Menachot 47

תנו רבנן כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה

§ 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.

כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אינו קדוש עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן

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.

מאי טעמא דרבי

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?

דכתיב ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה׳ על סל המצות למימרא דשחיטה מקדשא

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: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (Numbers 6:17). Since the verse uses the word zevaḥ, 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.

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון יעשה עד שיעשה כל עשיותיו

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: “He shall offer,” 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.

ורבי נמי הכתיב יעשה אי כתיב זבח יעשה כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב יעשה זבח במה יעשה בזביחה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “He shall offer,” 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 [zevaḥ] 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: “He shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ],” it should be understood as: By what means should he offer the ram in order to consecrate the loaves? By means of slaughtering [zeviḥa].

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון הכתיב זבח ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שצריך שיהא לחם בשעת שחיטה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it written: “A sacrifice [zevaḥ],” indicating that slaughtering alone consecrates the loaves? The Gemara answers: He requires that expression for that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that everyone, including Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that the loaves must be in existence at the time of the slaughter.

מאי קדוש ואינו קדוש אביי אמר קדוש ואינו גמור רבא אמר קדוש ואינו ניתר

§ The Gemara asks: What is meant by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s 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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למיתפס פדיונו לאביי לא תפיס פדיונו לרבא תפיס פדיונו

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.

בשלמא לרבא היינו דאיכא בין רבי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אלא לאביי מאי איכא בין רבי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון

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?

איכא [בינייהו] לאיפסולי ביוצא

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.

בעא מיניה רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק מרבי חייא בר אבא כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן אותו הלחם מהו באכילה

§ 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 Yitzḥak raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya 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?

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון האמר זריקה היא דמקדשא אי אליבא דרבי בין לאביי בין לרבא קדוש ואינו ניתר הוא

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’t 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.

אלא אליבא דהאי תנא דתני אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה לזריקה וזרק דמן של כבשים חוץ לזמנן רבי אליעזר אומר אין בלחם משום פיגול רבי עקיבא אומר יש בלחם משום פיגול

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.

אמר רב ששת הני תנאי כרבי סבירא להו דאמר שחיטה מקדשא

Rav Sheshet said: These tanna’im, 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.

מיהו רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ורבי עקיבא לטעמיה דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא

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.

דתנן אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמים רבי אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא

As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 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.

רבי עקיבא אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא

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.

מאי

The Gemara now concludes the dilemma that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised before Rabbi Ḥiyya 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?

מדזריקת פיגול קבעה ללחם בפיגול ביוצא כבשר זריקה שלא לשמה נמי שריא ליה ללחם או דלמא לחומרא אמרינן לקולא לא אמרינן

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.

מתקיף לה רב פפא וממאי דכי איתנהו אבראי פליגי

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?

דילמא בדאיתנהו אבראי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דאין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ובהדר עיילינהו פליגי דרבי אליעזר סבר לה כרבי דאמר שחיטה מקדשא ואיפסלו להו ביוצא

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.

ורבי עקיבא כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר שחיטה לא מקדשא ולא מיפסלי ביוצא

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.

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רבי עקיבא כרבי סבירא ליה דאמר שחיטה מקדשא להו היינו דקאמר רבי עקיבא דקדשי להו בשחיטה ואתיא זריקה קבעה להו בפיגול

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.

אלא אי אמרת כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבירא ליה דאמר זביחה לא מקדשא זריקת פיגול מי מקדשא

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?

והאמר רב גידל אמר רב זריקת פיגול אינה מביאה לידי מעילה ואינה מוציאה מידי מעילה

But doesn’t 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?

אינה מביאה לידי מעילה באימורי קדשים קלים

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: “The sacred items of the Lord” (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.

ואינה מוציאה מידי מעילה בבשר קדשי קדשים

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 “the sacred items of the Lord,” and the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property still applies.

לאו איתותב דרב גידל אמר רב

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

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן ואבד הלחם מהו שיזרוק דמן שלא לשמן להתיר בשר באכילה

§ 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?

אמר ליה יש לך דבר שאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו ולא והרי פסח קודם חצות דאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

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.

הכי קא אמינא יש לך דבר שנראה לשמו ונדחה מלשמו ואינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

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?

ולא והרי פסח אחר זמנו בשאר ימות השנה קודם חצות

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.

הכי קאמינא יש לך דבר שנראה לשמו ונשחט לשמו ונדחה מלשמו ואינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

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?

ולא והרי תודה

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.

שאני תודה דרחמנא קרייה שלמים

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.

תנו רבנן שחט שני כבשים על ארבע חלות מושך שתים מהן ומניפן

§ 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,