Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 25, 2018 | 讟状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Menachot 46

What is the unique connection between the 2 lambs brought together with the two breads on Shavuot? Why are they more inherently connected than the rest of the animals brought with the two breads?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 讝讬拽讛 砖诇讛谉 砖讞讬讟讛

that if they became bound to each other and then one of them became lost, that the lost item prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other, i.e., the remaining item is unfit and must be burned. Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies: And what is it that establishes their bond? It is the slaughter of the sheep. If the loaves existed at the time of the slaughter, then the loaves and sheep are sanctified as one unit. Consequently, if one of them is lost, the other is unfit and must be burned.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜 讘诪注专讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛

With regard to the establishment of the bond between the loaves and the sheep, Ulla said that the Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, raise a dilemma: Does waving of the sheep and loaves before the sheep are slaughtered establish a bond between the sheep and the loaves, such that if one is lost the other becomes unfit, or does it not establish a bond between them?

驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: Why is there a dilemma about this issue? Resolve it from the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that slaughter of the sheep establishes a bond between sheep and the loaves. On can conclude by inference that waving, which precedes the slaughter, does not establish a bond between them.

讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan itself that Ulla raises the dilemma: Is it obvious to Rabbi Yo岣nan that slaughter establishes a bond between them but waving does not establish a bond between them? Or perhaps it is obvious to him that slaughter establishes a bond between them, but he is uncertain as to whether or not waving establishes a bond between them. According to the second possibility, the reason that he mentioned slaughter is that he was certain about it. The Gemara notes that the question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讜 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 讘转专 转谞讜驻讛 讻转讬讘 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But when it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:20), it is written immediately after the verse mentions waving, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree, based on this phrase, about whether the loaves can be brought without the sheep or the sheep can be sacrificed without the loaves. This indicates that the waving does not establish a bond between these two items.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讘转专 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讘转专 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied to Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina: And according to your reasoning that one can infer the halakha based upon the placement of the phrase: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest,鈥 is this phrase referring to the time after waving but not after the slaughter of the sheep? After all, the verse speaks of giving them to the priest, which is done after the sheep have been slaughtered. How then did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning this verse?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讜 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 讚讘专 砖住讜驻讜 诇讻讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专 砖住讜驻讜 诇讻讛谉

Rather, what do you have to say concerning this verse? It must be referring to a time before the slaughter, and what is meant by: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest鈥? It means an item that is ultimately given to the priest. Here too, one can explain that the verse is referring to a time before the waving, and it means an item that is ultimately given to the priest. The issue of whether or not waving establishes a bond between the sheep and loaves therefore remains an open question.

讜砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 谞驻专住 诇讞诪讛 讬讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讜砖讜讞讟

The Gemara asks: But is it so that slaughter establishes a bond between them? And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita concerning a thanks offering, which consists of an animal offering accompanied by forty loaves. The baraita states: If one of its accompanying loaves broke before he slaughtered the thanks offering, he should bring another loaf and slaughter the thanks offering.

诪砖砖讞讟讛 谞驻专住 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇

But if one of its accompanying loaves broke once he slaughtered the thanks offering, it is not possible to bring another loaf because the loaves of a thanks offering are sanctified through the slaughter of the animal, which has already taken place. Consequently, the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering, and the loaves are all unfit.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛砖诇诐 注诇 讛驻专讜住

If one of its accompanying loaves broke after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, the loaves are not deemed unfit and the individual has fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering. He separates the four loaves for the priest from the whole loaves for the broken loaf. The priest receives whole loaves and not the broken one.

注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 讬爪讗 诇讞诪讛 诪讻谞讬住讛 讜砖讜讞讟

The baraita continues: If one of its accompanying loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem before he slaughtered the thanks offering, it is not unfit because the loaves were not yet sanctified by the slaughter. Therefore, he brings it back into the city and slaughters the thanks offering.

诪砖砖讞讟讛 讬爪讗 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪诪讛 砖讘驻谞讬诐 注诇 砖讘讞讜抓

If one of its accompanying loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem once he slaughtered the thanks offering, the loaves are rendered unfit. Consequently, the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering and the loaves are all unfit. If one of the loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, the remainder of the offering is fit, and he separates the four loaves for the priest from the ones that remained inside the city for the loaf that went outside the walls of the city.

注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 谞讟诪讗 诇讞诪讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讜砖讜讞讟 诪砖砖讞讟讛 谞讟诪讗 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 讬爪讗 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇

The baraita continues: If one of its accompanying loaves became impure before he slaughtered the thanks offering, he brings another loaf and slaughters the thanks offering. But if one of its accompanying loaves became impure once he slaughtered the thanks offering, then the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, and he has fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering. This is due to the fact that the frontplate effects acceptance of offerings that are impure. Nevertheless, the loaf that became impure is unfit, as the frontplate effects acceptance of the offering but does not render impure items pure.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗

The baraita concludes: If one of its accompanying loaves became impure after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, he separates the four loaves that are given to the priest from the loaves that remained pure for the impure loaf.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讞诐 转讬驻住诇 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛

The Gemara comes to its question: If it enters your mind to say that slaughter establishes a bond between the sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot, and similarly between the animal offering and the loaves of a thanks offering, then in the cases where a loaf became unfit after the animal was slaughtered but before the blood was sprinkled, since the animal and the loaves bonded with each other through the slaughtering, once the loaf became unfit, the thanks offering should also become unfit. Consequently, the blood of the offering should not be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should not be eaten, contrary to what is stated in the baraita.

砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘讬诐 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讗祝 转讜讚讛 拽专讘讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐

The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering, as the verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13). Consequently, just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering can be sacrificed without loaves.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转谞讜驻讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

Rabbi Yirmeya says: If you say that waving establishes a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving,

讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

the sheep are lost as well, i.e., they cannot be sacrificed, and one must bring different loaves and sheep. Similarly, if the sheep are lost after the waving, the loaves are thereby lost as well, since a bond was established between them by means of the waving.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讛讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讜讛讜谞驻讜 讜讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 讜讛讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讜转讜 讛诇讞诐 讟注讜谉 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 转谞讜驻讛

And if you say that waving does not establish a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then one can raise the following dilemma: If one brought loaves and sheep and they were waved, and then the loaves were lost and he brought other loaves to replace the original loaves, does that second set of loaves require waving with the sheep, as it has not yet been waved? Or does it not require waving, as the accompanying sheep have already been waved with the original loaves, and the sheep are the subject in the verse that serves as the source of the requirement of waving (see Leviticus 23:20)?

讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 转谞讜驻讛 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

Rabbi Yirmeya clarifies the dilemma: In a case where the sheep were lost after the waving, do not raise the dilemma, as in this case they certainly require waving, because the primary obligation of waving is mentioned with respect to the sheep, and these sheep have not yet been waved. When should you raise the dilemma? You should raise it in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘谉 谞谞住 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 注讬拽专 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞诐 注讬拽专 诪讗讬

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents one from sacrificing the loaves, do not raise the dilemma, as he says that the sheep are primary. Consequently, since the sheep have been waved, there is no need to repeat the waving. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that failure to bring the loaves prevents one from sacrificing the sheep, as he says that the loaves are primary. According to his opinion, what is the halakha concerning the loaves that are brought as replacements?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞诐 注讬拽专 讘注讬 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转讬专讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讘砖讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 转谞讜驻讛 转讬拽讜

On the one hand, one might say that since the loaves are primary and this set of loaves has not yet been waved, it requires waving. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since its permitting factors are the sheep, and they were already waved, the new set of loaves does not require waving. The Gemara concludes that the question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讚诪拽讚砖讬 诇讞诐 讜诪注讻讘讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘注讛 讻讘砖讬诐 讜驻专 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the two sheep brought as peace offerings together with the two loaves of Shavuot, such that their slaughter sanctifies the loaves (see 47a), and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan failure to sacrifice them once they have been slaughtered prevents the bringing of the loaves; and what is different about the seven sheep, the bull, and the two rams brought on Shavuot as an additional offering, such that their slaughter does not sanctify the loaves, and failure to sacrifice them does not prevent the bringing of the loaves?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘转谞讜驻讛 讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘转谞讜驻讛 讜诪拽讚砖讗 讜诪注讻讘讗

Rava said to Abaye: The reason for the distinction is because the two sheep and the loaves brought as peace offerings are bound to each other through the waving. This is not so with regard to the additional offerings, which are not waved with the loaves. The Gemara challenges: But in the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, which are not waved together, they are not bound to each other through waving, and nevertheless the slaughter of the animal offering sanctifies the loaves and failure to sacrifice the animal offering prevents the bringing of the loaves. This indicates that the waving is not the critical factor.

讗诇讗 讻转讜讚讛 诪讛 转讜讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐

Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a thanks offering. Just as a thanks offering is a peace offering, so too the two sheep are also a peace offering. Consequently, just as the slaughter of the thanks offering sanctifies the accompanying loaves, and failure to sacrifice the animal prevents one from bringing the loaves, the same applies with regard to the sheep peace offerings and loaves of Shavuot.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬

The Gemara responds: Are the two sheep of Shavuot and the thanks offering really comparable? There, in the case of the thanks offering, there are no other animal offerings brought with it. But here, in the case of the offerings brought on Shavuot, where there are other animal offerings brought with it, let these peace offerings and those additional offerings sanctify the loaves. Why is it only the sheep brought as peace offerings that sanctify the loaves?

讗诇讗 讻讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 诪讛 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪拽讚砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite鈥檚 ram, which is sacrificed as a peace offering when he completes his term of naziriteship, in addition to a lamb that he sacrifices as a burnt offering, a female lamb that he brings then as a sin offering, and the nazirite loaves (see Numbers 6:14鈥15). Just as in the case of a nazirite鈥檚 ram, even though there are other offerings brought with it, nevertheless it is the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the nazirite loaves and not the slaughter of anything else, here too, the halakha is no different, and it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offerings that sanctifies the loaves.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛壮 注诇 住诇 讛诪爪讜转 诪诇诪讚 砖讛住诇 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 诇讗讬诇 讜砖讞讬讟转 讗讬诇 诪拽讚砖谉 诇驻讬讻讱 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讛诇讞诐

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of the offerings of the nazirite, from where do we derive that it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the loaves? The Gemara answers: This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning a verse stated with regard to the offerings of the nazirite: 鈥淎nd he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread鈥 (Numbers 6:17). This verse, which connects the ram and the loaves, teaches that the basket of the nazirite loaves comes as an obligation for the ram, which is a peace offering, and the slaughter of the ram sanctifies the loaves. Therefore, if the slaughter was unfit, e.g., in a case where he slaughtered the ram not for the sake of a peace offering, the loaves were not sanctified.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讬讜谞驻讜 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Akiva failure to sacrifice the two sheep brought as peace offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the loaves. Consequently, if there are no sheep, the loaves are sacrificed by themselves. Concerning this the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, they should be waved. They should then be left overnight so that their form decays, i.e., they become disqualified, and they are then brought out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗转讬讬谉 诇砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诇讗诇转专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛

The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult: If the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten, let the priests eat them rather than burn them. If they are brought only to be burned, let the priests burn them immediately. Why are they left overnight so that they undergo a decay of form, i.e., become disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛谉 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 诇讞诐 讘诇讗 讻讘砖讬诐 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

Rabba said: Actually, the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree that they not be eaten out of concern lest sheep become available to the nation the following year, and they might say: Didn鈥檛 we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.

讜讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛讜 砖专讬讬谉 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚砖专讜 诇讛讜

And they will not know that the reason they were permitted to eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep last year is that there were no sheep, and therefore the two loaves permitted themselves to be eaten, i.e., they could be eaten without the sacrifice of the sheep. But now that there are sheep, it is the sacrifice of the sheep that permits the loaves to be eaten. Since loaves brought without sheep are fit by Torah law and may not be eaten due to rabbinic decree, they may not be burned until they become disqualified by remaining overnight.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛注讬讚 讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖砖讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗

Rabba said: From where do I say this, i.e., what is the source for my statement? It is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜拽诇 讞讜讟讗 讗诇讗 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讚讜专砖讬谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 诇注爪诪谉

Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case, rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.

讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讛谉 讛讬讗讱 谞讗讻诇讬谉

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute half-shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests鈥 meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.

讛谞讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘讗讜转 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讟讜 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪谞讚讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 诇讛讜

Rabba discusses this mishna: What are the circumstances of these two loaves? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where they are brought with the animal offering, i.e., the two sheep brought as peace offerings, why shouldn鈥檛 the loaves be eaten? Is that to say that priests cannot volunteer to bring a thanks offering and its loaves and eat them? Just as the loaves that accompany a thanks offering may be eaten, even if brought by a priest, the same halakha should apply to the two loaves when they accompany sheep brought as peace offerings.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讗讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜拽转谞讬 讛讬讗讱 讛谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉

Rather, is it not referring to a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, and the mishna teaches that the priests claimed: How can they be eaten? Apparently, in principle the loaves come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until their form decays.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘讗讜转 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 诪谞讞讛 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讗讬拽专讜 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛拽专讬讘讻诐 诪谞讞讛 讞讚砖讛 诇讛壮

Abaye said to Rabba in response: Actually, the mishna can be interpreted as referring to loaves brought with the animal offering, and therefore it does not prove that when the two loaves are brought by themselves they may be eaten. And as for that which is difficult for you based on the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, the resolution is that the loaves of a thanks offering are not called a meal offering, and therefore even when a priest brings a thanks offering, the loaves may be eaten. By contrast, the two loaves of Shavuot are called a meal offering, as it is stated with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淎lso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗转讬讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba鈥檚 proof: Actually, when the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves they come to be burned, i.e., they may not be eaten. And this is the reason that we do not burn them until the following day: It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 诇讬砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is the burning of the two loaves comparable to the burning of other consecrated items, such that the loaves may not be burned right away for this reason? There, in the case of other consecrated items, this is not their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be eaten, but if they become disqualified they must be burned. Conversely, here, in the case of the two loaves of Shavuot that are brought by themselves, where this is their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be burned, let the priests burn them on the Festival, just as is the halakha in the case of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which are burned on Yom Kippur despite the fact that it is a Festival.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 讛拽专讘转诐 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 诇砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 爪讜专转 讛拽专讘转诐

Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason the loaves are left overnight is due to a rabbinic decree not to burn them immediately, lest sheep become available to the nation afterward, i.e., later in the day, in which case the loaves could be waved with them and then eaten. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: That works out well for the entire time period when they may be sacrificed, i.e., until the afternoon daily offering is sacrificed. But after that, let them burn the loaves immediately and not wait until the next day. Rav Yosef replied: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita that teaches that the loaves must be left until their form decays? It means that they must be left until the form of their sacrifice has passed, i.e., until after the time when the sheep could be sacrificed.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪拽专讗

Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba鈥檚 proof: When the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves, by Torah law they come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until they are disqualified. The reason for the decree is due to that which Rabba said, i.e., due to the concern that the following year sheep will be available and nevertheless the nation will bring the two loaves without sheep. But the proof that by Torah law the loaves may be eaten is not from Rabba鈥檚 line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讘讬讗讜 诇讞诐 转谞讜驻讛 讜讙讜壮 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讛壮 诪讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛

And Rava said by way of explanation: From where do I state this halakha? From the fact that it is written with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淵ou shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:17). Just as first fruits are brought by themselves, without an accompanying animal offering, so too the two loaves are brought by themselves when there are no sheep available. And learn from this comparison to first fruits that just as first fruits are brought to be eaten, so too the two loaves are also brought to be eaten, even in the absence of the sheep brought as peace offerings.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 46

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 46

砖讗诐 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 砖诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜讗讬讝讛 讛讜讗 讝讬拽讛 砖诇讛谉 砖讞讬讟讛

that if they became bound to each other and then one of them became lost, that the lost item prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other, i.e., the remaining item is unfit and must be burned. Rabbi Yo岣nan clarifies: And what is it that establishes their bond? It is the slaughter of the sheep. If the loaves existed at the time of the slaughter, then the loaves and sheep are sanctified as one unit. Consequently, if one of them is lost, the other is unfit and must be burned.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讘注讜 讘诪注专讘讗 转谞讜驻讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛

With regard to the establishment of the bond between the loaves and the sheep, Ulla said that the Sages in the West, Eretz Yisrael, raise a dilemma: Does waving of the sheep and loaves before the sheep are slaughtered establish a bond between the sheep and the loaves, such that if one is lost the other becomes unfit, or does it not establish a bond between them?

驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛

The Gemara asks: Why is there a dilemma about this issue? Resolve it from the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that slaughter of the sheep establishes a bond between sheep and the loaves. On can conclude by inference that waving, which precedes the slaughter, does not establish a bond between them.

讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讬驻砖讟 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖讞讬讟讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 讜转谞讜驻讛 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan itself that Ulla raises the dilemma: Is it obvious to Rabbi Yo岣nan that slaughter establishes a bond between them but waving does not establish a bond between them? Or perhaps it is obvious to him that slaughter establishes a bond between them, but he is uncertain as to whether or not waving establishes a bond between them. According to the second possibility, the reason that he mentioned slaughter is that he was certain about it. The Gemara notes that the question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讗 讻讬 讻转讬讘 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讜 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 讘转专 转谞讜驻讛 讻转讬讘 讜驻诇讬讙讬 讘谉 谞谞住 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But when it is written: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest鈥 (Leviticus 23:20), it is written immediately after the verse mentions waving, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree, based on this phrase, about whether the loaves can be brought without the sheep or the sheep can be sacrificed without the loaves. This indicates that the waving does not establish a bond between these two items.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讘转专 转谞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 讘转专 砖讞讬讟讛

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied to Rabbi Yehuda bar 岣nina: And according to your reasoning that one can infer the halakha based upon the placement of the phrase: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest,鈥 is this phrase referring to the time after waving but not after the slaughter of the sheep? After all, the verse speaks of giving them to the priest, which is done after the sheep have been slaughtered. How then did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning this verse?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪注讬拽专讗 拽讗讬 讜诪讗讬 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讜 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 讚讘专 砖住讜驻讜 诇讻讛谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘专 砖住讜驻讜 诇讻讛谉

Rather, what do you have to say concerning this verse? It must be referring to a time before the slaughter, and what is meant by: 鈥淭hey shall be holy to the Lord for the priest鈥? It means an item that is ultimately given to the priest. Here too, one can explain that the verse is referring to a time before the waving, and it means an item that is ultimately given to the priest. The issue of whether or not waving establishes a bond between the sheep and loaves therefore remains an open question.

讜砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 谞驻专住 诇讞诪讛 讬讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讜砖讜讞讟

The Gemara asks: But is it so that slaughter establishes a bond between them? And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from a baraita concerning a thanks offering, which consists of an animal offering accompanied by forty loaves. The baraita states: If one of its accompanying loaves broke before he slaughtered the thanks offering, he should bring another loaf and slaughter the thanks offering.

诪砖砖讞讟讛 谞驻专住 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇

But if one of its accompanying loaves broke once he slaughtered the thanks offering, it is not possible to bring another loaf because the loaves of a thanks offering are sanctified through the slaughter of the animal, which has already taken place. Consequently, the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering, and the loaves are all unfit.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛砖诇诐 注诇 讛驻专讜住

If one of its accompanying loaves broke after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, the loaves are not deemed unfit and the individual has fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering. He separates the four loaves for the priest from the whole loaves for the broken loaf. The priest receives whole loaves and not the broken one.

注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 讬爪讗 诇讞诪讛 诪讻谞讬住讛 讜砖讜讞讟

The baraita continues: If one of its accompanying loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem before he slaughtered the thanks offering, it is not unfit because the loaves were not yet sanctified by the slaughter. Therefore, he brings it back into the city and slaughters the thanks offering.

诪砖砖讞讟讛 讬爪讗 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪诪讛 砖讘驻谞讬诐 注诇 砖讘讞讜抓

If one of its accompanying loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem once he slaughtered the thanks offering, the loaves are rendered unfit. Consequently, the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering and the loaves are all unfit. If one of the loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, the remainder of the offering is fit, and he separates the four loaves for the priest from the ones that remained inside the city for the loaf that went outside the walls of the city.

注讚 砖诇讗 砖讞讟讛 谞讟诪讗 诇讞诪讛 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讜砖讜讞讟 诪砖砖讞讟讛 谞讟诪讗 诇讞诪讛 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 讬爪讗 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讛诇讞诐 驻住讜诇

The baraita continues: If one of its accompanying loaves became impure before he slaughtered the thanks offering, he brings another loaf and slaughters the thanks offering. But if one of its accompanying loaves became impure once he slaughtered the thanks offering, then the blood should be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should be eaten, and he has fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering. This is due to the fact that the frontplate effects acceptance of offerings that are impure. Nevertheless, the loaf that became impure is unfit, as the frontplate effects acceptance of the offering but does not render impure items pure.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讟讛讜专 注诇 讛讟诪讗

The baraita concludes: If one of its accompanying loaves became impure after the blood was sprinkled on the altar, he separates the four loaves that are given to the priest from the loaves that remained pure for the impure loaf.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖讞讬讟讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讞诐 转讬驻住诇 谞诪讬 转讜讚讛

The Gemara comes to its question: If it enters your mind to say that slaughter establishes a bond between the sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot, and similarly between the animal offering and the loaves of a thanks offering, then in the cases where a loaf became unfit after the animal was slaughtered but before the blood was sprinkled, since the animal and the loaves bonded with each other through the slaughtering, once the loaf became unfit, the thanks offering should also become unfit. Consequently, the blood of the offering should not be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should not be eaten, contrary to what is stated in the baraita.

砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘讬诐 讘诇讗 诇讞诐 讗祝 转讜讚讛 拽专讘讛 讘诇讗 诇讞诐

The Gemara answers: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering, as the verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving鈥 (Leviticus 7:13). Consequently, just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering can be sacrificed without loaves.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转谞讜驻讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

Rabbi Yirmeya says: If you say that waving establishes a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving,

讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

the sheep are lost as well, i.e., they cannot be sacrificed, and one must bring different loaves and sheep. Similarly, if the sheep are lost after the waving, the loaves are thereby lost as well, since a bond was established between them by means of the waving.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转谞讜驻讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜砖讛 讝讬拽讛 讛讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讜讻讘砖讬诐 讜讛讜谞驻讜 讜讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 讜讛讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讜转讜 讛诇讞诐 讟注讜谉 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 转谞讜驻讛

And if you say that waving does not establish a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then one can raise the following dilemma: If one brought loaves and sheep and they were waved, and then the loaves were lost and he brought other loaves to replace the original loaves, does that second set of loaves require waving with the sheep, as it has not yet been waved? Or does it not require waving, as the accompanying sheep have already been waved with the original loaves, and the sheep are the subject in the verse that serves as the source of the requirement of waving (see Leviticus 23:20)?

讗讘讚讜 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 转谞讜驻讛 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐

Rabbi Yirmeya clarifies the dilemma: In a case where the sheep were lost after the waving, do not raise the dilemma, as in this case they certainly require waving, because the primary obligation of waving is mentioned with respect to the sheep, and these sheep have not yet been waved. When should you raise the dilemma? You should raise it in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving.

讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘谉 谞谞住 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 注讬拽专 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讞诐 注讬拽专 诪讗讬

And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents one from sacrificing the loaves, do not raise the dilemma, as he says that the sheep are primary. Consequently, since the sheep have been waved, there is no need to repeat the waving. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that failure to bring the loaves prevents one from sacrificing the sheep, as he says that the loaves are primary. According to his opinion, what is the halakha concerning the loaves that are brought as replacements?

讻讬讜谉 讚诇讞诐 注讬拽专 讘注讬 转谞讜驻讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪转讬专讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讻讘砖讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讱 转谞讜驻讛 转讬拽讜

On the one hand, one might say that since the loaves are primary and this set of loaves has not yet been waved, it requires waving. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since its permitting factors are the sheep, and they were already waved, the new set of loaves does not require waving. The Gemara concludes that the question shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讚诪拽讚砖讬 诇讞诐 讜诪注讻讘讬 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖讘注讛 讻讘砖讬诐 讜驻专 讜讗讬诇讬诐 讚诇讗 诪拽讚砖讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the two sheep brought as peace offerings together with the two loaves of Shavuot, such that their slaughter sanctifies the loaves (see 47a), and according to Rabbi Yo岣nan failure to sacrifice them once they have been slaughtered prevents the bringing of the loaves; and what is different about the seven sheep, the bull, and the two rams brought on Shavuot as an additional offering, such that their slaughter does not sanctify the loaves, and failure to sacrifice them does not prevent the bringing of the loaves?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘转谞讜驻讛 讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讝拽拽讜 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘转谞讜驻讛 讜诪拽讚砖讗 讜诪注讻讘讗

Rava said to Abaye: The reason for the distinction is because the two sheep and the loaves brought as peace offerings are bound to each other through the waving. This is not so with regard to the additional offerings, which are not waved with the loaves. The Gemara challenges: But in the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, which are not waved together, they are not bound to each other through waving, and nevertheless the slaughter of the animal offering sanctifies the loaves and failure to sacrifice the animal offering prevents the bringing of the loaves. This indicates that the waving is not the critical factor.

讗诇讗 讻转讜讚讛 诪讛 转讜讚讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖诇诪讬诐

Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a thanks offering. Just as a thanks offering is a peace offering, so too the two sheep are also a peace offering. Consequently, just as the slaughter of the thanks offering sanctifies the accompanying loaves, and failure to sacrifice the animal prevents one from bringing the loaves, the same applies with regard to the sheep peace offerings and loaves of Shavuot.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 讘讛讚讬讛 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讛谞讬 讜讛谞讬

The Gemara responds: Are the two sheep of Shavuot and the thanks offering really comparable? There, in the case of the thanks offering, there are no other animal offerings brought with it. But here, in the case of the offerings brought on Shavuot, where there are other animal offerings brought with it, let these peace offerings and those additional offerings sanctify the loaves. Why is it only the sheep brought as peace offerings that sanctify the loaves?

讗诇讗 讻讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 诪讛 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 讝讘讞讬诐 讗讞专讬谞讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诪拽讚砖讬 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite鈥檚 ram, which is sacrificed as a peace offering when he completes his term of naziriteship, in addition to a lamb that he sacrifices as a burnt offering, a female lamb that he brings then as a sin offering, and the nazirite loaves (see Numbers 6:14鈥15). Just as in the case of a nazirite鈥檚 ram, even though there are other offerings brought with it, nevertheless it is the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the nazirite loaves and not the slaughter of anything else, here too, the halakha is no different, and it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offerings that sanctifies the loaves.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗转 讛讗讬诇 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 诇讛壮 注诇 住诇 讛诪爪讜转 诪诇诪讚 砖讛住诇 讘讗 讞讜讘讛 诇讗讬诇 讜砖讞讬讟转 讗讬诇 诪拽讚砖谉 诇驻讬讻讱 砖讞讟讜 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讛诇讞诐

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of the offerings of the nazirite, from where do we derive that it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the loaves? The Gemara answers: This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning a verse stated with regard to the offerings of the nazirite: 鈥淎nd he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread鈥 (Numbers 6:17). This verse, which connects the ram and the loaves, teaches that the basket of the nazirite loaves comes as an obligation for the ram, which is a peace offering, and the slaughter of the ram sanctifies the loaves. Therefore, if the slaughter was unfit, e.g., in a case where he slaughtered the ram not for the sake of a peace offering, the loaves were not sanctified.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讬讜谞驻讜 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

搂 The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Akiva failure to sacrifice the two sheep brought as peace offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the loaves. Consequently, if there are no sheep, the loaves are sacrificed by themselves. Concerning this the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, they should be waved. They should then be left overnight so that their form decays, i.e., they become disqualified, and they are then brought out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.

诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讻诇讬谞讛讜 讗讬 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗转讬讬谉 诇砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诇讗诇转专 诇诪讛 诇讛讜 注讬讘讜专 爪讜专讛

The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult: If the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten, let the priests eat them rather than burn them. If they are brought only to be burned, let the priests burn them immediately. Why are they left overnight so that they undergo a decay of form, i.e., become disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛谉 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 诇讞诐 讘诇讗 讻讘砖讬诐 注讻砖讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

Rabba said: Actually, the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree that they not be eaten out of concern lest sheep become available to the nation the following year, and they might say: Didn鈥檛 we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.

讜讗讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讜 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛讜 砖专讬讬谉 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚砖专讜 诇讛讜

And they will not know that the reason they were permitted to eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep last year is that there were no sheep, and therefore the two loaves permitted themselves to be eaten, i.e., they could be eaten without the sacrifice of the sheep. But now that there are sheep, it is the sacrifice of the sheep that permits the loaves to be eaten. Since loaves brought without sheep are fit by Torah law and may not be eaten due to rabbinic decree, they may not be burned until they become disqualified by remaining overnight.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛注讬讚 讘谉 讘讜讻专讬 讘讬讘谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖砖讜拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讗

Rabba said: From where do I say this, i.e., what is the source for my statement? It is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜拽诇 讞讜讟讗 讗诇讗 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 讚讜专砖讬谉 诪拽专讗 讝讛 诇注爪诪谉

Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case, rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.

讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讛谉 讛讬讗讱 谞讗讻诇讬谉

The verse states: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute half-shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests鈥 meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.

讛谞讬 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讘讗讜转 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讟讜 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诪讬 诇讗 诪谞讚讘讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗讻诇讬 诇讛讜

Rabba discusses this mishna: What are the circumstances of these two loaves? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where they are brought with the animal offering, i.e., the two sheep brought as peace offerings, why shouldn鈥檛 the loaves be eaten? Is that to say that priests cannot volunteer to bring a thanks offering and its loaves and eat them? Just as the loaves that accompany a thanks offering may be eaten, even if brought by a priest, the same halakha should apply to the two loaves when they accompany sheep brought as peace offerings.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讘讗讜转 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜拽转谞讬 讛讬讗讱 讛谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉

Rather, is it not referring to a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, and the mishna teaches that the priests claimed: How can they be eaten? Apparently, in principle the loaves come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until their form decays.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘讗讜转 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 诪谞讞讛 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讗讬拽专讜 诪谞讞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛拽专讬讘讻诐 诪谞讞讛 讞讚砖讛 诇讛壮

Abaye said to Rabba in response: Actually, the mishna can be interpreted as referring to loaves brought with the animal offering, and therefore it does not prove that when the two loaves are brought by themselves they may be eaten. And as for that which is difficult for you based on the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, the resolution is that the loaves of a thanks offering are not called a meal offering, and therefore even when a priest brings a thanks offering, the loaves may be eaten. By contrast, the two loaves of Shavuot are called a meal offering, as it is stated with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淎lso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇砖专讬驻讛 讗转讬讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 砖专驻讬谞谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讜专驻讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba鈥檚 proof: Actually, when the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves they come to be burned, i.e., they may not be eaten. And this is the reason that we do not burn them until the following day: It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗讜 诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 讛讻讗 讚诪爪讜转谉 讘讻讱 诇讬砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is the burning of the two loaves comparable to the burning of other consecrated items, such that the loaves may not be burned right away for this reason? There, in the case of other consecrated items, this is not their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be eaten, but if they become disqualified they must be burned. Conversely, here, in the case of the two loaves of Shavuot that are brought by themselves, where this is their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be burned, let the priests burn them on the Festival, just as is the halakha in the case of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which are burned on Yom Kippur despite the fact that it is a Festival.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讝讚诪谞讜 诇讛诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 讻诇 讝诪谉 讛拽专讘转诐 诇讘转专 讛讻讬 诇砖专驻讬谞讛讜 诪讗讬 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 爪讜专转 讛拽专讘转诐

Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason the loaves are left overnight is due to a rabbinic decree not to burn them immediately, lest sheep become available to the nation afterward, i.e., later in the day, in which case the loaves could be waved with them and then eaten. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: That works out well for the entire time period when they may be sacrificed, i.e., until the afternoon daily offering is sacrificed. But after that, let them burn the loaves immediately and not wait until the next day. Rav Yosef replied: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita that teaches that the loaves must be left until their form decays? It means that they must be left until the form of their sacrifice has passed, i.e., until after the time when the sheep could be sacrificed.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗转讬讬谉 讜讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讟注诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪拽专讗

Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba鈥檚 proof: When the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves, by Torah law they come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until they are disqualified. The reason for the decree is due to that which Rabba said, i.e., due to the concern that the following year sheep will be available and nevertheless the nation will bring the two loaves without sheep. But the proof that by Torah law the loaves may be eaten is not from Rabba鈥檚 line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讘讬讗讜 诇讞诐 转谞讜驻讛 讜讙讜壮 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讛壮 诪讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 讘讻讜专讬诐 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗祝 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛

And Rava said by way of explanation: From where do I state this halakha? From the fact that it is written with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淵ou shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:17). Just as first fruits are brought by themselves, without an accompanying animal offering, so too the two loaves are brought by themselves when there are no sheep available. And learn from this comparison to first fruits that just as first fruits are brought to be eaten, so too the two loaves are also brought to be eaten, even in the absence of the sheep brought as peace offerings.

Scroll To Top