Menachot 46b — the Talmud in English

sheep were lost,

and other loaves and sheep must be brought.

And likewise, if

sheep were lost—

the loaves are lost.

For once they have become mutually designated, Rabbi Akiva and ben Nanas did not differ.

And if you would say that waving does not create a connection,

there is a question: if

he brought loaves and sheep, and they were waved, and

afterward

the loaves were lost,

but the sheep were not lost, and

he brought other loaves—

do

those loaves require waving

anew together with the sheep, since they have still not been waved,

or do they not require waving,

since waving has already been performed with the sheep together with loaves, and that is sufficient, since the essential waving is with the sheep, concerning which waving was stated, and they are what permit the loaves as well?

And the Gemara says: if

the sheep were lost, you need not ask, for they certainly require waving

[Tosafot: the] loaves together with the other sheep, since with these sheep waving was not performed, and they are what permit themselves and the loaves.

When must you ask? If the loaves were lost,

must the new loaves be waved again?

According to ben Nanas, you need not ask,

since

he says that the sheep are primary;

therefore, it is obvious that it is sufficient that the sheep were waved.

When must you ask—

according to Rabbi Akiva,

who holds that if there are no loaves, there are no sheep,

for he says that the loaves are primary—

and therefore the Gemara raises the question:

what

is the law in this situation, in which the loaves were lost after the waving?

And the sides of the question are:

since the loaves are primary, they require waving

in order to fulfill waving in the primary element of the offering.

Or perhaps, since their permitting agents are sheep,

and they have already been waved,

waving is not required

additionally for the loaves?

And we conclude:

teiku.

As was already explained above, on page 45b, together with the loaves they bring two sheep as a public peace-offering, and they sanctify the loaves. According to ben Nanas, the absence of the sheep prevents the offering of the loaves. Even according to Rabbi Akiva, the sheep prevent the loaves when they became mutually designated through slaughtering. In addition, because of the loaves they bring seven sheep, a bull, and two rams as burnt-offerings, and a he-goat as a sin-offering. However, these offerings do not sanctify the loaves and do not prevent them in their absence. Concerning this distinction between the two sheep and the other offerings brought with the loaves, Abaye asked:

Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the two sheep,

what is the additional superiority of the two sheep over the burnt-offerings,

that they sanctify

the sheep

the loaves

through their slaughtering,

and prevent

the loaves in their absence,

and what is different about the seven sheep, the bull, and the rams, that they do not sanctify the loaves and do not prevent them?

He said to him: Since they became mutually designated

the peace-offering sheep and the loaves

through waving.

And we challenge this:

But what of the thanksgiving-offering, for they did not become mutually designated

the offering and the loaves

through waving

[for their law is not that they be waved together],

and

nevertheless

it sanctifies

the thanksgiving loaves through its slaughtering,

and prevents

them, for the loaves are not brought without it!?

And we answer:

Rather,

it must be said that the source for the fact that the sheep sanctify the loaves of Shavuot and prevent them in their absence is that their law is

like that of a thanksgiving-offering. Just as a thanksgiving-offering,

which is

a peace-offering,

sanctifies the loaves and prevents them,

so too here,

the sheep of Shavuot, which are

peace-offerings,

sanctify the two loaves and prevent them. Whereas the seven sheep, the bull, and the rams are burnt-offerings.

And we challenge this:

Are they comparable?

Is the Shavuot offering comparable to a thanksgiving-offering? But

there,

with a thanksgiving-offering,

there are no other sacrifices with it,

the peace-offering being the sole sacrifice, unlike the peace-offerings of Shavuot, concerning which one could say:

here, there are other sacrifices,

namely the bull, the rams, and the seven sheep,

with it

with the loaves;

let them sanctify

also

these

and also

these,

so that the law of all those brought because of the loaves should be equal? And we answer:

Rather,

the source of the law that the sheep sanctify them is that, since the status of peace-offerings applies to them, they are

like the nazirite’s ram,

which is a peace-offering; and we find that specifically the nazirite’s ram is what sanctifies the wafers brought with the nazirite’s offerings, and not the burnt-offering sheep or the sin-offering ewe brought with it. And we derive:

Just as with the nazirite’s offering, even though there are other sacrifices,

nevertheless specifically

the peace-offering sanctifies

the wafers,

something else

[the burnt-offering and the sin-offering]

does not

sanctify them.

So too here,

with Shavuot,

it is no different,

for specifically the sheep brought as peace-offerings sanctify the loaves and therefore also prevent them, but not the burnt-offerings.

And we inquire:

And there,

with the nazirite himself,

from where do we know

that specifically the peace-offering ram is what sanctifies the wafers?

And we answer:

For it was taught:

in the exposition of the verse stated concerning the offering of a pure nazirite, “

And he shall make the ram a peace-offering to the Lord over the basket of wafers,” teaches

from the expression “over the basket of wafers”

, that the basket

of wafers

comes as an obligation for the ram, and the slaughtering of the ram sanctifies them

the wafers.

Therefore,

because the ram sanctifies them,

if he slaughtered it not for its own sake,

not for the sake of a peace-offering,

the loaves were not sanctified,

[and even if he slaughtered the burnt-offering and the sin-offering brought with it for their own sake, the loaves were not sanctified. (Tosafot)].

The Sages taught: The two loaves that come by themselves

in the absence of sheep, and according to Rabbi Akiva, for the sheep do not prevent the loaves—

shall be waved ,

and their form shall pass

so that they become invalid through remaining overnight [which is considered deterioration of form]

and

afterward

shall go to the place of burning.

And we inquire:

In either case:

if their primary law is for eating, so that where there are no sheep to permit them for eating, they permit themselves for eating [as the Gemara says below], then

let them eat them?!

And if there is no permission to eat them, because there are no sheep to permit them, then

if they have come for burning—

let them burn them immediately!

For that is their mitzva,

and why do they require their form to pass

in order to burn them as invalid offerings? Let them burn them while they are still fit!?

And we answer:

Rabba said: In fact, they have come for eating,

and as for your objection that they should therefore eat them, that is indeed their law according to Torah law; however, the Sages decreed that they be burned,

a decree lest sheep become available to them in the following year

and when there are sheep, the loaves may not be eaten before their slaughtering,

and they will say,

mistakenly:

Did we not eat loaves last year without sheep?

And since we ate them

without sheep, it follows that we see that their permission is not dependent on sheep, and

now too, let us eat!

before the sheep have been slaughtered.

And they,

those who err in this matter,

will not know

how to distinguish

that last year there were no sheep,

and therefore

they,

the loaves,

permitted themselves

[permitted themselves] for eating, unlike

now, when there are sheep,

when they may no longer permit themselves; rather, specifically

the sheep permit them,

and therefore they may not be eaten before they have been permitted by the sheep. Therefore, since the two loaves were sanctified, and they are permitted for eating by Torah law, and they are burned only because of the aforementioned decree, they may not be burned until they become invalid through remaining overnight.

And Rabba said: From where do I say this,

that the two loaves that come by themselves also come for eating?

For we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

Rabbi Judah said: ben Bukri testified in Yavneh:

Although the priests are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel, as it is stated, “Everyone who passes among those counted,” and the priests were not counted, nevertheless,

every priest who contributes

the half-shekel

does not sin,

and there is no concern in his portion of the public offering of non-sacred property in the Temple courtyard that comes from an individual’s voluntary contribution, because he gives his shekel to the public as a complete gift.

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: No; rather, every priest who does not contribute is a sinner,

for the priests too are obligated regarding the half-shekel [and what is stated, “Everyone who passes among those counted,” refers to those who passed through the Sea of Reeds; the priests of twenty years and older passed through the Sea of Reeds, as explained in tractate Shekalim],

but the priests expound this verse

which is expounded below,

for themselves

and for their own benefit, and they expound it improperly: for so it is stated in the section of Leviticus, “

And every meal-offering of a priest”—

it shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,”

and if we, the priests, have a share in the public sacrifices and meal-offerings through the half-shekel that we contribute,

since the omer, the two loaves, and the showbread

also

are ours,

then they would be considered a priest’s meal-offering through our partnership,

and how can they be eaten?

For their law should be like that of a priest’s meal-offering, which is entirely burned!? From here they ruled for themselves not to contribute, because if they are nevertheless eaten, this proves that they are not partners in these meal-offerings 14 .

These are the words of the Mishna in Shekalim, and from them Rabba came to prove that the two loaves that come by themselves are eaten.

And Rabba said:

These two loaves,

concerning which those priests said, “How can they be eaten,”

what are the circumstances? If you say that they come with the sacrifice,

then there is no law here of a priest’s meal-offering that is entirely burned, because its law is like that of the sacrifice. And proof of this is:

Is it so that priests do not voluntarily bring a thanksgiving-offering and eat it together with its loaves?

From here you learn that the law of being entirely burned was stated only with regard to a priest’s meal-offering that comes by itself. If so, the same applies to the two loaves, which are eaten together with the peace-offering sheep.

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the priests sought to prove from the two loaves

that come by themselves,

for if they were considered a priest’s meal-offering, they would not be eaten,

and

we have

that it teaches

“How can they be eaten?” It follows

that the two loaves that come by themselves

come for eating.

Abaye said

to Rabba, to reject this proof:

In fact, they come with the sacrifice,

and from the fact that they are eaten the priests proved that they have no share in them.

And as for what is difficult for you from the thanksgiving-offering and its loaves—

do priests not bring a thanksgiving-offering and eat its loaves? The answer is:

The thanksgiving loaves are not called a meal-offering!

Therefore, they do not have the law of a priest’s meal-offering, “it shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,” whereas

the two loaves are called a meal-offering, as it is stated, ‘When you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord’

and therefore they argued that if the priest had a share in them, they would not be eaten.

Rav Yosef said,

concerning the matter of the two loaves that come by themselves:

In fact, they come for burning ,

and he resolves what we challenged above, that if so, “let us burn them immediately”:

And this is the reason that we do not burn them

on that very day:

for one does not burn sacred offerings

that became invalid

on a Festival day,

but waits until the following day and burns them; and the same applies to the burning of these two loaves.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Are they comparable?

Is the burning of the two loaves comparable to the burning of invalid sacred offerings? But

there,

with invalid offerings,

it is not their mitzva in this manner, for initially they came for eating,

but after they became invalid [such as through remaining over or impurity], their law is burning. But

here,

with the two loaves that come by themselves,

it is their mitzva in this manner,

for this is their law from the outset of their being brought;

let us burn them

on a Festival day,

just as is the case

[according to what is done]

with the bull and the he-goat

that are brought within

on Yom Kippur,

whose law is burning, and since this is their mitzva from the outset, they are burned that very day outside the camp [Leviticus, chapter 16]!? Rav Yosef accepted Abaye’s rejection.

Rather,

he retracted and

Rav Yosef said

another reason why the two loaves that come by themselves are not burned that very day:

a decree lest sheep become available to them

that same day

afterward

at another time; therefore, the loaves are held back so that they can join with the sheep when they become available.

Abaye said to him: This is satisfactory:

your reason explains why he delays

throughout the entire time of their offering

of the sheep, but

after this,

after the afternoon daily offering,

he should burn them,

for behold, it is impossible to offer sheep, and why do they delay them the entire night until the next day?

And we answer:

What is meant, as well, by what it teaches, “their appearance should change”—the entire time of their offering!

And indeed, they do not wait until the next day, but only until the end of the time fit for offering sheep 16 .

Rava said:

in truth, the two loaves that come by themselves, according to the essence of their law from the Torah,

come for eating.

And nevertheless, their law is that they are to be burned,

and it is a decree on account of Rabba,

as we said above: perhaps sheep will become available to them in another year, and they will come to eat the bread before they slaughter the sheep. However, the basis of the matter—that their law from the Torah is for eating—is learned from an exposition,

and not from his reason

of Rabba, who proved this from a Mishna in Shekalim,

but from a verse,

as follows:

and Rava said: From where do I say this,

that the two loaves that come by themselves have the law of being eaten?

For it is written

concerning the bread of Atzeret: "

From your settlements you shall bring a wave offering of bread

and so on

first fruits to Hashem.”

The verse compared them to first fruits, and from here we learn the fundamental law of bringing the bread by itself,

just as first fruits

come

by themselves, so too the two loaves

can come

by themselves. And from it

we learn —

just as first fruits are for eating, so too the two loaves are for eating,

also in this situation, in which they resemble first fruits, namely, when they come by themselves.