Menachot 100b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against it: If so, in our Mishna, how does he leave it for the following Shabbat? For:

when the night of the following Shabbat arrives, it should become consecrated and become disqualified

: when the night of the following Shabbat comes, it should become consecrated, since its appointed time has apparently already arrived, and the bread should become disqualified when the night of the following Shabbat passes over it, and on the following day the bread is disqualified!?

He said

: he answered

Ravina:

What are we dealing with here, in our Mishna?

With a case where he preceded

the night of the following Shabbat

and removed

the bread from the Table, so that it would not become consecrated and become disqualified through remaining overnight, and arranged it again on the following day.

Rav Ashi said

: he answered:

You can even say

that our Mishna is dealing

with a case where he did not precede and remove it

on the night of Shabbat, and nevertheless there is no difficulty: It should become consecrated on the night of Shabbat and become disqualified?

Since he arranged it not in accordance with its mitzva

—for he arranged it before its time—

it became like one whom a monkey arranged

it, and it does not become consecrated through this so as to become disqualified.

Mishna:

The two loaves

: They are

eaten not earlier than two

days from the day of their baking, including that day; that is, the earliest time for eating them is the second day after their baking,

and not later than three

days from the day of their baking; that is, their eating time is never delayed beyond the third day after their baking;

How:

?

They are baked on the eve of the festival

of Shavuot [and not on the festival, for their baking does not override the festival, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara], and

they are eaten

on the festival

, they are therefore [eaten]

for two

days.

And when

the festival occurs after Shabbat

, these

are eaten for three

days, because their baking does not override Shabbat, and they baked them already on the eve of Shabbat.

The showbread:

It is eaten not earlier than nine

days from the day of its baking,

and not later than eleven

days from the day of its baking

; how:

It is baked on the eve of this Shabbat

and

eaten on the following Shabbat

—it is therefore

for nine

When the festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat

[the first one], it is

eaten for ten

days, for its baking does not override the festival.

When

the two days of Rosh Hashanah

occur on the eve of the first Shabbat, it is

eaten for eleven.

And it does not override

, that is, because it does not override

neither Shabbat nor the festival.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben the Deputy:

It overrides

the baking of the showbread

the festival, but

it

does not override the fast day

[Yom Kippur], for if it occurs on the eve of Shabbat, its baking is postponed until Thursday.

Gemara:

Ravina said:

According to the one who says: Vows and voluntary offerings are not sacrificed on the festival—

Do not say

that in every case

from the Torah they are indeed fit

[it is permitted by Torah law] to sacrifice them even on the festival,

and it was the Sages who decreed

that they should not be sacrificed on the festival, in order

that he should not delay

his vows from sacrificing them until the festival, so that he would have meat available to him during the pilgrimage festival.

Rather, by Torah law too they are not fit

to be sacrificed on the festival, since their time is not fixed for the festival, and the proof is from our Mishna:

For the two loaves are the obligation of the day, and it is impossible to say, lest he delay

, since they are not fit to be brought before then—

and

nevertheless

it teaches: It does not override

the baking of the two loaves—

neither Shabbat nor the festival

, and necessarily, vow and voluntary offerings, which he can sacrifice before or after the festival, do not override the festival; and the same law applies: the baking of the offering of the two loaves does not override the festival for this reason.

We shall return to you, chapter “The Two Loaves”

Mishna:

The meal-offerings and the libations

that he consecrated with the sanctity of the mouth for the altar —

that became impure:

Before they were consecrated in a service vessel

they possess only the sanctity of value, even though he consecrated them with the mouth, and therefore

they have redemption.

Once they were consecrated in a

service vessel, they were consecrated with the sanctity of the body, and

they have no redemption.

But offerings from

the birds, and the wood

of the arrangement,

and the frankincense

that is placed in the meal-offering — even though they were not consecrated in a vessel —

and

likewise

service vessels —

that became impure:

They have no redemption, for redemption was stated only with regard to an animal

[when it has a defect]; and the entire Mishna will be explained more fully in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The meal-offerings and the libations that became impure, before they were consecrated in a vessel, have redemption:

Samuel said:

Although apparently it would have seemed from the language of the Mishna that they are redeemed only when they became impure, this is not so,

and even if they are pure,

they

are redeemed

before they were consecrated in a vessel.

What is the reason?

For as long as

they were not consecrated in a vessel, they are the sanctity of value

[which requires that they be redeemed, while the money becomes sacred]

and the sanctity of value

is

redeemed.

And we raise an objection against this:

But “

that became impure”

we learned,

and it implies: specifically because they became impure do they have redemption!?

And we answer:

The same law applies even though they did not become impure,

they are redeemed;

and

indeed, the tanna did not need to say in the first clause “and that became impure,” but

since he needed to teach in the latter clause

[since the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause] “

once they were consecrated in a vessel, they have no redemption,”

for there even if they became impure as well, they are not

redeemed, therefore

he also taught in the first clause “

that became impure.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Once they were consecrated in a vessel, they have no redemption:

and we raise an objection: But it is

obvious,

for they are

the sanctity of the body,

and the sanctity of the body has no redemption!?

And we answer:

It was necessary

for the tanna to inform us that they have no redemption, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Since

we find that a

defective animal

is

called “

impure,”

as he explains and proceeds, if so,

an impure [item] also, like a

animal,

is comparable to a defective animal, for even though it is consecrated with the sanctity of the body, when a defect falls in it, it is redeemed

[if a defect fell in it, it is redeemed], and I would say:

These too —

even though they were consecrated with the sanctity of the body —

should be redeemed,

since they became impure.

He informs us that it is not in this sense that Scripture called a defective animal impure

[not impurity in this manner did the Torah call “a defective animal”],