Menachot 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

But

everyone agrees

that if

the lambs and the loaves were already together at the time that created a bond between them—that

they became mutually bound—

then their law is

that they prevent one another,

and if one of them was lost, whether the loaves were lost or the lambs were lost, it is impossible to offer the remaining one by itself; rather, the remaining item before us must be burned, because it is rejected on account of the loss of its counterpart, and other loaves and lambs must be brought.

And what is

the factor that creates

their bond

to establish them together?

The slaughter!

For at the time of slaughter the loaves become consecrated, and from then on they and the lambs are dependent upon one another: if one of them is lost, they are all lost

.

Ulla said: In the West they raised the following question:

The people of Eretz Yisrael were uncertain: Does

waving,

in which the loaves and lambs are waved together while they are still alive, also

create

between them

a bond,

so that one becomes disqualified when its counterpart is lost,

or does

waving

not create a bond

to establish them as a single entity, and only slaughter binds them?

The Gemara attempts to resolve the uncertainty raised by Ulla:

Resolve it

the uncertainty concerning waving

from Rabbi Yohanan,

who mentioned only slaughter in connection with the bond.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Slaughter creates a bond!

And it is implied

from the general implication

of his words, since he specified slaughter,

that waving does not create a bond.

For if this were not so, he should have stated the more novel point: even waving, which precedes slaughter, binds them to one another!

The Gemara explains that the uncertainty cannot be resolved in this manner, because

Rabbi Yohanan himself,

why did he not mention waving? This is

what was uncertain

to the people of the West.

Was

it obvious to Rabbi Yohanan that slaughter

alone

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

and he therefore specifically mentioned a bond in connection with slaughter,

or perhaps

through

slaughter it was obvious to him

that a bond is created,

and waving

was the matter that

was uncertain to him—whether it binds them—and he therefore mentioned only slaughter, whose law was clear to him?

And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved:

teiku—let it stand.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rav Yehuda bar Ḥanina 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,”

—concerning which the tannaim disputed whether to derive from it that the lambs prevent the loaves or that the loaves prevent the lambs—

it is written after the waving, and ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree

as to which prevents which. It follows from this that even after waving there is no special bond between the loaves and the lambs beyond what existed beforehand.

The Gemara answers by means of a question:

And according to your reasoning,

if waving does not bind them, does the verse speak

after waving and not after slaughter?

After all, the priest’s receiving the loaves occurs only after the slaughter of the lambs. If so, slaughter certainly binds them, and they prevent one another. How, then, could Rabbi Akiva and ben Nannas disagree, in their exposition of this verse, whether the lambs prevent the loaves or the loaves prevent the lambs?

Rather, what can you say

to reconcile your position? Necessarily, the phrase “for the priest” refers to something destined to be given. The verse is not speaking of the actual giving, but

it refers from the outset,

before slaughter.

And what does “They shall be holy to the Lord, for the priest”

mean?

Something that will ultimately

be given

to the priest,

when the animal is slaughtered. And if so,

here too,

according to my view that waving creates a bond, the phrase “for the priest” at the end of the verse is interpreted as meaning

something that will ultimately

—after all the rites—be given

to the priest.

Nevertheless, it is now speaking of the time before waving, and at that point Rabbi Akiva and ben Nannas disputed whether the lambs prevent the loaves or the loaves prevent the lambs, since they had not yet become mutually bound through waving.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yohanan’s statement:

And

if

slaughter creates a bond? And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita concerning the loaves of a todah offering. A todah offering has forty loaves, which become consecrated through slaughtering the offering, and a loaf from which a piece has been removed is disqualified. And there it was taught:

Before it was slaughtered,

the todah,

if a piece was removed

from even one of

its loaves,

all the loaves become disqualified;

he shall bring other loaves and slaughter

the offering over them.

But if

after it was slaughtered a piece was removed from its loaves,

after slaughter, when it is no longer possible to bring other loaves and consecrate them through slaughter, nevertheless

the blood shall be sprinkled

as a shelamim offering and not as a todah offering,

and the flesh shall be eaten

according to the law of a shelamim offering. The offering is not disqualified; it merely does not fulfill its obligation as a todah offering.

And he has not fulfilled his vow,

for his vow was to bring a todah offering,

and the bread

itself is

disqualified.

And if

the blood was sprinkled

of the todah offering and afterward a piece was removed from the loaves, so that it is no longer fit to take the priestly portion from them,

he takes

the four loaves given to the priest, known as “the teruma of the loaves of the todah offering,”

from the whole loaf,

—the loaves did not become disqualified, since at the time the blood was sprinkled all the loaves were whole—and therefore he takes from a whole loaf even

on behalf of the sliced loaf,

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

The same law applies when the loaves become disqualified by being taken outside the wall of Jerusalem after they have been consecrated, due to the law of yotze.

For if

before it was slaughtered

the todah offering, while the loaves had not yet become consecrated with the sanctity of an offering,

its loaves went outside

the city wall, they do not become disqualified.

He brings them

back inside

and slaughters t

he todah offering over these loaves themselves, since as long as they have not become consecrated through slaughter, they do not become disqualified by being taken outside.

However, if

after it was slaughtered its loaves went outside,

after they had already become consecrated through the slaughter of the todah offering and became disqualified by being taken outside, there is now a todah offering without loaves. Therefore,

the blood shall be sprinkled

as a shelamim offering,

and the flesh shall be eaten

as a shelamim offering. The offering is valid, but

his vow

to bring a todah offering together with its loaves

has not been fulfilled, and the bread

itself is

disqualified!

And if

the blood was already sprinkled,

and the loaf that went outside is forbidden to be eaten, then after the sprinkling

he takes

the teruma of the loaves of the todah offering

from what is inside

and is still fit,

on behalf of

the loaves that are disqualified

outside!

For the teruma applies to all forty loaves, but it can also take effect with regard to a loaf that went outside the city.

There is, however, a distinction between a loaf from which a piece was removed or one taken outside, and a loaf that became impure. For if

before it was slaughtered t

he todah offering,

its loaves became impure,

this is like a case in which there were no loaves at the time of slaughter and sprinkling. Therefore,

he shall bring other loaves and slaughter

the todah offering over them.

But if

after it was slaughtered

the todah offering

its loaves became impure,

and it is impossible to bring other loaves, since their law is to become consecrated through the slaughter of the todah offering, nevertheless

the blood shall be sprinkled

as a todah offering, as explained below,

and the flesh shall be eaten

as a todah offering. Not only that, but

he has fulfilled his vow!

Because

the forehead-plate effects acceptance for the impure,

and anything brought in impurity is valid after the fact through the forehead-plate, which effects acceptance for offerings that became impure, for they are considered as valid. Thus, it was slaughtered as a todah offering and is also regarded as having had forty loaves, so he has fulfilled his vow.

And if

the blood was sprinkled

and afterward the loaves became impure—

he takes

the teruma of the loaves of the todah offering

from

the loaf

that is pure, on behalf of the impure one!

This concludes the language of the beraita.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty concerning the statement that slaughter creates a bond.

And if it enters your mind

that, as Rabbi Yohanan said concerning the loaves of Shavuot,

slaughter creates a bond,

the same should apply to the loaves of a todah offering, whose consecration occurs through slaughtering the todah offering. If so,

since they became mutually bound

the loaves and the todah offering

through slaughter,

we should say, as we say concerning the lambs of Shavuot, that when the loaves become disqualified, the lambs are rejected; so too, with regard to the todah offering, if

the bread becomes disqualified,

the todah offering should also become disqualified

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

The Gemara answers:

A todah offering is different, for the Torah called it a “shelamim”!

As it is stated concerning a todah offering: “The sacrifice of the todah of his shelamim.” Therefore, although in the absence of bread it is disqualified as a todah offering, it is nevertheless sacrificed as a shelamim offering and may be sacrificed without bread, because

just as shelamim,

which were originally consecrated as shelamim,

are sacrificed without bread, so too a todah offering

which was consecrated as a todah offering and whose loaves became disqualified

is sacrificed without bread,

as a shelamim offering. [It is indeed disqualified as a todah offering because its loaves became disqualified.] But the lambs of Shavuot without the loaves are not called “shelamim.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: If you should conclude

according to the side of the uncertainty stated above, that

waving creates a bond,

then when

the loaves are lost

after the waving—