Q&A: A Question in Learning and Another Point
A Question in Learning and Another Point
Question
Hello,
In tractate Menachot 44b it says in the Mishnah: “The bulls, rams, and lambs (and goats) do not prevent one another.”
The Talmud says that this refers to the additional offerings of the New Moon and the offerings of Shavuot in the book of Numbers. However, the festival offerings do prevent one another, because regarding them it says “ordinance,” and the offerings of Shavuot in the book of Leviticus prevent one another because regarding them it says “they shall be.” From here it appears that if in a passage about offerings it does not say “they shall be” or “ordinance,” they do not prevent one another.
On 45a the Talmud learns that the additional offerings of the New Moon do not prevent one another from what is written in Ezekiel:
“And on the day of the new moon, you shall take a young bull without blemish, and six lambs and a ram; they shall be without blemish. Why does it say ‘a bull’? Since the Torah says bulls, from where do we know that if he did not find two, he brings one? Therefore it says: ‘a bull.’ Why does it say six lambs? Since the Torah wrote seven, from where do we know that if he did not find seven, he brings six? Therefore it says: ‘six.’ And from where do we know that if he did not find six, he brings five; five, he brings four; four, he brings three; three, he brings two; and even one? Therefore it says: ‘and for the lambs, as his means suffice.'”
Why is a derivation needed that if he did not find two he brings one? There is seemingly no source from which to infer that if he did not find two he brings one.
And on another matter,
I heard about a responsum of the Rashba concerning communal enactments, which apparently preceded the Ran’s law of the king. Would you please direct me to it?
Thanks in advance, health and joy, and a good year
Answer
Hello,
Regarding the Talmud in Menachot, I truly don’t know. On the face of it, from the flow of the discussion on 45a it sounds like when the number is written explicitly (two bulls, six or seven lambs, and so on), the assumption is that the offerings are mutually indispensable, and only when there are different kinds of offerings do they not prevent one another unless there is some special indication. According to this, the whole discussion on 44 concerns different offerings where the verse does not explicitly state their total number, but simply lists them one after another, and therefore a special indication in the verse is needed in order for them to prevent one another. But on 44 itself it appears that not only different types do not prevent one another, but even the number of animals of the same type does not prevent one another there as well (and there, for example on Sukkot, their total number is in fact stated). Perhaps the two passages are dealing with a different kind of invalidation (see Tosafot on 45a. Also, the Chazon Ish discusses whether this means the whole commandment is held up, or whether even what was brought does not count as an offering and is merely non-sacred animals in the Temple courtyard). This requires further investigation.
Regarding the Rashba responsum, I don’t know what exactly you mean. He has many responsa about communal enactments. He has a famous responsum to a community that asked him whether they were permitted to judge based on one witness, an invalid witness, self-incrimination, and so on; and he answered them that they were not judging according to Torah law but according to authority granted by the king, and therefore there is no problem (he even adds that they should be glad of this, because Torah law would have prevented just judgment). If that is what you mean, see Responsa vol. 4, no. 311 (and if I remember correctly, it appears there in other places as well).