A Zeman Nakat Project
From the Omer to Shavuos · Mishnah 39 of 43 · Interactive Edition
Movement IV · The Kisvei Atzeres and Technical Laws · The Key Lomdishe Mishnah
39 · מְנָחוֹת ד:ג · Menachos 4:3
הַפָּר וְהָאֵילִים וְהַכְּבָשִׂים וְהַשָּׂעִיר — אֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֹא הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכְּבָן.
הַלֶּחֶם מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים, וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס, לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא הַכְּבָשִׂים מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים.
שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, קָרְבוּ כְבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֶן נַנָּס, אֲבָל אֵין הַטַּעַם כִּדְבָרָיו.
שֶׁכָּל הָאָמוּר בְּחֻמַּשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים — קָרַב בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְכָל הָאָמוּר בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים — לֹא קָרַב בַּמִּדְבָּר.
מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ — קָרְבוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ.
וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר יִקְרְבוּ כְבָשִׂים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם —
שֶׁהַכְּבָשִׂים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן בְּלֹא לֶחֶם. לֶחֶם בְּלֹא כְבָשִׂים — אֵין לִי מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ.
The bull, rams, sheep, and goat do not prevent the bread, and the bread does not prevent them. The bread prevents the lambs, but the lambs do not prevent the bread — R' Akiva. Shimon ben Nanas said: No — the lambs prevent the bread, and the bread does not prevent the lambs. For we found that when Yisrael were in the wilderness forty years, the lambs were brought without bread. R' Shimon said: The halacha follows ben Nanas, but not his reasoning. All stated in Bamidbar was brought in the wilderness; all stated in Vayikra was not. When they entered the land, both were brought. Why do I say the lambs come without bread? Because the lambs permit themselves without bread. But for bread without lambs — there is nothing to permit it.
Fuchsia — Prevention ruling
Green — No prevention
Blue — R' Shimon's reason
Gold — Tana
Listen with Ephraim Diamond · 11:54
0:00 / 11:54
0:00
11:54
Speed
Transcript · click any word to jump
▾
A picture is worth a thousand words
▾
The three positions — who prevents whom?
R' Akiva
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא
Bread → prevents lambs
Lambs → do NOT prevent bread
Lambs → do NOT prevent bread
No bread? The lambs cannot stand alone. But if no lambs? The bread still stands — it simply isn't permitted for eating yet.
Shimon ben Nanas
שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס
Lambs → prevent bread
Bread → does NOT prevent lambs
Bread → does NOT prevent lambs
Proof: in the wilderness, the lambs were brought without the bread. Therefore lambs can function without bread. But bread never functioned without lambs.
R' Shimon — Halacha
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן
Ruling = same as ben Nanas
Reason = completely different
Reason = completely different
Agrees: lambs prevent bread, bread doesn't prevent lambs. But NOT because of the wilderness: the wilderness lambs were Bamidbar-only, the Vayikra-lambs were never brought there. R' Shimon's real reason: below.
R' Shimon's lomdishe reason — the permitting factor
הַכְּבָשִׂים מַתִּירִין אֶת עַצְמָן בְּלֹא לֶחֶם — לֶחֶם בְּלֹא כְבָשִׂים אֵין לִי מִי יַתִּירֶנּוּ
The lambs have their own permitting mechanism — the blood sprinkling. When the lamb's blood is sprinkled, the lamb's meat becomes permitted for eating. This act is self-contained: the lamb permits itself through its own blood. The bread, by contrast, has no such self-contained permitting factor. The bread is permitted only through the lamb's blood — the "tenufah with the lambs" (the waving of loaves on the lambs) creates a mutual bond (tenufah oseh zikah), and the blood that sprinkles for the lambs also permits the bread. Without the lambs and their blood, the bread has nothing to permit it. Therefore lambs can stand without bread (they have their own permitting factor) but bread cannot stand without lambs (they would have no permitting factor at all). This is the principle of the matir: you need someone to permit you.
Shimon ben Nanas — without "Rabbi"
The Kaufmann manuscript (the oldest extant Mishnah manuscript) reads "Shimon ben Nanas" without the title "Rabbi." This may indicate he did not receive full ordination (semichah) — possibly because he died during the Bar Kokhba revolt before ordination was conferred. He is cited as a Tanna whose views shaped the halacha (R' Shimon adopts his ruling) but who was never given the title his learning deserved.
R' Moshe Shternbuch's question (Moadim V'Zmanim Vol. 7, Siman 229)
We pasken that the invalidation of the Shelamim does not prevent the Shtei HaLechem from being brought — they are waved and burnt regardless. R' Shternbuch notes that the Shtei HaLechem may even be brought when Klal Yisroel is tamei, and unlike most korbanos, the loaves never go on the Mizbeach at all. This raises a startling question: why can we not bring the Shtei HaLechem today, even without a Beis HaMikdash? All that is required is waving and burning — preserving at least one vestige of the korbanos. R' Shternbuch finds a technical answer why this would not work out. Nevertheless, the question alone — and the yearning for greater spiritual access it reveals — is thought-provoking in its own right.
Position in the Omer to Shavuos arc — 43 mishnayos
Preceding · Mishnah 38
Menachos 3:6
Mutual prevention within pairs — the question of cross-category prevention left open
Current · Mishnah 39
Menachos 4:3 — The Permitting Factor
Movement IV · Central lomdishe mishnah
The intellectual climax of Movement IV and the lomdishe heart of the series. Three Tannaim, same ruling, two different reasons. R' Shimon's principle — the matir — is one of the most elegant legal concepts in Maseches Menachos. The bread needs someone to permit it; the lambs permit themselves. This concept carries through to the Me'ilah mishnayos (M40–M41) and the Pigul mishnayos (M42–M43).
Following · Mishnah 40
Me'ilah 2:5
Three stages of kedushah in the lambs — when Me'ilah applies, when it ends