Menachot 46a — the Talmud in English

But

all agree

![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") that if

the sheep and the bread were already together at the time that creates a bond between them—that is,

they became bound to one another,

then their law is

that they prevent one another, and

if one of them was lost, whether the bread was lost or the sheep were lost, it is impossible to bring one of them alone, alone; rather, the remainder that is before us must be burned, because it is rejected on account of the loss of its fellow, and they bring other bread and other sheep.

And what is

the matter that causes

their bond

to establish them together?

The slaughter!

For at the time of slaughter the bread was sanctified, and from then onward it and the sheep depend upon one another, so that if one of them was lost, all of them were lost

The Sefat Emet raised the difficulty: What is the meaning of the Gemara’s wording that if they became bound to one another they prevent one another? For if he wishes to bring other bread according to Rabbi Akiva, or other sheep according to Ben Nanes, he can bring them. If so, how can it be said that all agree that they became bound to one another? This is still a dispute regarding other sheep or other bread. The Sefat Emet innovated that in truth, if he designated sheep and bread together, if he now wishes to bring only other bread according to Rabbi Akiva, or other sheep according to Ben Nanes, he cannot bring them, since it has already been established that he has sheep and bread together. Therefore it is explained that all agree that they prevent one another, and he cannot bring only one of them. And he added that this requires further investigation. The Keren Ora explained the words of the Gemara: “They became bound to one another” does not refer only to the fact that now they must be sacrificed together—namely, that even according to the one who holds that the bread is sacrificed separately, here it is obligatory to sacrifice it together, and likewise according to the one who holds that the sheep are sacrificed separately, here it is obligatory to sacrifice them together. Rather, it became one ממש sacrifice, as is explained further in the sugya: when the sheep were lost, the bread was lost, meaning that each one is rejected when the other is disqualified, and this is because they became one sacrifice. The Keren Ora raised the difficulty: If it is explained that according to Rabbi Yohanan there is a possibility that the waving also creates a bond, why was it necessary to say that slaughter creates a bond? The bond had already taken effect through the waving. The Keren Ora answered that it is explained below that waving does not prevent, meaning that if he did not wave at all, the sacrifice is valid. Accordingly, Rabbi Yohanan innovated that even in a case where he did not wave, but slaughtered without waving, the law is also that slaughter creates a bond.

Ulla said: They raised a question in the West:

The people of the Land of Israel were uncertain—whether also

the waving,

when they wave the bread and the sheep together while they are alive, also

creates

between them

a bond,

so that one becomes disqualified through the loss of its fellow,

or perhaps waving does not

the waving

create a bond

to establish them as one thing, and only slaughter binds them.

The Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty that Ulla brought:

Resolve it

this uncertainty concerning waving

from Rabbi Yohanan,

who spoke concerning a bond only of slaughter.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Slaughter creates a bond!

And it implies

by inference

from his words, in that he specified slaughter,

that waving does not create a bond.

For if not so, he should have stated a greater novelty: that even waving, which precedes slaughter, binds them to one another!

The Gemara explains that it is impossible to resolve the uncertainty in this manner, because

Rabbi Yohanan himself,

why did he not mention waving? This is

because it is uncertain to him

for the people of the West.

Whether

it is clear to Rabbi Yohanan that slaughter

specifically

creates a bond, and waving does not create a bond,

and therefore he specifically mentioned a bond with regard to slaughter,

or perhaps

through

slaughter it is clear to him

that a bond is created,

but waving

is what

is uncertain to him,

whether it binds them, and therefore he mentioned only slaughter, whose law is clear to him.

And we conclude:

Teyku.

And we object:

Rav Yehuda bar Hanina said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

How can it be said that waving creates a bond?

But when it is written, “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest,”

for the tannaim disputed whether to learn from it that the sheep prevent the bread or that the bread prevents the sheep],

it is written after the waving, and Ben Nanes and Rabbi Akiva dispute

what prevents what. And we see from this that even after the waving there is no special bond between the bread and the sheep greater than there was before it.

And we answer by way of a question:

And according to your reasoning,

if waving does not bind, does the verse speak

after waving and not after slaughter?

But the priest’s acquisition of the bread occurs only after the slaughter of the sheep. If so, slaughter certainly binds, and they prevent one another; how then did Rabbi Akiva and Ben Nanes dispute whether the sheep prevent or the bread prevents, based on the exposition of this verse?

Rather, what do you have to say

to reconcile your position? Necessarily, the phrase “they shall be for the priest” is stated with reference to what is destined to be given. The verse does not speak of the actual giving, but

it refers from the outset,

before slaughter,

and what is meant by “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest”

is what it said—

a thing whose end is

to be given

to the priest,

when it is slaughtered! And if so,

here too,

according to my words, that waving creates a bond, “they shall be for the priest,” at the end of the verse is understood to mean—

a thing whose end is

after all the acts] to be given

to the priest.

Indeed, it is now speaking before the waving, and in this Ben Nanes and Rabbi Akiva disputed whether the sheep prevent the bread or the bread prevents the sheep, since they have not yet, through the waving, become bound to one another.

And we raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

And

when

does slaughter create a bond? And we have a contradiction from a beraita

concerning the bread of a todah: in the sacrifice of a todah there are forty loaves, which become sanctified through the slaughter of the sacrifice, and bread from which something was removed by being sliced is disqualified. And there we learned:

Before he slaughtered

the todah,

one was sliced

from even one of

its bread,

and all the bread was disqualified,

he shall bring other bread, and slaughter

the sacrifice upon it.

And if

after he slaughtered, its bread was sliced,

after the slaughter, and once again it is impossible to bring other bread and sanctify it through slaughter, nevertheless

the blood shall be sprinkled

for the sake of a shelamim and not for the sake of a todah,

and the flesh shall be eaten

as the law of a shelamim. The sacrifice is not disqualified; rather, he does not fulfill his obligation for a todah sacrifice,

and he has not discharged his vow,

for his vow was a todah,

and the bread

itself is

disqualified.

And if

the blood was sprinkled

of the todah and afterward the bread was sliced and is not fit for taking the priestly portion from it,

he takes

the four loaves given to the priest, called “the teruma of the todah loaves,”

from the whole, [

which were not disqualified, since at the time the blood was sprinkled all the loaves were whole], and therefore he shall take from a whole loaf also

for the sliced,

but he shall not take from the sliced, for it is written concerning a todah: “And he shall offer from it one from each offering as a teruma to the Lord,” and they expounded: “One”—he shall not take a sliced one, but a whole one.

And the same law applies concerning bread that became disqualified by leaving the wall of Jerusalem after it had been sanctified, on account of “that which leaves.”

For if

before he slaughtered

the todah, when the bread had not yet been sanctified with the sanctity of a sacrifice,

its bread left

outside the wall of the city, it was not disqualified.

And he brings it in

back inside,

and slaughters t

he todah upon this bread itself, for as long as it is not sanctified through slaughter, it is not disqualified by leaving.

However, if

after he slaughtered, its bread left,

after it had already been sanctified through the slaughter of the todah and became disqualified through its leaving, and there is here a todah without bread, then

the blood shall be sprinkled

for the sake of a shelamim,

and the flesh shall be eaten

as a shelamim, for although the sacrifice is valid,

his vow

to bring a todah and its bread

he has not discharged, and the bread

itself is

disqualified!

And if the blood has already

been sprinkled,

and the bread that left is forbidden to be eaten, then after the sprinkling

he takes

the teruma of the todah loaves

from what is inside,

which is still valid,

for

the disqualified loaves

that are outside!

For the teruma relates to all forty loaves, but it can also take effect with regard to bread that left outside the city.

But there is a distinction between bread that was sliced and bread that left, and bread that became impure: if

before he slaughtered the

todah

its bread became impure,

this is like there being no bread at the time of slaughter and sprinkling. Therefore

he brings other bread, and slaughters

the todah upon it.

And if

after he slaughtered

the todah

its bread became impure,

and it is impossible to bring other bread, since its law is to become sanctified through the slaughter of the todah, nevertheless—

the blood shall be sprinkled

for the sake of a todah, as follows,

and the flesh shall be eaten

according to the law of a todah. And not only this, but

he has discharged his vow!

Because

the tzitz effects acceptance for the impure,

and everything brought in impurity, after the fact, is valid through the tzitz, which effects acceptance for impure sacrifices, for they are like valid offerings. If so, it follows that it was slaughtered for the sake of a todah, and it is also considered as though there were forty loaves; therefore he discharges his vow.

And if

the blood was sprinkled

and afterward the bread became impure—

he takes

the teruma of the todah loaves

from

the bread

that is pure, for the impure!

Thus far is the wording of the beraita.

And now the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning “slaughter creates a bond.”

And if it enters your mind

as Rabbi Yohanan said concerning the loaves of Atzeret, that

slaughter creates a bond,

so too we should say concerning the loaves of a todah that the slaughter of the todah sanctifies them. If so,

since they became bound to one another

the bread and the todah

through slaughter,

we should say, as with the sheep of Atzeret, that the sheep are rejected when the bread is disqualified; likewise, with a todah it should be said that if

the bread became disqualified,

the todah should also become disqualified

and be rejected, and its blood should not be sprinkled at all!?

And we answer:

A todah is different, for the Merciful One called it “shelamim”!

For it is stated concerning a todah sacrifice, “the sacrifice of the todah of his shelamim.” Therefore, even though in the absence of bread it is disqualified as a todah, it is sacrificed as a shelamim and is sacrificed without bread, because

just as a shelamim,

which was initially sanctified for the sake of a shelamim,

is sacrificed without bread, so too a todah

which was sanctified as a todah and whose bread became disqualified

is sacrificed without bread,

for the sake of a shelamim. [Indeed, as a todah it was disqualified through the disqualification of its bread.] But the sheep of Atzeret without loaves are not called “shelamim.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: If you would say

in accordance with the side of the uncertainty above, that

waving creates a bond,

then when

the bread was lost

after the waving—