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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 26, 2018 | 讬状讝 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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 47

When do the loaves become sanctified? Different opinions are brought as well as different ways to understand one of the opinions.


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

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

搂 The Gemara cites further discussion of the two sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot: The Sages taught in a baraita: The two sheep of Shavuot consecrate the two loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter.

讻讬爪讚 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讛诇讞诐 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 诇砖诪谉 讜讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉

How so? If one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake, as the peace offerings that are supposed to be sacrificed on Shavuot, and then the priest sprinkled their blood on the altar for their own sake, then the loaves are consecrated. But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The loaves are never consecrated at all until one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughtering of the sheep partially consecrates the loaves even without the sprinkling of the blood?

讚讻转讬讘 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 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗

The Gemara answers: It is based on the fact that it is written concerning the ram brought by the nazirite when he completes his naziriteship: 鈥淎nd he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zeva岣] of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread鈥 (Numbers 6:17). Since the verse uses the word zeva岣, which also means slaughter, and the verse then makes reference to the loaves, that is to say that it is specifically the slaughter that consecrates the loaves that accompany the offering. Similarly, the slaughter of the sheep brought as peace offerings on Shavuot consecrates the accompanying two loaves, as the halakha of the loaves of Shavuot is derived from that of the loaves of the nazirite.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬注砖讛 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood together consecrate the loaves? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the term: 鈥淗e shall offer,鈥 which he understands to mean that the loaves are not consecrated until the priest performs all of the actions included in the sacrificial rites of that offering, including the sprinkling of the blood.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讬注砖讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讝讘讞 讬注砖讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 讘诪讛 讬注砖讛 讘讝讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e shall offer,鈥 which indicates that the loaves are consecrated only once the blood has been sprinkled on the altar? The Gemara answers: If it were written: A sacrifice [zeva岣] he shall offer, it would be as you are saying that he should slaughter it and then perform a further action, i.e., sprinkling the blood, in order to consecrate the loaves. Now that it is written: 鈥淗e shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zeva岣],鈥 it should be understood as: By what means should he offer the ram in order to consecrate the loaves? By means of slaughtering [zevi岣].

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻转讬讘 讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 诇讞诐 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 sacrifice [zeva岣],鈥 indicating that slaughtering alone consecrates the loaves? The Gemara answers: He requires that expression for that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that everyone, including Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that the loaves must be in existence at the time of the slaughter.

诪讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讙诪讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专

搂 The Gemara asks: What is meant by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the baraita that if one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, then the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated? Abaye says: The loaves are consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but their consecration is not complete. Rava says: The loaves are fully consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but they are not thereby permitted to be eaten.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讗 转驻讬住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇专讘讗 转驻讬住 驻讚讬讜谞讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Everyone concedes that the loaves may not be eaten as a result of this slaughtering. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the ability to transfer sanctity to their redemption money. According to Abaye, who holds that the loaves are not completely consecrated, they do not transfer sanctity to their redemption money if one tries to redeem them for money. According to Rava, who holds that the loaves are completely consecrated, they transfer sanctity to their redemption money.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rava, who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the loaves are completely sanctified, that is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, what difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

讗讬讻讗 [讘讬谞讬讬讛讜] 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether the loaves are rendered unfit by means of leaving the Temple courtyard after the slaughtering of the offering. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the loaves are rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the loaves are not consecrated, they are not rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜转讜 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara continues the discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerning the consecration of the two loaves by means of the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of the sheep of Shavuot. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: In the case of a communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot that one slaughtered for their sake but the priest sprinkled their blood not for their sake, concerning those accompanying loaves, what is the halakha with regard to eating them?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讗 讚诪拽讚砖讗 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say that it is the sprinkling of the blood that consecrates the loaves? Consequently, if the blood was not properly sprinkled, it is clear that the loves are unfit and may not be eaten. And if it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, both according to the opinion of Abaye and according to that of Rava, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the loaves are consecrated but are not permitted to be eaten.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讘讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘诇讞诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讘诇讞诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara responds: Rather, one must say that the question was asked in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna. As the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba teaches in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves left the Temple courtyard between the slaughtering of the offering and the sprinkling of its blood, and then the priest sprinkled the blood of the sheep with the intent that their meat would be eaten beyond their designated time, the sheep are rendered piggul. With regard to the loaves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul. Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗

Rav Sheshet said: These tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughtering consecrates the loaves by itself. Consequently, if the loaves are taken out of the Temple courtyard after the sheep are slaughtered, the loaves become disqualified.

诪讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

But they disagree as to the following: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Eliezer says that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Since the loaves left the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time does not render the loaves piggul. And Rabbi Akiva conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Akiva says that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time renders the loaves piggul, even though they left the courtyard.

讚转谞谉 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

As we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 6b): In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective with regard to these portions, and therefore one is not liable for misusing them. And if one eats them, he is not liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective and therefore, one is liable for misusing them. And if one eats them he is liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

诪讗讬

The Gemara now concludes the dilemma that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, what is the halakha with regard to eating the loaves when the sheep were slaughtered for their own sake, but their blood was sprinkled not for their sake?

诪讚讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 拽讘注讛 诇诇讞诐 讘驻讬讙讜诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讻讘砖专 讝专讬拽讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讞诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Should one say that from the fact that sprinkling the blood of the sheep in a manner that renders it piggul renders the loaves piggul, like the meat of the offering, despite the fact that the loaves were disqualified by leaving the courtyard of the Temple, it can be derived that sprinkling the blood not for its own sake also permits the loaves to be eaten, just as it permits the meat of the sheep to be eaten? Or perhaps it is only to be stringent that we say that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to loaves that have left the Temple courtyard, but we do not say this in order to be lenient, e.g., to render the loaves permitted to be eaten.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Pappa objects to this understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. From where do we know that they disagree in a case where the loaves are outside the courtyard at the time of the sprinkling?

讚讬诇诪讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜讘讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 讜讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗

Perhaps in a case where the loaves are still outside the courtyard everyone agrees that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard, and they disagree in a case where the loaves left the courtyard and one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling. As Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, and therefore the loaves became disqualified by leaving the courtyard after the sheep were slaughtered. Consequently, even if they were brought back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood they cannot become piggul because they have already been disqualified for a different reason.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves at all before the sprinkling of the blood. Since the loaves were not yet consecrated, they do not become disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚拽讚砖讬 诇讛讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗转讬讗 讝专讬拽讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛讜 讘驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? It does not fit what they say. Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, that is what Rabbi Akiva means when he says that the loaves are consecrated by the slaughter of the sheep and then the sprinkling that was done with the intent to consume the offering after its appointed time comes and renders the loaves piggul.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讗 讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 诪讬 诪拽讚砖讗

But if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves without the sprinkling of the blood, does sprinkling with an intent that renders the sheep piggul actually consecrate the loaves?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says: Sprinkling with an intent that renders an offering piggul does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property?

讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

Rav explains: The halakha that it does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to: 鈥淭he sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). Consequently, it does not apply to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the meat is the property of those who brought the offering, and the sacrificial portions are disqualified by the sprinkling performed with improper intent.

讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讘讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

And the halakha that it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to meat of offerings of the most sacred order, such as a sin offering, a guilt offering, or a communal peace offering. Since the sprinkling of the blood was not valid, the meat, which would have become permitted for the priests to eat, retains the status of 鈥渢he sacred items of the Lord,鈥 and the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property still applies.

诇讗讜 讗讬转讜转讘 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Wasn鈥檛 that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says conclusively refuted? Consequently, one cannot ask a question based on this statement.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another dilemma concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case of the two sheep of Shavuot that one slaughtered for their own sake, thereby establishing a bond between the sheep and the loaves, and the loaves were then lost, if the blood of the sheep would be sprinkled for their sake, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten because the loaves were lost. That said, what is the halakha with regard to whether the priest may sprinkle their blood not for their own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering in order to permit the meat of the sheep to be eaten?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讚讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Do you have anything that is not fit if the sacrificial rites are performed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if the sacrificial rites are performed not for its own sake? This is certainly not a logical option. Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, as it is before the proper time for the Paschal offering, and yet it is fit if it is slaughtered not for its own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering.

讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞专讗讛 诇砖诪讜 讜谞讚讞讛 诪诇砖诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep when the loaves were lost, and is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering, which was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake during its designated time, and after its designated time, during the rest of the days of the year before midday, it is not fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering but it is fit to be sacrificed as a peace offering.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞专讗讛 诇砖诪讜 讜谞砖讞讟 诇砖诪讜 讜谞讚讞讛 诪诇砖诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and it was slaughtered for its own sake, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep when the loaves were lost, and it is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the thanks offering, as the Gemara (46a) states that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and then its accompanying loaves broke into pieces and thereby became disqualified, the blood should be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering rather than a thanks offering, and then the meat may be eaten. Yet, if the blood was sprinkled for the sake of a thanks offering, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten.

砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Zeira answered: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering (see Leviticus 7:13). Just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering may sometimes be sacrificed without loaves. Therefore, the loss of the loaves does not render the thanks offering disqualified, and this case is not comparable to the case of the two sheep and two loaves of Shavuot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 注诇 讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 诪讜砖讱 砖转讬诐 诪讛谉 讜诪谞讬驻谉

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one slaughtered the two sheep as required but they were accompanied by four loaves rather than the requisite two loaves, he draws two of the loaves from the four and waves them together with the sheep,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • 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 47

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 47

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 讗讬谉 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

搂 The Gemara cites further discussion of the two sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot: The Sages taught in a baraita: The two sheep of Shavuot consecrate the two loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter.

讻讬爪讚 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 拽讚砖 讛诇讞诐 砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讛诇讞诐 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 诇砖诪谉 讜讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 诇砖诪谉

How so? If one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake, as the peace offerings that are supposed to be sacrificed on Shavuot, and then the priest sprinkled their blood on the altar for their own sake, then the loaves are consecrated. But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The loaves are never consecrated at all until one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughtering of the sheep partially consecrates the loaves even without the sprinkling of the blood?

讚讻转讬讘 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 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗

The Gemara answers: It is based on the fact that it is written concerning the ram brought by the nazirite when he completes his naziriteship: 鈥淎nd he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zeva岣] of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread鈥 (Numbers 6:17). Since the verse uses the word zeva岣, which also means slaughter, and the verse then makes reference to the loaves, that is to say that it is specifically the slaughter that consecrates the loaves that accompany the offering. Similarly, the slaughter of the sheep brought as peace offerings on Shavuot consecrates the accompanying two loaves, as the halakha of the loaves of Shavuot is derived from that of the loaves of the nazirite.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬注砖讛 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讻诇 注砖讬讜转讬讜

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood together consecrate the loaves? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the term: 鈥淗e shall offer,鈥 which he understands to mean that the loaves are not consecrated until the priest performs all of the actions included in the sacrificial rites of that offering, including the sprinkling of the blood.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讬注砖讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讝讘讞 讬注砖讛 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬注砖讛 讝讘讞 讘诪讛 讬注砖讛 讘讝讘讬讞讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗e shall offer,鈥 which indicates that the loaves are consecrated only once the blood has been sprinkled on the altar? The Gemara answers: If it were written: A sacrifice [zeva岣] he shall offer, it would be as you are saying that he should slaughter it and then perform a further action, i.e., sprinkling the blood, in order to consecrate the loaves. Now that it is written: 鈥淗e shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zeva岣],鈥 it should be understood as: By what means should he offer the ram in order to consecrate the loaves? By means of slaughtering [zevi岣].

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻转讬讘 讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 砖爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 诇讞诐 讘砖注转 砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎 sacrifice [zeva岣],鈥 indicating that slaughtering alone consecrates the loaves? The Gemara answers: He requires that expression for that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that everyone, including Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that the loaves must be in existence at the time of the slaughter.

诪讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 讙诪讜专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专

搂 The Gemara asks: What is meant by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the baraita that if one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, then the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated? Abaye says: The loaves are consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but their consecration is not complete. Rava says: The loaves are fully consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but they are not thereby permitted to be eaten.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇诪讬转驻住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇讗讘讬讬 诇讗 转驻讬住 驻讚讬讜谞讜 诇专讘讗 转驻讬住 驻讚讬讜谞讜

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Everyone concedes that the loaves may not be eaten as a result of this slaughtering. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the ability to transfer sanctity to their redemption money. According to Abaye, who holds that the loaves are not completely consecrated, they do not transfer sanctity to their redemption money if one tries to redeem them for money. According to Rava, who holds that the loaves are completely consecrated, they transfer sanctity to their redemption money.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 专讘讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rava, who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the loaves are completely sanctified, that is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, what difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

讗讬讻讗 [讘讬谞讬讬讛讜] 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether the loaves are rendered unfit by means of leaving the Temple courtyard after the slaughtering of the offering. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the loaves are rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the loaves are not consecrated, they are not rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜转讜 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara continues the discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerning the consecration of the two loaves by means of the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of the sheep of Shavuot. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: In the case of a communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot that one slaughtered for their sake but the priest sprinkled their blood not for their sake, concerning those accompanying loaves, what is the halakha with regard to eating them?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 讛讬讗 讚诪拽讚砖讗 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讘讬谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讘讬谉 诇专讘讗 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讬转专 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say that it is the sprinkling of the blood that consecrates the loaves? Consequently, if the blood was not properly sprinkled, it is clear that the loves are unfit and may not be eaten. And if it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, both according to the opinion of Abaye and according to that of Rava, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the loaves are consecrated but are not permitted to be eaten.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讬爪讗讜 讘讬谉 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 讜讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讘诇讞诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讘诇讞诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara responds: Rather, one must say that the question was asked in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna. As the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba teaches in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves left the Temple courtyard between the slaughtering of the offering and the sprinkling of its blood, and then the priest sprinkled the blood of the sheep with the intent that their meat would be eaten beyond their designated time, the sheep are rendered piggul. With regard to the loaves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul. Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗

Rav Sheshet said: These tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughtering consecrates the loaves by itself. Consequently, if the loaves are taken out of the Temple courtyard after the sheep are slaughtered, the loaves become disqualified.

诪讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

But they disagree as to the following: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Eliezer says that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Since the loaves left the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time does not render the loaves piggul. And Rabbi Akiva conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Akiva says that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time renders the loaves piggul, even though they left the courtyard.

讚转谞谉 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

As we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 6b): In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective with regard to these portions, and therefore one is not liable for misusing them. And if one eats them, he is not liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective and therefore, one is liable for misusing them. And if one eats them he is liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

诪讗讬

The Gemara now concludes the dilemma that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k raised before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, what is the halakha with regard to eating the loaves when the sheep were slaughtered for their own sake, but their blood was sprinkled not for their sake?

诪讚讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 拽讘注讛 诇诇讞诐 讘驻讬讙讜诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讻讘砖专 讝专讬拽讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讞诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Should one say that from the fact that sprinkling the blood of the sheep in a manner that renders it piggul renders the loaves piggul, like the meat of the offering, despite the fact that the loaves were disqualified by leaving the courtyard of the Temple, it can be derived that sprinkling the blood not for its own sake also permits the loaves to be eaten, just as it permits the meat of the sheep to be eaten? Or perhaps it is only to be stringent that we say that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to loaves that have left the Temple courtyard, but we do not say this in order to be lenient, e.g., to render the loaves permitted to be eaten.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪诪讗讬 讚讻讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rav Pappa objects to this understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. From where do we know that they disagree in a case where the loaves are outside the courtyard at the time of the sprinkling?

讚讬诇诪讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜讘讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 讜讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗

Perhaps in a case where the loaves are still outside the courtyard everyone agrees that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard, and they disagree in a case where the loaves left the courtyard and one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling. As Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, and therefore the loaves became disqualified by leaving the courtyard after the sheep were slaughtered. Consequently, even if they were brought back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood they cannot become piggul because they have already been disqualified for a different reason.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讗 讜诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves at all before the sprinkling of the blood. Since the loaves were not yet consecrated, they do not become disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard.

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚拽讚砖讬 诇讛讜 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讜讗转讬讗 讝专讬拽讛 拽讘注讛 诇讛讜 讘驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? It does not fit what they say. Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, that is what Rabbi Akiva means when he says that the loaves are consecrated by the slaughter of the sheep and then the sprinkling that was done with the intent to consume the offering after its appointed time comes and renders the loaves piggul.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讝讘讬讞讛 诇讗 诪拽讚砖讗 讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 诪讬 诪拽讚砖讗

But if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves without the sprinkling of the blood, does sprinkling with an intent that renders the sheep piggul actually consecrate the loaves?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘 讝专讬拽转 驻讬讙讜诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Giddel say that Rav says: Sprinkling with an intent that renders an offering piggul does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property?

讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 诇讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讘讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

Rav explains: The halakha that it does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to: 鈥淭he sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). Consequently, it does not apply to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the meat is the property of those who brought the offering, and the sacrificial portions are disqualified by the sprinkling performed with improper intent.

讜讗讬谞讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 讘讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

And the halakha that it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to meat of offerings of the most sacred order, such as a sin offering, a guilt offering, or a communal peace offering. Since the sprinkling of the blood was not valid, the meat, which would have become permitted for the priests to eat, retains the status of 鈥渢he sacred items of the Lord,鈥 and the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property still applies.

诇讗讜 讗讬转讜转讘 讚专讘 讙讬讚诇 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Wasn鈥檛 that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says conclusively refuted? Consequently, one cannot ask a question based on this statement.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 诇砖诪谉 讜讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讝专讜拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

搂 The Gemara cites another dilemma concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case of the two sheep of Shavuot that one slaughtered for their own sake, thereby establishing a bond between the sheep and the loaves, and the loaves were then lost, if the blood of the sheep would be sprinkled for their sake, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten because the loaves were lost. That said, what is the halakha with regard to whether the priest may sprinkle their blood not for their own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering in order to permit the meat of the sheep to be eaten?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讚讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Do you have anything that is not fit if the sacrificial rites are performed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if the sacrificial rites are performed not for its own sake? This is certainly not a logical option. Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, as it is before the proper time for the Paschal offering, and yet it is fit if it is slaughtered not for its own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering.

讛讻讬 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞专讗讛 诇砖诪讜 讜谞讚讞讛 诪诇砖诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep when the loaves were lost, and is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 驻住讞 讗讞专 讝诪谞讜 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering, which was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake during its designated time, and after its designated time, during the rest of the days of the year before midday, it is not fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering but it is fit to be sacrificed as a peace offering.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讬砖 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞专讗讛 诇砖诪讜 讜谞砖讞讟 诇砖诪讜 讜谞讚讞讛 诪诇砖诪讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讻砖专 诇砖诪讜 讜讻砖专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and it was slaughtered for its own sake, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep when the loaves were lost, and it is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 转讜讚讛

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the thanks offering, as the Gemara (46a) states that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and then its accompanying loaves broke into pieces and thereby became disqualified, the blood should be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering rather than a thanks offering, and then the meat may be eaten. Yet, if the blood was sprinkled for the sake of a thanks offering, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten.

砖讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 拽专讬讬讛 砖诇诪讬诐

Rabbi Zeira answered: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering (see Leviticus 7:13). Just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering may sometimes be sacrificed without loaves. Therefore, the loss of the loaves does not render the thanks offering disqualified, and this case is not comparable to the case of the two sheep and two loaves of Shavuot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讞讟 砖谞讬 讻讘砖讬诐 注诇 讗专讘注 讞诇讜转 诪讜砖讱 砖转讬诐 诪讛谉 讜诪谞讬驻谉

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one slaughtered the two sheep as required but they were accompanied by four loaves rather than the requisite two loaves, he draws two of the loaves from the four and waves them together with the sheep,

Scroll To Top