זו – that if he did not give other than one [of them], he has atoned, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:27): “the blood shall be poured out [on the altar of the LORD your God],” that one pouring/spilling is implied.

הפרים והאילים והכבשים – those that are written in the Torah portion of “Speak to the Priests” (Leviticus 23:18): “With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to the LORD, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams” that come with the two loaves of Atzeret/Shavuot. אינם מעכבים (do not impair the validity of one another) – the two bulls and the one ram and the seven lambs of the Musaf/Additional offerings of Atzeret/Shavuot that are written in the Torah portion of Pinhas (Numbers 28:27). For [two] bulls of the Musaf/Additional offerings do not impair the bull of the two loaves, neither does the bull of the two loaves impair the two bulls of the Musaf/Additional offerings. And similarly the two rams of the two loaves do not impair the one ram of the Musaf/Additional offerings, nor the one ram of the Musaf/Additional offerings impairs the two rams of the two loaves. And similarly, the lambs do not impair neither these nor those.

The [absence of either the] bullocks or the rams or the lambs does not invalidate the others. On Rosh Hodesh and festivals, bullocks, rams and lambs are offered, together with “drink-offerings” consisting of wine, flour and oil (see Numbers 28:11ff and Leviticus 23:18). If the community does not bring all of these, they can still fulfill the mitzvah of the offerings that they do bring.

רבן שמעון אומר אם היו להם פרים מרובין – that is to say, money in order to purchase bulls by the way for their needs, and they did not have money to purchase libations, they should bring one bull and its libations. And they derive it from Scripture, as it is written (Ezekiel 46:7): “And he shall provide a meal offering of an ephah for the bull, an ephah for the ram, and as much as he can afford for the lambs [with a hin of oil to every ephah],” can it really be that the measure of bulls and rams is one, but isn’t the meal-offering of the bulls is three Issaron and the meal offering of the rams two issaron, but rather to inform you hat it is better to bring one bull, one ram with his ephah, the measure that is appropriate for him, than to bring many bulls and many rams without their meal-offerings. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Shimon says: if they had [money enough to buy] many bullocks but not [enough for] the drink-offerings, they should bring one bullock and its drink-offerings and should not offer them all without drink-offerings. Rabbi Shimon points out that it is preferable to bring one bullock with its drink-offerings than to bring more animals without drink-offerings. It seems that the drink-offerings, according to Rabbi Shimon, complete the sacrifice and therefore it is better to bring one completed sacrifice than multiple partial sacrifices.

הפר ואילים הכבשים והשעיר – that come on account of the loaf [of bread]. And all of them are burnt-offerings except for the goat which is a sin-offering.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the sacrifices offered on Shavuot, and the absence of which sacrifices prevent the fulfillment of the other sacrifices. I have brought here the relevant verses, Leviticus 23:17-20, for ease of reference: 17 You shall bring from your settlements two loaves of bread as an elevation offering; each shall be made of two-tenths of a measure of choice flour, baked after leavening, as first fruits to the LORD. 8 With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to the LORD, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams, with their meal offerings and libations, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the LORD. 19 You shall also offer one he-goat as a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of well-being. 20 The priest shall elevate these -- the two lambs -- together with the bread of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD; they shall be holy to the LORD, for the priest.

אין מעכבין את הלחם – that if they brought the two loaves of Atzeret/Shavuot without these sacrifices, they are sanctified.

The [absence of the] bull, or the rams, or the lambs or the goat does not invalidate the bread, neither does the [absence of the] bread invalidate them. The absence of one of the sacrifices mentioned in verse 18, does not invalidate the bread mentioned in verses 17 and 20, neither does the absence of the bread invalidate them. They are separate sacrifices, each their own mitzvah.

הלחם מעכב את הכבשים – these lambs are the two lambs of the peace-offerings that were required for waving with the loaves.

The [absence of the] bread invalidates the lambs, but the [absence of the] lambs does not invalidate the bread, the words of Rabbi Akiva. The two lambs mentioned in verses 19 and 20 are elevated (lifted up) with the bread. The bread and these lambs seem to go together. Rabbi Akiva holds that without the bread, the lambs are invalidated. However, since the bread is mentioned alone in verse 17, it is its own offering, and therefore, even if he doesn’t offer the lambs, the bread is still valid.

והכבשים אין מעכבים את הלחם – if lambs were not found, they bring the two loaves and they are holy as if they had brought them with the lambs.

Rabbi Shimon b. Nanas said: it is not so, but rather the [absence of the] lambs invalidates the bread, while the [absence of the] bread does not invalidate the lambs; for so we find that when the Israelites were in the wilderness for forty years they offered the lambs without the bread, therefore now too they may offer the lambs without the bread. Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas holds an opposite opinion. Without the lambs, the bread cannot be offered, but without the bread, the lambs can still be offered. The reason is that when the Israelites were in the desert, they could not offer the bread, because the bread offering must come from grain grown in the land of Israel, as it says in verse 17, “from your settlements.” Since there is a precedent for offering lambs without bread, even after the Temple was built, the lambs could be offered without the bread.

קרבו כבשים בלא לחם – for they didn’t have bread in the wilderness other than Manna.

Rabbi Shimon said: the halakhah is according to the words of Ben Nanas but not for the reason he stated; for every offering stated in the Book of Numbers was offered in the wilderness, but not every offering stated in the book of Leviticus was offered in the wilderness; however, when they came into the land of Israel they offered both kinds. Rabbi Shimon says that the halakhah is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, that without the lambs the bread cannot be offered but the lambs can be offered without the bread. However, Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Ben Nanas’s reason. Rabbi Shimon holds that all offerings mentioned in Leviticus were not offered at all in the desert. So there is no precedent for offering the lambs without the bread. Only the offerings mentioned in Numbers 28:27ff. were offered in the desert.

הלכה כדברי בן ננס – that the lambs impair the [loaves of] bread.

Why then do I say that the lambs may be offered without the bread? Because the lambs render themselves permissible without the bread, whereas bread without lambs, there is nothing that renders it permissible. Now Rabbi Shimon must explain why he agrees with the halakhah stated by Ben Nanas. The lambs can be offered without the bread, because burning the lambs’ innards allows the lambs to be eaten by the priests. In other words, we have a ritual that renders the lambs themselves permissible. In contrast, there is nothing that permits the bread to be eaten, except the sacrifice of the lambs. Therefore, without the lambs, the bread cannot be offered.

אבל אין הטעם כדבריו – for he says that in the wilderness that they offered up the lambs of peace-offerings and this is not the case.

שכל האמור בחומש הפקודים – in the Book of Numbers, as for example, the Musaf/Additional sacrifices that are mentioned in the Torah portion of Pinhas (Numbers 28:16-29:39), they offered up in the wilderness.

וכל האמור בת"כ – that is in the Book of Leviticus. They did not offer them up in the wilderness. And these lambs that are mentioned in “Speak to the Kohanim” (the Torah portion of Emor) such as the seven lambs and the bull and the rams of the burnt offering that are upon the [loaves of] bread and the two lambs of the peace offerings they did not offer up in the wilderness (see Leviticus 23:18).

ויש בלא כבשים אין לו מי יתירנו – that the [loaves of] bread is not permitted to be consumed for the Kohanim until they offer up the lambs. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

התמידים אינן מעכבין את המוספין – In the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 49a) it explains that concerning the matter of precedence it is stated, and they do not impair each other. For if he requires daily whole offerings, he offers them first and if he requires Musaf/Additional offerings, he offers them first, but even though it is written (Leviticus 6:5): “[every morning the priest shall feed wood to it,] lay out the burnt offering on it [and turn into smoke the fat parts of the offerings of well-being],” and this implies that the burnt-offering, that is, the burnt-offering of the daily whole offering will be the first of all of the sacrifice, but this is not other than a mere commandment but it does not impair [the others].

The [absence of the] daily offerings ( does not invalidate the additional offerings (, neither does [the absence of] the additional offerings invalidate the daily offerings, neither does the absence of [one of the] additional offerings invalidate the other additional offerings. Every day there are two daily offerings, called the “tamidin” one in the morning and one towards evening. On holidays and Shabbat there are additional offerings, called “musafin” (this is where the word musaf of the musaf service comes from). These sacrifices do not affect one another, so if one of them is not offered for whatever reason, the others can still be offered validly.

אמר רבי שמעון אימתי כו' – In the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 50a) it explains that the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: if they did not offer up a lamb in the morning, he should not offer it up at eventide. When is this said? When the altar was not dedicated, but if the altar was dedicated, he can offer it up at eventide. Rabbi Shimon stated: Under what circumstances? When they subject to constraint or in error, but if they deliberately did not offer a lamb in the morning, they should not offer it at eventide. And this is its explanation: if they did not offer the daily whole offering of the morning, they should not offer the daily whole offering of the eventide, and this is a rabbinic expounding of Scripture, if (Numbers 28:4): “you shall offer one lamb in the morning, [and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight],” the second was pronounced fit to be offered at eventide, but if not, you don’t. Under what circumstances? When the altar was not dedicated, for this Biblical verse is written concerning the dedication of the altar in the Torah portion of “You (i.e., Moses) shall command”/Tetzaveh, as it is written above it (Exodus 29:38): “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: [two yearling lambs each day, regularly],” But if the altar was dedicated, that he had already offered upon it sacrifices, even if he did not offer the daily whole offering of the morning, he may offer the daily whole offering of the eventide, as it is written in the Torah portion of Pinhas (Numbers 28:8): “The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, preparing the same grain offering and libation as in the morning,” but in this Biblical verse, it is not written (see Numbers 28:4): “you shall offer one lamb in the morning,” and it is taught in [Midrash] Sifrei [B’midbar]: this verse, why is it mentioned? Wasn’t it already mentioned above in the portion (verse 4): “and the other lamb you shall offer it [at twilight]?” Because it states with it, “you shall offer one lamb in the morning,” behold that he did not offer up the one for the morning, I hear that he did not offer it up at twilight, the inference teaches us the latter verse (Numbers 28:8): “The other lamb you shall offer at twilight,” but if they deliberately [did not offer the lamb in the morning], he should not offer it at twilight, those who act deliberately, but other Kohanim are able to offer it.

Even though they did not offer the [tamid] lamb in the morning they must offer [the lamb] towards evening. The mishnah now deals with the two tamid offerings, and whether the absence of the first of them invalidates the other. According to the first opinion, it does not, and therefore if they don’t offer the lamb of the tamid in the morning, they can still offer the lamb towards evening.

לא הקטירו קטורת בבוקר יקטירו בין הערבים – that the incense is not found/on hand with one person, he should offer up the incense many times like that of a burnt offering, as we stated in [Tractate] Yoma [26a], that a person who did not ever engage with it repeatedly because it makes a person wealthy, as it is written (Deuteronomy 33:10): “They shall offer You incense to savor [and whole-offerings on Your altar],” and near it (verse 11), “Bless, O LORD, his substance,” therefore, we don’t fine them, since it is beloved for them and they do not willfully sin regarding it, and it is not found that those who sin deliberately will leave

Rabbi Shimon said: When is this so? Only when they had acted under constraint or in error, but if they acted deliberately and did not offer the lamb in the morning they may not offer [the lamb] towards evening. Rabbi Shimon qualifies the previous opinion. If they didn’t offer the tamid in the morning because they could not, or due to some error, then they can offer the tamid in the evening. However, if they intentionally don’t offer it in the morning, then they are penalized and they can’t offer the other lamb in the evening.

שאין מחנכים את מזבח הזהב אלא בקטורת הסמים – at twilight/eventide, as it is written (Exodus 30:7): “he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps,” meaning to say, that when he cleans the Menorah from the ashes that are there from the kindling of the candles. But if he did not do the candle lighting in the evening, why does he need to repair it in the morning, so we see that the dedication of the Menorah is at twilight. And since the Menorah was dedicated in the evening, the incense is also dedicated in the evening, as it is written (Exodus 30:8): “And Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps, [- a regular incense offering before the LORD throughout the ages].”

If they did not burn the incense in the morning they burn it towards evening. Incense was burned on the golden altar twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening (see Exodus 30:7-8). If they did not burn it in the morning, they may still offer burn the evening incense. This opinion is a continuation of the opinion found in section two above.

Rabbi Shimon said: all of it was burned towards evening. Rabbi Shimon says that if they didn’t burn the incense in the morning, in the evening they should burn all of the incense, both the evening incense and the incense that should have been burned in the morning.

For the golden altar was dedicated only by the incense of spices. And the altar for the olah by the daily offering of the morning, And the table only by the showbread on Shabbat, And the menorah only by [the kindling of] seven lamps towards evening. This section is actually the explanation for the opinion of the sages found in section four. The reason that the evening incense must be offered even if the morning incense was not offered is that the dedication of the altar was done by burning the evening incense. When it comes to the altar for the olah, meaning the altar that stood in the courtyard, it was dedicated by the morning tamid offering. Thus, if the altar had not yet been dedicated, and the morning tamid was not offered on it, they could not offer on it the evening tamid. The mishnah also notes that the dedication of the table that stood in the courtyard was done by placing on it the Sabbath showbread. The menorah was dedicated when it was lit in the evening.

חביתי כהן גדול – the meal-offering of the High Priest that he brings every day, on account that it is written concerning it (Leviticus 6:14): “Shall be prepared with oil on a griddle,” because of this, it is called, griddle-cakes.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the minhah offering that the high priest offers every day (Leviticus 6:13-15). This offering had to consist of a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, half of which was offered in the morning and half in the evening. It was fried in oil on a pan, and hence they are called griddle-cakes.

לא היו באות חצאין – that he should not bring from his house one-half of an Issaron/tenth in the morning and half an Issaron/tenth in the evening.

The high priest’s griddle-cakes cannot be brought in [two separate] halves. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and then divide it, offering a half in the morning and a half towards evening. The high priest is not allowed to bring the griddle-cakes in two halves, half of a tenth in the morning and half in the evening. Rather, he must bring the entire tenth in the morning and then divide it in half, offering a half in the morning and the other half in the evening.

ולא חצי עשרונו של ראשון – [the one-half] that remained from the complete Issaron/tenth first [Kohen Gadol] who died had brought [in the morning] for he had not offered anything other than the [first] half.

If a [high] priest offered half in the morning and then died and they appointed another priest in his place, [the successor] may not bring a half-tenth from his house, neither [may he use] the remaining half-tenth of the first [high priest]. Rather he must bring a whole tenth and divide it, and offer one half and leaving the other half goes to waste. It turns out that two halves are offered and two halves go to waste. If the high priest offers half in the morning and then dies, and the court appoints a new high priest, the new high priest must bring an entire tenth of flour, and only offer half of it. The second half of the previous high priest’s offering goes to waste, as does half of the new high priest’s offering. We should note that this is just the kind of scenario that the rabbis love to discuss.

ושני חציין אובדים – half of the Issaron/tenth of the first [High Priest] who died and half of the Issaron/tenth of this one who stood [in his place].

If they did not appoint another priest in his place, at whose expense was it offered? Rabbi Shimon says, at the expense of the community; But Rabbi Judah says: at the expense of his heirs, And a whole [tenth] was offered. If the court didn’t appoint a new high priest, there is a debate as to who is responsible to offer the minhah. According to Rabbi Shimon, the community had to pay for the offering, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that the high priest’s heirs must offer it. Furthermore, in such a situation, in both the morning and evening a full tenth would be offered.

משל צבור – as it is written (Leviticus 6:15): “[And so shall the priest, anointed from among his sons to succeed him, prepare it; it is the LORD’s] – a law for all time – [to be turned entirely into smoke],” this law will be from that which shall be forever, meaning to say, from the community from the collection of the money stored in the chamber [in the Temple complex].

רבי יהודה אומר משל יורשים – as it is written (Leviticus 6:15): “And so shall the priest, anointed from among his sons,” and it implies the following, that the anointed priest who dies, from those who succeed him (literally, “under him”), will perform it.

ושלימה היתה קריבה – whenever it comes from the community according to Rabbi Shimon or from the heirs [of the Kohen Gadol who died] according to Rabbi Yehuda, it should be offered whole, a complete Issaron and not one-half of an Issaron. Rabbi Shimon derives it from (Leviticus 6:15): “to be turned entirely into smoke/כליל תקטר,” that should not be turned into smoke in halves, but rather entirely when it comes from the community. But Rabbi Yehuda derives it from what is written (Leviticus 6:15): “from among his sons to [to succeed him] prepare it/מבניו יעשה אותה,” when one of his sons offers it up after his father died, that is the heirs, he should do it, but not half of it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda that it comes from the heirs.