Menachot 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

The sheep were lost,

and other loaves and sheep must be brought.

Likewise, if

the sheep were lost—

the loaves were lost.

For once they had become interdependent, Rabbi Akiva and ben Nannas did not disagree.

And if you say that waving does not create interdependence,

the following question arises: if

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

afterward

the loaves were lost,

while the sheep were not lost, and

he brought other loaves—

is

those loaves subject to waving

anew with the sheep, since they have not yet been waved,

or are they not subject to waving,

since waving has already been performed with the sheep together with loaves, and that is sufficient, as the primary act of waving is with the sheep, with regard to which waving is stated, and they are also what permits the loaves?

The Gemara says: If

the sheep were lost, do not raise the question; certainly waving is required

The question arises when the loaves were lost,

When you ask the question, it is when the loaves were lost,

whether the new loaves must be waved again.

According to ben Nannas, do not raise the question,

since

he says that the sheep are primary;

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

The question arises—

according to Rabbi Akiva,

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

as he says that the loaves are primary,

and therefore the Gemara is uncertain

what

the law is in this case, where the loaves were lost after the waving.

The sides of the uncertainty are:

since the loaves are primary, waving is required

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

Or perhaps, since its permitting agents are the sheep,

and they have already been waved,

no waving is required

of the loaves again?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

As was already explained above, on 45b, two sheep are brought with the loaves as the offering of the communal peace-offerings, and they sanctify the loaves. According to ben Nannas, the absence of the sheep prevents the offering of the loaves. Even according to Rabbi Akiva, the sheep prevent the loaves when they become interdependent through slaughter. In addition, on account of the loaves, seven sheep, a bull, and two rams are brought as burnt-offerings, and a goat as a sin-offering. These offerings, however, do not sanctify the loaves, nor does their absence prevent the loaves from being offered. 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 special advantage of the two sheep over the burnt-offerings,

that they sanctify

the

loaves

through their slaughter,

and prevent

the loaves from being offered in their absence,

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

He said to him: Since

the peace-offering sheep and the loaves

are interdependent through waving.

And we challenge this:

But what about a thanksgiving-offering, where the offering and the loaves are not interdependent

the offering and the loaves

through waving

[as they are not supposed to be waved together]

and

nevertheless

it sanctifies

the thanksgiving-offering’s loaves through its slaughter,

and prevents

them from being offered, as the loaves cannot be brought without it!?

And we answer:

Rather,

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

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

which is

a peace-offering,

sanctifies the loaves and prevents them from being offered,

so too here,

the sheep of Shavuot, which are

peace-offerings,

sanctify the two loaves and prevent them from being offered. The seven sheep, the bull, and the rams, by contrast, are burnt-offerings.

And we challenge this:

Are they comparable?

the Shavuot offering and the thanksgiving-offering?

There,

in the case of a thanksgiving-offering,

there are no other offerings together with it,

the peace-offering, which is the sole offering, unlike the Shavuot peace-offerings, concerning which one might say:

here, where there are other offerings,

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

together

with the loaves,

let

also

these

and also

these,

so that all the offerings brought on account of the loaves would have the same status? And we answer:

Rather,

the source of the law that the sheep sanctify the loaves is that their status is that of peace-offerings; they are

like the nazirite’s ram,

which is a peace-offering. And we find that specifically the nazirite’s ram sanctifies the loaves that come with the nazirite’s offerings, but not the burnt-offering sheep or the sin-offering ewe that comes with it. And we derive:

Just as with the nazirite’s offering, although there are other offerings,

nevertheless, only

the peace-offering sanctifies

the loaves,

whereas anything else

the burnt-offering and the sin-offering

does not

sanctify them.

So too here,

with regard to Shavuot,

it is no different:

only the sheep brought as peace-offerings sanctify the loaves and therefore also prevent them from being offered, but not the burnt-offerings.

We inquire:

And there,

with regard to the nazirite itself,

from where do we know

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

And we answer:

As it was taught in a beraita

in the exposition of the verse stated concerning the offering of a pure nazirite: "

‘And he shall prepare the ram as a peace-offering to the Lord, together with the basket of unleavened bread,’ this teaches,

from the expression “together with the basket of unleavened bread,”

that the basket

of unleavened bread

is brought as an obligation together with the ram, and the slaughter of the ram sanctifies them

the loaves.

Therefore,

because the ram is what sanctifies them,

if he slaughtered it not for its sake,

not for the sake of a peace-offering,

the loaves are not sanctified,

even if he slaughtered the accompanying burnt-offering and sin-offering for their proper sake, the loaves are not sanctified. (Tosafot').

The Sages taught: The two loaves that come by themselves,

in the absence of sheep, and according to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that the sheep do not prevent the loaves from being offered—

they shall be waved ,

and their form shall pass,

so that they will become disqualified through remaining overnight [the process regarded as a deterioration of their form]

and

afterward

they shall be taken to the place of burning.

We inquire:

Whichever way you look at it:

if their essential status is for eating, so that when there are no sheep to permit them for eating, they permit themselves for eating [as the Gemara states below], then

let them be eaten!

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

if they are brought for burning—

let them be burned immediately!

That is how their mitzva is performed;

why do they require the passing of their form

to burn them as disqualified offerings? They should be burned while they are still fit!?

And we answer:

Rabba said: Actually, they are brought for eating,

and as for your objection that if so they should be eaten: that is indeed their status by Torah law, but the Sages decreed that they be burned,

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

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

and they will say,

mistakenly:

‘Last year, did we not eat loaves without sheep?’

And since we ate them

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

now too, let us eat them!

before the sheep have been slaughtered.

And they,

those who err in this matter,

do not know

how to distinguish

that last year there were no sheep,

and therefore

they,

the loaves,

permitted themselves

to be eaten, unlike

now, when there are sheep,

they can no longer permit themselves; rather, only

the sheep permit them,

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

And Rabba said: From where do I say this,

that even the two loaves that come by themselves are brought for eating?

For we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Buchri testified in Yavne:

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

any priest who contributes

the half-shekel

does not sin,

and there is no concern that his share in the communal offering constitutes unconsecrated property in the Temple courtyard, since it comes from an individual’s donation, because he gives his shekel to the community as an unconditional gift.

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

since the priests too are obligated in the half-shekel [and the statement “Everyone who passes among the counted” refers to those who passed through the Sea of Reeds; the priests aged twenty and over 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 it is stated in the portion of Vayikra,

“And every grain-offering of a priest—

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

and if we priests have a share in the communal offerings and grain-offerings through the half-shekel that we contribute,

since the omer, the two loaves, and the showbread

also

are ours,

then, by virtue of our partnership, they should be considered a priest’s grain-offering,

and how could they be eaten?

For their status should be that of a priest’s grain-offering, which is entirely burned! From this they ruled for themselves not to contribute, because if these offerings are nevertheless eaten, this proves that they are not partners in these grain-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 are those that come with the offering,

there is no law here that they are a priest’s grain-offering, which must be entirely burned, because their status is like that of the offering. Proof of this is:

Do priests not donate thanksgiving-offerings and their loaves and eat them?

You learn from this that the law of an offering that must be entirely burned was stated only with regard to a priest’s grain-offering that comes by itself. Accordingly, 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

that if they were considered a priest’s grain-offering, they would not be eaten,

and

that is,

that it teaches

“How can they be eaten?” Evidently,

the two loaves that come by themselves

are brought for eating.

Abaye said

to Rabba, rejecting this proof:

Actually, they are those that come with the offering,

and from the fact that they are eaten, the priests proved that they have no priestly share.

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

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

The loaves of a thanksgiving-offering are not called a grain-offering!

Therefore, they are not subject to the law of a priest’s grain-offering, “It shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten,” whereas

the two loaves are called a grain-offering, as it is stated: “When you bring a new grain-offering to the Lord,”

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

Rav Yosef said

concerning the two loaves that come by themselves:

Actually, they are brought for burning ,

and he resolves what we asked above: If so, “let them be burned immediately”:

this is the reason that we do not burn

them on that very day,

because consecrated offerings

that became disqualified

are not burned on a Festival;

rather, we wait until the following day and burn them, and the same applies to the burning of these two loaves.

Abaye said

to Rav Yosef:

Are

the burning of the two loaves and the burning of disqualified consecrated offerings comparable?

There,

with regard to disqualified offerings,

this is not how their mitzva is performed, for initially they are brought for eating,

rather, after they became disqualified [such as through notar or impurity], their law is that they must be burned. But

here,

with regard to the two loaves that come by themselves,

this is how their mitzva is performed,

as this is their status from the outset of their being brought:

they should be burned

on the Festival,

just as is the case

[as is done]

with the bull and goat

that are brought inside

on Yom Kippur,

whose law is that they must be burned, and since this is how their mitzva is ideally performed, 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:

It is a decree lest sheep become available to them

on that very day

later,

at another time. Therefore, the loaves are kept so that they can be joined with the sheep when they become available.

Abaye said to him: It is understandable

that your reasoning explains why he leaves them

throughout the entire time of their offering

of the lambs, but

thereafter,

after the afternoon Tamid,

let him burn them,

since it is impossible to offer the lambs, and why does he leave them throughout the entire night until the next day?

And we answer:

What, too, is the meaning of “their form shall pass,” which it teaches: throughout the time of their offering!

Indeed, they do not wait until the next day, but only until the end of the time suitable for offering the lambs. 16 .

Rava said:

In truth, the two loaves that come on their own, according to the fundamental Torah law,

come to be eaten.

Nevertheless, their law is that they must be burned,

as a decree because of Rabbah,

as we said above: lest lambs become available to them in another year, and they come to eat the bread before the lambs have been slaughtered. However, the basis for the matter—that according to Torah law they are to be eaten—is learned through an exposition,

and not from his reasoning

of Rabbah, who proved this from the Mishna of Shekalim,

but from a verse,

as follows:

And Rava said: From where do I derive this?

That the two loaves that come on their own are to be eaten?

As it is written

concerning the loaves of Shavuot: “

From your dwelling places you shall bring a wave offering of bread

etc.

the first fruits to the Lord.”

The verse compares them to first fruits, and from this we learn the fundamental law concerning bringing the bread on its own:

Just as first fruits

are brought

on their own, so too the two loaves

can be brought

on their own. And from this

we learn:

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

even in this situation, in which they resemble first fruits—namely, when they come on their own.