(1) 
אאָבְדוּ כְּבָשִׂים אָבְדוּ כְּבָשִׂים אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם.
אאָבְדוּ כְּבָשִׂים אָבְדוּ כְּבָשִׂים אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם.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.
אחר התנופה — אבדו בכך גם הכבשים ויוצאים לבית השריפה. וכן אם אבדו הכבשים אחר התנופה — אבד בכך גם הלחם, שהרי הוקבעו זה עם זה בתנופה.
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.
הכל
(2) וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר תְּנוּפָה אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה הֵבִיא לֶחֶם וּכְבָשִׂים וְהוּנְפוּ וְאָבַד הַלֶּחֶם וְהֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר אוֹתוֹ הַלֶּחֶם טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ טָעוּן תְּנוּפָה.
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)?
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)?
ואולם אם תמצא לומר בפתרון הבעיה של חכמי ארץ ישראל, כי התנופה אינה עושה זיקה בין הלחם והכבשים, יש לדון בשאלה זו: אם הביא לחם וכבשים, והונפו כדינם, ואחר כך אבד הלחם, והלך והביא לחם אחר במקום הלחם שאבד — האם אותו הלחם האחר טעון תנופה עם הכבשים, שהרי לחם זה לא הונף, או שמא אינו טעון תנופה, שהרי הכבשים הבאים עמו כבר הונפו עם לחם, ועיקר דין התנופה נאמר בהם (ככתוב ״והניף אותם הכהן״. ויקרא כג, כ).
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)?
הכל
(3) אָבְדוּ כְּבָשִׂים לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּוַדַּאי בָּעֵי תְּנוּפָה כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם.
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.
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.
אבדו כבשים לא תיבעי לך דודאי בעי תנופה – בהדי כבשים אחריני ולא דמי לזו תודה וזו לחמה דאי אבדה התודה אינו מביא אחרת.
ומסביר ר׳ ירמיה את הבעיה: אם אבדו הכבשים לאחר התנופה, והביא במקומם כבשים אחרים — לא תיבעי [לא תישאל] לך אם צריכים להניף את הכבשים הללו עם הלחם, שודאי שבאופן זה בעי [צריך] תנופה חדשה של הכבשים עם הלחם. כי עיקר תנופה אמורה בכבשים, ובכבשים הללו לא התקיימה התנופה. ואולם כי תיבעי [כאשר תישאל] לך השאלה — הרי זה, כאמור, במקרה שאבד הלחם לאחר התנופה.
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.
הכל
(4) וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּבֶן נַנָּס לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ דְּאָמַר כְּבָשִׂים עִיקָּר כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דר״ע דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּאָמַר לֶחֶם עִיקָּר מַאי.
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?
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?
ועוד מסביר ר׳ ירמיה את הבעיה: אליבא [על פי שיטתו] של בן ננס הסבור כי הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם ואין הלחם מעכב את הכבשים — לא תיבעי [לא תישאל] לך בעיה זו שהרי לשיטתו אמר כי הכבשים הם העיקר, ולא הלחם, ובמקרה שלפנינו, כיון שהונפו כבר הכבשים — שוב אין צורך להניף את הלחם החדש. ואולם כי תיבעי [כאשר תישאל] לך השאלה — הרי זה אליבא [על פי שיטתו] של ר׳ עקיבא שאמר כי הלחם מעכב את הכבשים ואין הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם, שלדעתו הלחם הוא העיקר. ומעתה יש לשאול מאי [מה] הדין בענין הנפתו של הלחם המובא עתה.
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?
הכל
(5) כֵּיוָן דְּלֶחֶם עִיקָּר בָּעֵי תְּנוּפָה אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּמַתִּירִין דִּידֵיהּ כְּבָשִׂים נִינְהוּ לָא צְרִיךְ תְּנוּפָה תֵּיקוּ.
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.
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.
וצדדי הבעיה: מצד אחד יש לומר כי כיון שהלחם הוא העיקר, והרי לחם זה לא הונף — בעי [צריך] איפוא להניף תנופה חדשה. או דלמא [שמא] יש לומר כי כיון שהמתירין דידיה [שלו, של הלחם] הכבשים נינהו [הם], וכיון שהם כבר הונפו — לא צריך שוב תנופה נוספת בלחם זה? ומסכמים כי בעיה זו לא נפתרה, ולכך תיקו [תעמוד] במקומה.
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.
הכל
(6) אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרָבָא מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי לֶחֶם וּמְעַכְּבִי וּמַאי שְׁנָא שִׁבְעָה כְּבָשִׂים וּפַר וְאֵילִים דְּלָא מְקַדְּשִׁי לֶחֶם וְלָא מְעַכְּבִי.
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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?
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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?
מאי שנא שני כבשים – דשלמים דמקדשי לחם כדתניא לקמן בשמעתא (דף מז.) אין מקדשין הלחם אלא בשחיטה.
ומעכבי – אם הוזקקו זה לזה בשחיטה כדאמר ר׳ יוחנן לעיל ואפי׳ לא הוזקקו מעכבי לבן ננס.
ומאי שנא שבעה כבשים ופרים ואלים דלא מקדשי ולא מעכבי – אגב מקדשי נקט מעכבי דהא דרשינן לעיל (דף מה:) שבעת כבשים אע״פ שאין לחם וה״נ לחם אע״פ שאין שבעה כבשים ומיהו בקונטרס פי׳ דמיבעיא ליה בתר דהוזקקו זה לזה בשחיטה.
א שנינו במשנתנו דינם של שני כבשי עצרת הבאים לשלמים עם שתי הלחם, שמקדשים את הלחם ומעכבים אותו. ובענין זה אמר ליה [לו] אביי לרבא בשאלה: מאי שנא [במה שונים] שני הכבשים הבאים בעצרת לשלמים עם הלחם דמקדשי [שמקדשים] את שתי הלחם ומעכבי [ומעכבים] אותו, שכיון שנשחטו הכבשים (לשיטת ר׳ יוחנן), אם לא הביאו אותם — אף אין מביאים את הלחם. ומאי שנא [ובמה שונים] שבעה כבשים ופר אחד ושני אילים הבאים בעצרת לעולה למוספים, שלא מקדשי [לא מקדשים] את הלחם ולא מעכבי [ולא מעכבים] אותו?
§ 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 Yoḥanan 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?
הכל
(7) אֲמַר לי׳ לֵיהּ הוֹאִיל וְהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה וַהֲרֵי תּוֹדָה דְּלֹא הוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּתְנוּפָה וּמְקַדְּשָׁא וּמְעַכְּבָא.
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.
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.
הואיל והוזקקו – שני כבשים ולחם.
והא תודה לא הוזקקו – היא ולחמה לתנופה ביחד.
ומקדשא – ללחם בשחיטה והיינו דאמרינן קרבנו על זבח מלמד שאין הלחם קדוש אלא בשחיטת הזבח בפ׳ התודה (לקמן דף עח:).
ומעכבא – דאם אין תודה אין לחם דהא אינן קדושין אלא בשחיטה.
אמר ליה [לו] רבא בהסבר הדבר: דווקא שני הכבשים מקדשים את הלחם, ומעכבים את הבאתו בהיעדרם, הואיל והוזקקו (נוצרה זיקה, תלות) בין זה לזה בשעת התנופה שלהם. מה שאין כן בקרבנות המוספים, שלא הוזקקו זה לזה. ומקשים על הסבר זה: והרי רואים אנו בדין קרבן תודה ולחמיו, אף שלא הוזקקו התודה והלחמים זה לזה בתנופה (שאין בהם דין תנופה), ובכל זאת שחיטת התודה מקדשא [מקדשת] את הלחמים, ומעכבא [ומעכבת] את הבאתם. הרי שהטעם לקידוש ועיכוב הלחם דווקא על ידי שני הכבשים, אינו הזיקה הנוצרת בשל ההנפה!
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.
הכל
(8) אֶלָּא כְּתוֹדָה מָה תּוֹדָה שְׁלָמִים אַף הָכָא נָמֵי שְׁלָמִים.
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.
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.
כתודה – כלומר וממקום שבאתה מה תודה שלמים ומעכבי לחם. הכא נמי אף ע״ג דאיכא זבחים אחריני בהדי איל נזיר עולה וחטאת:
ומשני: שני כבשי עצרת שלמים – אבל שבעה כבשים ופרים ואילים עולה נינהו כמו איל נזיר שלמים הוא ומקדש הלחם כדמפרש לקמיה.
אלא צריך לומר שהטעם שדווקא שני הכבשים מקדשים ומעכבים את שתי הלחם הוא, שדינם של שני הכבשים הריהו כדינו של קרבן התודה, מה התודה הריהי קרבן שלמים, אף הכא נמי [כאן, שני הכשבים, גם כן] הריהם קרבן שלמים. וכשם שקרבן התודה מקדש ומעכב את לחמיו, כך הוא גם בשני כבשי העצרת, מה שאין כן בשאר קרבנות העצרת.
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.
הכל
(9) מִי דָּמֵי הָתָם לֵיכָּא זְבָחִים אַחֲרִינֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא זְבָחִים אַחֲרִינֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ לִיקְדְּשׁוּ הָנֵי וְהָנֵי.
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?
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?
ודוחים אף הסבר זה: מי דמי [האם דומים] הם שני כבשי העצרת לקרבן התודה? והלא התם [שם, בקרבן תודה] — ליכא [אין] עוד זבחים אחריני בהדיה [אחרים אתו], ולכך הריהו מקדש ומעכב את לחמיו. ואילו הכא [כאן, בקרבנות העצרת] — דאיכא [שיש] מלבד שני הכבשים הבאים לשלמים, גם זבחים אחריני בהדיה [אחרים אתו], יש מקום לומר כי ליקדשו הני והני [שיקדשו את הלחם, קרבנות אלה ואלה] ולא שני הכבשים בלבד!
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?
הכל
(10) אֶלָּא כְּאֵיל נָזִיר מָה אֵיל נָזִיר אע״ג אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא זְבָחִים אַחֲרִינִי שְׁלָמִים הוּא דִּמְקַדְּשִׁי מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא.
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite’s 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 6:14–15). Just as in the case of a nazirite’s 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.
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite’s 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 6:14–15). Just as in the case of a nazirite’s 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.
אלא צריך לומר בטעם הדבר שדווקא שני הכבשים הם המקדשים ומעכבים את שתי הלחם, שכן דינם של הכבשים הריהו כדינו של קרבן איל נזיר המובא בהשלמת ימי נזירותו של הנזיר כקרבן שלמים (בנוסף לכבש אחד לקרבן עולה וכבשה אחת לקרבן חטאת וללחמי נזיר המובאים על ידו באותו יום. במדבר ו, יד— טו). מה איל נזיר — אף על גב דאיכא [אף על פי שיש] זבחים אחריני [אחרים] הבאים אתו, מכל מקום דווקא הוא, קרבן השלמים הוא דמקדשי [שמקדשים] את לחמי הנזיר, ואילו מידי אחרינא [דבר אחר, שאר הקרבנות] — לא מקדשים את לחמי הנזיר, הכא נמי [כאן, בלחמי העצרת, גם כן] — לא שנא [אין דינו שונה], והשלמים הם המקדשים את הלחם, ולא שאר הקרבנות.
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite’s 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 6:14–15). Just as in the case of a nazirite’s 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.
הכל
(11) וְהָתָם מְנָלַן דְּתַנְיָא {במדבר ו׳:י״ז} וְאֶת הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַה׳ עַל סַל הַמַּצּוֹת מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַסַּל בָּא חוֹבָה לָאַיִל וּשְׁחִיטַת אַיִל מְקַדְּשָׁן לְפִיכָךְ בשְׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ לֹא קָדַשׁו הַלֶּחֶם.
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: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (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.
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: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (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.
לפיכך – דשחיטת איל מקדשן שחטיה לאיל שלא לשמו לא קדש הלחם דכתיב זבח שלמים על סל המצות אי זביחתו לשם שלמים מקדש את הסל ואי לא לא.
לפיכך שחטן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם – טפי הוה ניחא למיתני שחטן לשמן דקדש הלחם אלא אשמעינן אע״ג דאחריני לשמן נשחטו לא קדש הלחם.
ושואלים: והתם מנלן [ושם, בקרבנות הנזיר, מנין לנו] שדווקא איל השלמים הוא המקדש את לחמי הנזיר, ולא שאר הקרבנות? — דתניא [שכן שנויה ברייתא] על האמור בקרבנות הנזיר ״ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה׳ על סל המצות״ (שם יז) — הרי לשון זו ״על סל המצות״ מלמד שהסל של לחמי הנזיר הריהו בא כחובה לקרבן האיל שהוא קרבן שלמים, ושחיטת האיל לקרבן שלמים היא המקדשן ללחמים אלה. ולפיכך אם היתה שחיטתו פסולה וכגון ששחטו לאיל שלא לשמו (לשם שלמים) — לא קדשו הלחם.
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: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (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.
הכל
(12) תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן גשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הַבָּאוֹת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן יוּנְפוּ וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
§ 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.
§ 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.
שתי הלחם הבאים בפני עצמן – בשלא היו להם כבשים יונפו כדי להתיר החדש במקדש:
ותעובר צורתן – שיעשה להן לינה ויצאו לבית השרפה:
ב שנינו במשנתנו כי לדעת ר׳ עקיבא אין הכבשים מעכבים את הלחם, ולכך אם אין כבשים — באים שתי הלחם כשלעצמם. ובענין זה עוד תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים] בברייתא: שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן — יונפו, ואולם לאחר מכן תעובר צורתן (ייפסלו) על ידי המתנת לילה, שייפסלו בלינה, ויצאו לבית השריפה, כקדשים שנפסלו.
§ 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.
הכל
(13) מָה נַפְשָׁךְ אִי לַאֲכִילָה אָתְיָין לֵיכְלִינְהוּ אִי לִשְׂרֵיפָה אָתְיָין לִשְׂרְפִינְהוּ לְאַלְתַּר לְמָה לְהוּ עִיבּוּר צוּרָה.
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?
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?
אי לאכילה אתיין – דלא בעו מתירין ליכלינהו.
ואי לשריפה אתיין לשרפינהו לאלתר – הואיל וזו היא עיקר מצוותם.
ותוהים: מה נפשך [מה רצונך]? כלומר, בכל צד הדבר קשה, שכן אי [אם] שתי הלחם לאכילה אתיין [באות] ומונפות — ליכלינהו [שיאכלו אותן], ולא ישרפן! ואי [אם] לשריפה אתיין [הן באות] בסופו של דבר — לשרפינהו לאלתר [שישרוף אותן מיד], ולמה להו [להן] להמתין כדי לגרום להן עיבור צורה?
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?
הכל
(14) אָמַר רַבָּה לְעוֹלָם לַאֲכִילָה אָתְיָין גְּזֵירָה דשֶׁמָּא יִזְדַּמְּנוּ לָהֶן כְּבָשִׂים לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה וְיֹאמְרוּ אֶשְׁתָּקַד לֹא אָכַלְנוּ לֶחֶם בְּלֹא כְּבָשִׂים עַכְשָׁיו נָמֵי נֵיכוֹל.
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’t we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.
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’t we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.
אמר רבא לעולם לאכילה אתיין – האי לחם שבא בלא כבשים ואמאי תעובר צורתה ויצא לבית השריפה גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לשנה הבאה ולא יחושו להביאם עם הלחם ויאמרו אשתקד וכו׳:
אמר רבה: לעולם לאכילה אתיין [באות], ואולם גזרו חכמים גזירה שלא תיאכלנה מתוך החשש שמא יזדמנו להן כבשים לשנה הבאה, ויאמרו: וכי אשתקד (בשנה שעברה), בחג השבועות, לא אכלנו את שתי הלחם בלא שהובאו עמו שני הכבשים? עכשיו נמי ניכול [גם כן נאכל] את שתי הלחם בלא שיובאו איתם כבשי העצרת.
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’t we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.
הכל
(15) וְאִינְהוּ לָא יָדְעִי דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד לָא הֲווֹ כְּבָשִׂים אִינְהוּ שָׁרְיָין נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא כְּבָשִׂים כְּבָשִׂים הוּא דְּשָׁרוּ לְהוּ.
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.
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.
השתא דאיכא כבשים כו׳ – הלכך הואיל וקדשים מעליא נינהו ומשום גזירה הוא דשרפינן להו לא מצי למשרפינהו עד דליפסלו בלינה.
ואינהו לא ידעי [והם לא יודעים] כי טעם הדבר שאכלו בשנה שעברה את שתי הלחם אף שלא קרבו כבשי העצרת הוא משום שאשתקד לא הוו [לא היו] להם כבשים, ולכך אינהו שריין נפשייהו [הם, שתי הלחם, מתירים את עצמם לאכילה], ואולם השתא דאיכא [עכשיו, בשנה זו, שיש] בה כבשים — הכבשים הוא דשרו להו [שמתירים אותם, את שתי הלחם באכילה], ואין שתי הלחם מתירים את עצמם.
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.
הכל
(16) אָמַר רַבָּה מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ דִּתְנַן א״ר אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא.
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.
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.
מנא אמינא לה – דלאכילה אתיין אפי׳ באין בפני עצמן.
אינו חוטא – ואע״ג דכתיב (שמות ל) כל העובר על הפקודים וכהנים לא נפקדו אינו חוטא כדפרשינא בפ״ג (לעיל דף כא:) דמייתו ומסרי להו לציבור.
אמר רבה: מנא אמינא לה [מנין אני אומר אותה הלכה]? — דתנן [שכן שנינו במשנה]: אמר ר׳ יהודה שכך העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה לפני חכמי בית הועד בשם חכמים: אף שאין הכהנים חייבים במחצית השקל, מכל מקום כל כהן ששוקל (שמביא את מחצית השקל) — אינו חוטא בכך.
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.
הכל
(17) אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי לֹא כִי אֶלָּא הכׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן.
Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan 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.
Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan 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.
אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי: לא כי (כך) הוא, אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל — חוטא הוא. אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה המובא להלן לטובת עצמן, כדי להיפטר ממחצית השקל, שכן כלל הוא בתורה שמנחת כהן אינה נאכלת אלא נשרפת, שכן נאמר:
Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan 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.
הכל
(18) {ויקרא ו׳:ט״ז} וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל הוֹאִיל וְעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ הֵן הֵיאַךְ נֶאֱכָלִין.
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (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’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (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’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
שלנו הן – אם אנו נותנים שקלים ללשכה נמצאו באין אף משלנו שהרי כל הקרבנות מן הלשכה באין ורבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא דריש וכל מנחת כהן אלא במנחה שהכהן מביא בפני עצמו מש״ה חוטא.
״וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל״ (ויקרא ו, טז). ולכך הם טוענים: הואיל ומנחת העומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים גם שלנו הן, שהרי אנו חייבים בשקלים שמהם נקנים כל קרבנות הציבור ובכלל זה גם המנחות הללו, היאך אם כן הם נאכלין על ידינו?!
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (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’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
הכל
(19) הָנֵי שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם הֵיכִי דָמֵי אִילֵּימָא בְּבָאוֹת עִם הַזֶּבַח אַטּוּ תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ מִי לָא מְנַדְּבִי כֹּהֲנִים וְאָכְלִי לְהוּ.
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’t 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.
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’t 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.
אילימא בבאין שתי הלחם עם הזבח – אמאי קתני היאך הן נאכלין הא ללחמי תודה דמי ותודה ולחמה מי לא מנדבי כהנים ואכלי.
ודן רבה בדברי המשנה הללו: יש לברר את האמור בדרשתם של הכהנים: הני [אותם] שתי הלחם היכי דמי [כיצד בדיוק הדבר]? אילימא [אם תאמר] שמדובר בזמן שהן באות עם כבשי הזבח — מדוע התפלאו הכהנים על אכילתם של שתי הלחם, אטו [וכי] קרבן תודה ולחמה מי [האם] לא תיתכן אפשרות שמנדבי [מנדבים] אותם כהנים, ואכלי להו [ואוכלים אותם]? ואם כן, במה שונים שתי הלחם מלחמי תודה!
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’t 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.
הכל
(20) אֶלָּא לָאו בְּבָאוֹת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְקָתָנֵי הֵיאַךְ הֵן נֶאֱכָלִין אַלְמָא לַאֲכִילָה אָתְיָין.
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.
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.
אלא לאו [האם לא] מדובר פה בשתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן, וקתני [ושנה] בהן: היאך הן נאכלין — אלמא [מכאן] נלמד שבעיקרו של דין לאכילה הן אתיין [באות], ואולם חכמים גזרו בהן שלא לאוכלן, ולכך הן צריכות לעיבור צורתן.
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.
הכל
(21) אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְעוֹלָם בְּבָאוֹת עִם הַזֶּבַח וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ מִתּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה לָא אִיקְּרוּ מִנְחָה שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם אִיקְּרוּ מִנְחָה שנא׳ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {במדבר כ״ח:כ״ו} בְּהַקְרִיבְכֶם מִנְחָה חֲדָשָׁה לַה׳.
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: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.
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: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.
לחמי תודה לא איקרו מנחה הלכך ליכא למימר בהו כל מנחת כליל ושריין. לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביום טוב דהכי אמרינן במס׳ שבת תן לו בקר שני לשריפתו:
אמר ליה [לו] אביי לרבה בדחייה: לעולם תפרש שמדובר במשנה זו בשתי הלחם הבאות עם הזבח, ודקא קשיא [ומה שהיה קשה] לך מתודה ולחמה שנאכלות לכהנים, אף כשכהנים הם שנדבום — אין זו קושיה, שכן לחמי תודה לא איקרו [לא נקראו] ״מנחה״, ולכך יכולים הכהנים לאוכלם, שהרי דין שריפה לא נאמר אלא במנחה של כהנים. בעוד ששתי הלחם איקרו [נקראו] ״מנחה״, שכן נאמר בהם ״וביום הביכורים בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה׳ בשבועותיכם...״ (במדבר כח, כו).
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: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.
הכל
(22) רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר לְעוֹלָם לִשְׂרֵיפָה אָתְיָין וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּלָא שָׂרְפִינַן לְפִי ושֶׁאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין קָדָשִׁים ביו״ט בְּיוֹם טוֹב .
Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba’s 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.
Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba’s 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.
לפי שאין שורפין קדשים בי״ט – הוה מצי למיפרך למוצאי יו״ט לאלתר לשרפינהו דמנותר לא יליף מדמסיק צורת הקרבתן.
רב יוסף אמר הסבר אחר: לעולם עיקר דינן הוא שלשריפה אתיין [באות], והיינו טעמא [ואולם זהו הטעם] שלא שרפינן [לא שורפים אנו אותן] מייד (וכדרך שהקשו למעלה) — לפי שאין שורפין קדשים שנפסלו (כגון נותר או טמא) ביום טוב, ולכך אי אפשר לשרוף את שתי הלחם הללו ביום הבאתן, בחג השבועות.
Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba’s 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.
הכל
(23) א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי מִי דָּמֵי הָתָם לָאו מִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ הָכָא דְּמִצְוָתָן בְּכָךְ לִישְׂרְפִינְהוּ מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַפַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים.
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.
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.
התם – גבי קדשים הנשרפין לאו מצותן בכך דמעיקרא לאכילה אתו אלא שאירע בהן פסול כגון נותר או טמא הלכך שבקינהו עד החול ושרפינהו להו.
אמר ליה [לו] אביי לרב יוסף בשאלה על דבריו: מי דמי [האם דומה] שריפתם של שתי הלחם לשריפתם של שאר קדשים הנפסלים, שאין שורפים מייד את שתי הלחם הבאות לבדן?! והלא התם [שם, בשאר קדשים הנשרפים] — לאו [אין] מצותן מלכתחילה בכך (בשריפה), שהרי מעיקרם באו לאכילה, אלא שאירע בהם פסול, ומשום כך אין הם נשרפים ביום טוב. מה שאין כן הכא [כאן, בשתי הלחם הבאות לבדן], שלדעתך מצותן מעיקרה היא בכך (בשריפה) — לישרפינהו [שישרוף אותן] מיד ביום טוב, ואין צורך להמתין שיעבור עליהם לילה. מידי דהוה [כמו שהוא הדין] בפר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים שמצוותן מלכתחילה היא בשריפה, ולכן הם נשרפים בו ביום!
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.
הכל
(24) אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִזְדַּמְּנוּ לָהֶם כְּבָשִׂים לְאַחַר מִכָּאן א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי תִּינַח כׇּל זְמַן הַקְרָבָתָם לְבָתַר הָכִי לִשְׂרְפִינְהוּ מַאי תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי צוּרַת הַקְרָבָתָם.
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.
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.
אלא אמר רב יוסף משום הכי לא שרפינן להו לאלתר גזירה שמא יזדמנו כו׳:
תינח דליעכבינהו כל זמן הקרבתם בכל היום שמא יזדמנו:
לבתר הכי כיון דלא נזדמנו לישרפינהו בלילה ואמאי צריכי לינה:
שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן – לאחר שריפת הלחם הילכך משהינן להו שאם יבאו הכבשים יונפו עמהם ואוכלו.
זמן הקרבתן – עד תמיד של בין הערבים.
לבתר הכי לשרפינהו – אמאי משהינן להו כל הלילה.
צורת הקרבתן – פירש בקונטרס עד תמיד של בין הערבים מיהו בשמעתא דנתקלקלו הלוים בשיר (ר״ה דף ל:) מפרש דקרבנות ציבור קרבי אחר התמיד ודחו עשה דהשלמה לכך נראה לפרש עד הלילה.
אלא אמר רב יוסף טעם אחר מדוע אין שתי הלחם הבאות לעצמם נשרפות מייד, אלא למחרת: גזירה היא שגזרו חכמים שלא לשורפן מיד, שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן באותו היום, ויונפו איתם הלחמים וייאכלו. אמר ליה [לו] אביי לרב יוסף בדחיית דבריו אלה: תינח [תנוח, מיושבת בכך השאלה] מדוע אין הם נשרפים ביום טוב בכל הזמן שבו עדיין נוהגת הקרבתם (עד להקרבתו של תמיד של בין הערביים), ואולם לבתר הכי [אחר כך], כשכבר נגמר זמן הקרבתם — לשרפינהו [שישרוף אותם] מיד ולא ימתין למחרת! השיב לו רב יוסף: מאי [מה פירוש] הביטוי ״תעובר צורתן״ נמי דקתני [גם כן ששנה במשנה]? — צורת הקרבתם, ובאמת הריהם נשרפים לאחר שהסתיים זמן הקרבתם.
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.
הכל
(25) רָבָא אָמַר לַאֲכִילָה אָתְיָין וּגְזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבָּה וְלָאו מִטַּעְמֵיהּ אֶלָּא מִקְּרָא.
Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba’s 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’s line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.
Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba’s 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’s line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.
גזירה משום דרבה – דאמר לעיל גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לשנה הבאה ולאו מטעמיה דהוא אומר לעיל מנא אמינא לה מדתניא העיד בן בוכרי כו׳.
רבא אמר הסבר אחר בטעם דינן של שתי הלחם הבאות לעצמן: מעיקר הדין לאכילה אתיין [הן באות], ואולם גזרו בהן חכמים גזירה שלא תיאכלנה. וטעמה של גזירה זו: משום מה שאמר רבה שחששו שאף בשנה הבאה יבואו לאכול את שתי הלחם הבאות לעצמן, גם כשיימצאו להם כבשים באותה שנה, ואולם מקורו של ההסבר הזה הוא לאו מטעמיה [אינו מהטעם, מהמקור שהביא רבה], אלא מקרא [מהמקרא].
Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba’s 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’s line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.
הכל
(26) וְאָמַר רָבָא מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ דִּכְתִיב {ויקרא כ״ג:י״ז} מִמּוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה [וְגוֹ׳] בִּכּוּרִים לַה׳ מָה בִּכּוּרִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וּמִינַּהּ מָה בִּכּוּרִים לַאֲכִילָה אַף שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם נָמֵי לַאֲכִילָה
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: “You 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” (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.
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: “You 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” (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.
ואמר רבא בהסבר שיטתו זו: מנא אמינא לה [מנין, מאיזה כתוב, אני אומר אותה, את מקורה של הלכה זו]? דכתיב [שכן נאמר] בדינם של שתי הלחם: ״ממושבתיכם תביאו לחם תנופה שתים שני עשרונים סולת תהיינה חמץ תאפינה בכורים לה׳ ״(ויקרא כג, יז). וקרא אותם הכתוב ״ביכורים״, ללמדנו: מה בכורים — בפני עצמן הם באים, אף שתי הלחם — יש (כאשר לא נמצאו להם כבשים) והם באים בפני עצמן. ועוד נלמד מינה [ממנה, מהשוואה זו לביכורים]: מה בכורים — באים לאכילה, אף שתי הלחם נמי [גם כן] — באים לאכילה.
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: “You 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” (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.
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
מנחות מו: – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), עין משפט נר מצוה מנחות מו: – מהדורת על־התורה בסיועו של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), מיוחס לר׳ גרשום מנחות מו:, רש"י מנחות מו: – במנחות ע"ב:-צ"ד. (פרקים ז'-י') הפירוש המופיע במהדורתנו כפירוש רש"י הוא פירוש רש"י שהיה בפני ר' בצלאל אשכנזי שמופיע בדפוס וילנא כ"רש"י כתב יד". ומאידך, פירוש רש"י הנדפס בדפוס וילנא מופיע במהדורתנו כפירוש ה"מיוחס לרש"י"., תוספות מנחות מו:, גליון הש"ס לרע"א מנחות מו:, פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ מנחות מו:, אסופת מאמרים מנחות מו:
Menachot 46b – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Menachot 46b, Attributed to R. Gershom Menachot 46b, Rashi Menachot 46b, Tosafot Menachot 46b, Gilyon HaShas Menachot 46b, Steinsaltz Commentary Menachot 46b, Collected Articles Menachot 46b