1) WHICH “KORBANOS” ARE “ME’AKEV” EACH OTHER?

(a) (Gemara) Question: Which bulls and sheep does the Mishnah discuss?
1. Suggestion: It discusses those of (Musafim of) Sukos.
2. Rejection: It says “Ka’Mishpat” regarding them, they are Me’akev each other!
(b) Answer: It discusses those of Rosh Chodesh, and of (Musaf of) Shavu’os written in Bamidbar (in Parshas Pinchus).
(c) Question: Which rams does the Mishnah discuss?
1. It cannot be of Rosh Chodesh, and those of Shavu’os in Bamidbar, for only one ram is offered then!
2. It cannot be those of Shavu’os written in Vayikra (brought with Shtei ha’Lechem, in Parshas Emor), for it says ‘Havayah’ regarding them (they are Me’akev each other!)
(d) Answer: It means, the (two) rams of Shavu’os in Vayikra are not Me’akev the ram of Shavu’os in Bamidbar, nor vice-versa.
(e) Question: According to this, the Tana taught together totally opposite laws!
1. Bulls of Rosh Chodesh, or of Shavu’os in Bamidbar are not Me’akev each other (the same applies to lambs);
2. The rams (of Shavu’os) in Vayikra are not Me’akev those in Bamidbar, nor vice-versa – however, those in Vayikra are Me’akev each other!
(f) Answer: Indeed, the Tana taught each case by itself, even though they oppose each other.
(g) Question: “Uv’Yom ha’Chodesh *Par* Ben Bakar Temimim v’Sheshes Kevasim va’Ayil Temimim Yihyu” – why does it mention *a* bull? (Two bulls are brought on Rosh Chodesh!)
(h) Answer: This teaches that if we cannot bring two bulls, we bring one.
(i) Question: Why does it mention six lambs? (Sseven are brought on Rosh Chodesh!)
(j) Answer: This teaches that if we cannot bring seven, we bring six.
(k) Question: How do we know that if we cannot bring six, we bring five; if not five, four…three, two or one?
(l) Answer: “Vela’Kevasim ka’Asher Tasig Yado”.
(m) Question: This verse teaches to bring as many as possible – what do we learn from the six lambs in the previous verse?
(n) Answer: It teaches that we should make great efforts to bring as many as possible.
(o) Question: What is the source that all the animals of one type are Me’akev each other (if we have them all? – Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes – we bring as many Zevachim as we can, even if this will not leave money for their Nesachim – this is unlike R. Shimon.)
(p) Answer: “Yihyu”.
2) DIFFICULT VERSES IN “YECHEZKEL”
(a) Question: “…Ba’Rishon b’Echad la’Chodesh Tikach Par Ben Bakar Tamim v’Chitesa Es ha’Makdish” – ‘Chitesa’ is from the word Chatas, but the bull of Rosh Chodesh is an Olah!
(b) R. Yochanan: Until Eliyahu comes, no one will be able to explain this verse.
(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): The verse discusses Milu’im (inaugural Korbanos) offered in the days of Ezra, like those of Chanukas ha’Mishkan (Rashi; R. Gershom – it discusses Milu’im that will be offered in the third Mikdash, just as Milu’im resembling those of the Mishkan were offered in the days of Ezra.)
(d) Support (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): Until Eliyahu comes, no one will be able to explain this verse.
1. R. Yosi: It discusses Milu’im offered in the days of Ezra.
2. R. Yehudah: You calmed my mind, you should be similarly blessed.
(e) Question: “Kol Neveilah u’Treifah Min ha’Of u’Min ha’Behemah Lo Yochlu ha’Kohanim” – are Neveilos and Treifos forbidden only to Kohanim and permitted to Yisrael?!
(f) R. Yochanan: Until Eliyahu comes, no one will be able to explain this verse.
(g) Answer (Ravina): The verse must teach that they are forbidden to Kohanim;
1. Since Kohanim are permitted to eat Melikah (of Chatas ha’Of), one might have thought that all Neveilos and Treifos are permitted to them.
(h) (R. Yochanan): “V’Chen Ta’aseh ba’Shivah va’Chodesh me’Ish Shogeh umi’Pesi v’Chipartem Es ha’Bayis” – this refers to (a Par He’elam Davar for) seven Shevatim that sinned (by following a mistaken ruling of the Great Sanhedrin), even though they are the minority of Yisrael;
1. “Chodesh” refers to a Chidush, i.e. they (mistakenly) changed the Halachah and permitted Chelev (or another Chiyuv Kares);
2. “Me’Ish Shogeh umi’Pesi” – the Korban is brought only if the Hora’ah was mistaken and the people sinned b’Shogeg.
(i) (Rav Yehudah): If not for Chanina ben Chizkiyah, Sefer Yechezkel would have been put in Genizah because of its (seeming) contradictions to Torah;
1. He brought 300 barrels of oil up to an attic (for light at night) and expounded, resolving the contradictions.
3) R. SHIMON’S OPINION
(a) (Mishnah – R. Shimon): If Hekdesh has many bulls…
(b) (Beraisa – R. Shimon) Question: “V’Eifah la’Par v’Eifah la’Ayil Ya’aseh Minchah vela’Kevasim ka’Asher Tasig Yado v’Shemen Hin la’Eifah” – Minchas Nesachim for bulls is (three Esronim,) not the same as that for rams (two Esronim!) (Tosfos, citing Rashi – we do not ask that both of these are less than an Eifah (10 Esronim) – perhaps two or three Esronim are extracted from (sifting) an Eifah; R. Gershom – the Eifah of Yechezkel is smaller than that of the Torah; alternatively, in the fiuture, Minchas Nesachim will be bigger.)
(c) Answer (R. Shimon): Rather, this teaches that if Hekdesh has (money for) many bulls but not for all the Nesachim, they bring one bull and its Nesech, they do not bring the bulls without Nesachim;
1. If they had rams but not enough Eifos (flour), they bring one ram and its Nesech, they do not bring the rams without Nesachim.
45b—————————————45b
4) “KORBANOS” THAT WERE NOT OFFERED IN THE DESERT

(a) (Mishnah): The bull, rams, (seven) sheep (i.e. Olos) and goat (brought with Shtei ha’Lechem) are not Me’akev the bread, the bread is not Me’akev them;
(b) R. Akiva says, the bread is Me’akev the (two) sheep (Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur brought with Shtei ha’Lechem), these sheep are not Me’akev the bread;
(c) R. Shimon ben Nanas says, these sheep are Me’akev the bread, the bread is not Me’akev them:
1. The 40 years that Benei Yisrael were in the Midbar they offered the sheep, but not the bread (Rashi – it must be from grain of Eretz Yisrael; R. Tam – the Torah says to bring the Omer “Ki Savo’u El ha’Aretz”, and Shtei ha’Lechem is brought (seven weeks) after the Omer; Tosfos – Shtei ha’Lechem is called Bikurim, Bikurim only apply in Eretz Yisrael.)
(d) R. Shimon says, the Halachah follows Ben Nanas, but for a different reason:
1. All the Korbanos in Sefer Bamidbar were offered in the Midbar, all those in Sefer Vayikra were not offered in the Midbar;
2. When Benei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, both of them were offered.
(e) The sheep can be offered without the bread, for they permit themselves; the bread cannot be offered without the sheep, for nothing else can permit it.
(f) (Gemara – Beraisa): “V’Hikravtem Al ha’Lechem” – this is a Chovah on the bread (the following Korbanos cannot be offered without the bread, nor vice-versa);
1. “Shiv’ah Kevasim Temimim” – even without the bread.
2. Question: How can we resolve this with “V’Hikravtem Al ha’Lechem”
3. Answer (R. Tarfon): (It does not teach that the Korbanos and bread are Me’akev each other, rather,) it teaches that the Chiyuv to offer the sheep begins with (entry into Eretz Yisrael, which began) the Chiyuv to offer Shtei ha’Lechem.
(g) Suggestion: Perhaps these seven lambs (in Emor) are the same seven mentioned in Bamidbar!
(h) Rejection: We see that the bulls and rams are different (here it says to bring one bull and two rams, there it says two bulls and one ram – presumably, also the sheep are different);
1. Rather, the Korbanos in Emor are on account of the bread, those in Bamidbar are regular Musafim, not on account of the bread.
2. It turns out that the Korbanos in Sefer Bamidbar were offered in the Midbar, those in Sefer Vayikra were not.
(i) Suggestion: Even though the bulls and rams in Emor are not the same as those in Bamidbar, perhaps the seven lambs in Emor are the same seven mentioned in Bamidbar!
(j) Rejection: Since the bulls and rams are different, also the sheep are different.
(k) Question: Perhaps the Torah allows us to bring one bull and two rams *or* two bulls and one ram!
(l) Rejection: The Torah changed the order (in Emor the lambs are mentioned first, in Bamidbar they are last) to teach that they are different Korbanos.
(m) (Mishnah – R. Akiva): The bread is Me’akev the (two) sheep…
(n) Question: What is his reason?
(o) Answer #1: (“Yihyu” is an Ikuv, it is not clear from context whether it refers to the bread or the sheep -) he learns “Yihyu” from “(Soles) Tihyenah” (which refers to the bread.)
1. Ben Nanas learns “Yihyu” from “(Shiv’ah Kevasim) Yihyu” (which refers to sheep.)
2. Question: Why doesn’t Ben Nanas learn like R. Akiva?
3. Answer: It is better to learn “Yihyu” from “Yihyu” than from “Tihyenah”.
4. Objection: We can learn from a Gezerah Shavah, even if the words are not the same!
i. (Beraisa – Tana d’Vei R. Yishmael): “*V’Shav* ha’Kohen-*U’Va* ha’Kohen” – this (Gezeirah Shavah) equates the law (of a house with Tzara’as) when the Kohen (first) returns with when he comes (another week later).
5. Answer: When there are different options, we learn the Gezerah Shavah from the words that are more similar.
6. Question: Why doesn’t R. Akiva learn like Ben Nanas?
7. Answer: The verse discusses things given to Kohanim (two sheep and Shtei ha’Lechem), it is better to learn them from something (Shtei ha’Lechem) given to Kohanim than from (the seven sheep, which are) Olos.
(p) Answer #2: The Tana’im argue about the verse “Kodesh Yihyu la’Sh-m la’Kohen”:
1. R. Akiva says, this refers to Shtei ha’Lechem, which is totally given to Kohanim;
2. Ben Nanas argues, for it does not say ‘Kodesh Yihyu la’Kohen’, rather, “Kodesh Yihyu la’Sh-m la’Kohen” – part goes (on the Mizbe’ach) to Hash-m, part to Kohanim (i.e. Shalmei Tzibur);
3. R. Akiva counters, it does not say ‘Kodesh Yihyu la’Sh-m *ve*la’Kohen’, rather, “la’Sh-m la’Kohen” – we explain like Rav Huna:
i. (Rav Huna): Hash-m acquires (Tosfos – Shtei ha’Lechem; Rashi – money stolen from a convert which the thief wants to ‘return’ after the convert died,) and gives to the Kohen.