Menachot 100b (ק:) — the Talmud in English

:

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

when the night of the following Shabbat arrives, it should become consecrated, since it is as though its appointed time has already arrived; and the bread should become disqualified once the night of the following Shabbat has passed over it, so that on the following day the bread will be disqualified!?

Ravina

explained:

Ravina:

What are we dealing with here in our Mishna?

With a case where, before

the night of the following Shabbat,

he removed

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

Rav Ashi said

in explanation:

You may even say

that our Mishna is dealing

with a case where he did not remove it beforehand

on the night of Shabbat; 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,

as he arranged it before its appointed time,

it is considered as though a monkey arranged it,

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

Mishna:

The two loaves:

They

may not be eaten in fewer than two

days from the day they were baked, including that day; that is, the earliest time at which they may be eaten is the second day after they were baked,

and not beyond three

days from the day they were baked; that is, the time of their eating may never be delayed beyond the third day after they were baked;

How so?

?

They are baked on the eve of the Festival

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

they are eaten

on the Festival,

so they are

for two

days.

And when

the Festival occurs after Shabbat,

these are

for three,

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

The leḥem ha-panim:

It may not be eaten in fewer than nine

days from the day it was baked,

and not beyond eleven

days from the day it was baked

; how so?

If it was baked on the eve of

this

and eaten on the Shabbat

following it, it is

for nine.

If the Festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat [ [הראשונה] the first one],

it is

eaten for ten

days, since its baking does not override the Festival.

If

the two days of Rosh HaShana

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

either Shabbat or the Festival.

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

The baking of the leḥem ha-panim overrides

the baking of the leḥem ha-panim

the Festival, and

however

it does not override the fast day [ [יום הכפורים] Yom Kippur],

for if it occurs on the eve of Shabbat, its baking is deferred until Thursday.

Gemara:

Ravina said:

According to the one who says: Vows and freewill offerings may not be sacrificed on the Festival—

Do not say

that in every case

by Torah law they are fit [ [מן התורה מותר] it is permitted by Torah law]

to sacrifice them even on the Festival,

and it was the Sages who decreed

that they may not be sacrificed on the Festival, in order

that he not delay

his offerings instead of sacrificing them before the Festival, so that he would have meat available for himself during the Festival.

Rather, by Torah law as well they are not fit

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

For the two loaves are an obligation of the day, and one cannot say that he might delay them,

since they are not fit to be brought beforehand—

and

nevertheless

it teaches: “It does not override”—

the baking of the two loaves—

“neither Shabbat nor the Festival”,

and it necessarily follows that vows and freewill offerings, which he can sacrifice before or after the Festival, do not override the Festival; and likewise, 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 one consecrated with an oral consecration for the altar,

if they became impure:

Before they were consecrated in a service vessel,

they possess only sanctity of value, even though one consecrated them orally, and therefore

they can be redeemed.

Once they were consecrated in a

service vessel, they acquired inherent sanctity, and

they cannot be redeemed.

But the offerings of

birds, and the wood

of the arrangement,

and the frankincense

placed in a meal offering—even though they were not consecrated in a vessel—

and

likewise,

service vessels—

if they became impure:

They cannot be redeemed, as redemption was stated only with regard to an animal

[when it has a blemish]; 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, can be redeemed:

Shmuel said:

Although it would apparently seem from the wording of the Mishna that they may be redeemed only when they became impure, this is not so;

even if they are pure,

they

may be redeemed

before they were consecrated in a vessel.

What is the reason?

Because as long as

they have not been consecrated in a vessel, they possess sanctity of value

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

and sanctity of value

is

redeemable.

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

But “

if they became impure”

we learned in the Mishna,

which indicates that they can be redeemed specifically because they became impure!?

The Gemara answers:

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

and they may still be redeemed.

But

the tanna should not have stated “and they became impure” at the beginning; rather,

since he wanted to teach in the latter clause

[as the tanna wanted to state in the latter clause] “

once they were consecrated in a vessel, they cannot be redeemed,”

there, even if they became impure, they cannot

be redeemed; therefore

he also taught in the first clause “

if they became impure.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Once they were consecrated in a vessel, they cannot be redeemed:

The Gemara asks: Is this not

obvious?

For they are

possessed of inherent sanctity,

and inherent sanctity cannot be redeemed!?

The Gemara answers:

It was necessary for the tanna to teach us that they cannot be redeemed, because

it might enter your mind to say:

it might enter your mind to say:

Since

we find that a

blemished animal

is

called a “

impure” animal, as will be explained, if so

an impure item also resembles an animal with a disqualifying defect, since even though it possesses bodily sanctity, if a defect develops in it, it can be redeemed

an impure item too is like a

animal

with a blemish: Although it has been consecrated with inherent sanctity, when a blemish occurs in it, it can be redeemed

[if a blemish occurred in it, it can be redeemed]. And one might say:

These too—

although they acquired inherent sanctity—

should be redeemed,

since they became impure.

It teaches us that Scripture did not call an animal with a blemish “impure” in this sense

[the Torah did not call “an animal with a blemish” “impure” in this sense],