Menachot 47a — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The rams of Shavuot do not consecrate the loaves except through slaughtering

that is fit for the law of the peace-offerings of Shavuot.

How so?

If he slaughtered them for their sake and sprinkled their blood for their sake —

the loaves were consecrated

with complete sanctity, and they are permitted for eating.

If he slaughtered them not for their sake and sprinkled their blood not for their sake —

the loaves were not consecrated

at all! For the offering of these rams does not count for the sake of the rams of Shavuot.

If he slaughtered them for their sake and sprinkled their blood not for their sake

and here there is only the sanctity of slaughtering —

the loaves are consecrated and are not consecrated!

And below, in the Gemara, they dispute the definition of this state. Thus far are

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says:

the loaves are never consecrated, even with partial sanctity,

until he slaughters them for their sake and sprinkles their blood for their sake. 17 .

V knige Keren Orah zadali vopros protiv oboikh otvetov. Protiv pervogo otveta trudno ponyat, kak mozhno zadnim chislom otmenit svyatost tela, kotoraya byla na khlebe, posle togo kak krov okropili ne s nadlezhashchim namereniem. Protiv vtorogo otveta trudno ponyat: esli dostatochno, chto khleb gotov k okropl eniyu, to pochemu v nashey sugye on ne osv yashchaetsya, kogda krov okropili ne s nadlezhashchim namereniem? Keren Orah ob yasnil po-drugomu: v Gemare Pesakhim skazano, chto gotovoe k okropl eniyu schitaetsya okroplennym tolko v otnoshenii zapreta vykupa. V etom smysle ego schitayut okroplennym. No chtoby schitat khleb polnostyu osv yashchennym, trebuetsya samo okropl enie; poetomu, esli krov okropili ne s nadlezhashchim namereniem, khleb ne osv yashchaetsya.

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi,

that the sanctity of the body takes effect upon the loaves already through the slaughtering of the sacrifice, even though the sprinkling was not valid for it?

And we explain:

as it is written

in the passage concerning the nazirite’s ram, from which we learn the law of the consecration of the loaves of Shavuot:

“And he shall make the ram a peace-offering to the Lord, upon the basket of unleavened cakes.”

And Rabbi expounds: “He shall make a sacrifice”—that is, the act of sacrificing, which is the slaughtering, is what consecrates the basket of unleavened cakes,

to say —

that slaughtering consecrates!

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

explains this verse: “He shall make a sacrifice,” and the meaning of

“he shall make” is

until he performs

with the sacrifice

all its acts!

And it implies also the sprinkling of the blood.

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi too—does the verse not write “he shall make”?

And it implies that he must perform all the rites, as Rabbi Elazar expounds?

And we answer:

If it were written, “And the ram,

the

sacrifice he shall make,”

it would have been understood

as you say,

that he shall perform the sacrifice as is proper for it.

Now that it is written, “He shall make a sacrifice

upon the basket of unleavened cakes,” Rabbi explains:

With what shall he make it

so that the basket of unleavened cakes will be consecrated?

Through slaughtering!

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon —

the verse writes “sacrifice,”

whereas according to him it could have written, “And he shall make the ram peace-offerings”?

And we answer:

That

“sacrifice”

is needed by him

to expound it

in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan. For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees,

that even Rabbi Elazar, who holds that sprinkling is primary, agrees

that there must be loaves

also

at the time of slaughtering,

and if the loaves were not present at the time of slaughtering, the sprinkling does not consecrate them.

And we explain Rabbi’s words:

What is the meaning of “consecrated and not consecrated”

that Rabbi said regarding slaughtering them for their sake and sprinkling their blood not for their sake?

Abaye said: Consecrated, but not complete

with complete sanctity.

Rava said: Consecrated

with complete sanctity. And that which Rabbi said, “and not consecrated,” means

“and not permitted,”

for it is not permitted for eating through this sprinkling.

And we inquire:

What is the difference between them?

For according to Abaye also, it is certainly not permitted for eating before it has been permitted through sprinkling?

And we explain:

There is a difference between them with regard to seizing its redemption-money

if sanctity took effect upon the money with which the loaves were redeemed.

According to Abaye, its redemption-money is seized,

for it is still not a complete sacrifice, upon which the complete sanctity of the body has not taken effect; therefore, the sanctity of value takes effect upon the money, to seize its redemption-money [even though the sanctity of the loaves is not removed, since they were partially consecrated]. But

according to Rava,

the complete sanctity of the body has already taken effect upon it, and therefore

its redemption-money is not seized,

for the sanctity of the body is not seized by money through redemption [since it does not leave sanctity at all, it is not applicable to impose any sanctity upon its redemption-money] 19 .

And we inquire:

Granted, according to Rava,

that according to Rabbi its redemption-money is not seized, since the sanctity of the body took effect upon the loaves through the slaughtering,

this is the difference between Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon.

For according to Rabbi Elazar, before sprinkling there is only sanctity of value, and its redemption-money is seized; whereas according to Rabbi there is sanctity of the body in the loaves, and its redemption-money is not seized.

But according to Abaye,

according to whom even according to Rabbi its redemption-money is seized, and certainly according to Rabbi Elazar,

what difference is there between Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them —

with regard to invalidating

the loaves

through leaving

the Temple courtyard. According to Rabbi, they are invalidated through leaving, since some sanctity of the body has taken effect upon them, and they will not be fit for slaughtering other rams upon them; whereas according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, no sanctity of the body took effect at all before sprinkling, and the loaves are not invalidated through leaving, and they are fit for slaughtering other rams upon them 20 .

Rav Shmuel son of Rav Yitzḥak asked Rabbi Ḥiyya son of Abba: The rams of Shavuot that he slaughtered for their sake and sprinkled their blood not for their sake,

concerning which they disputed above regarding the degree of the sanctity of the loaves —

what is the law of those loaves with regard to eating?

Has permission for eating taken effect upon them through this sprinkling? And we inquire:

According to whose view

did Rav Shmuel have his uncertainty?

If it is according to the view of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that in this case there is only sanctity of value,

he says that sprinkling is what consecrates

with the sanctity of the body, and certainly permission for eating does not take effect through sprinkling not for their sake, for there is still no sanctity of a sacrifice here.

If it is according to the view of Rabbi,

who said above, “consecrated and not consecrated,” and Abaye and Rava disputed the explanation of his words, in any event

both according to Abaye and according to Rava,

it is

“consecrated and not permitted,”

for even Rava, who holds that its sanctity is complete, holds that it is not permitted, and all the more so according to Abaye. If so, according to whose view did Rav Shmuel have his uncertainty that the loaves would be permitted for eating?

And we conclude:

Rather, according to the view of this tanna

in the beraita Rav Shmuel had his uncertainty:

For the father of Rabbi Yirmeya son of Abba taught:

The two loaves that left

the Temple courtyard

between slaughtering and sprinkling, and he sprinkled the blood of the rams

with the thought of eating the two loaves and the flesh of the rams

outside its time,

for this thought causes the rams to become pigul, and had the loaves not left the Temple courtyard, pigul would also have taken effect upon them [as explained above, page 15].

Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not have the status of pigul

to be liable to karet for eating them!

Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do have the status of pigul!

Rav Sheshet said

in explaining their dispute:

These tannaim,

both of them

hold in accordance with Rabbi, who says that slaughtering consecrates

the loaves; if so, the invalidation of “leaving” takes effect upon the loaves before the sprinkling that causes pigul.

However,

these tannaim had already disputed in tractate Me’ila concerning the application of the law of pigul through sprinkling with regard to the part of the sacrifice that left its place, and upon this their dispute here depends:

Rabbi Eliezer follows his own position, for he says —

sprinkling is not effective for that which left!

For it does not act with regard to the part of the sacrifice that “left,” to impose upon it the law of pigul, because it was already invalidated when it left, and pigul does not take effect upon an invalid sacrifice 22 .

A v knigakh Ahiezer i Mikdash David vozrazili: slova Shita Mekubetset neyasny. V ukazannoy Gemare rech idet o nevalidnosti iz-za nedostatka, v otnoshenii kotoroy okropl enie deystvuet. No zdes rech idet o nevalidnosti iz-za vynosa; otkuda zhe istochnik, chto okropl enie deystvuet i v etom sluchae? Naprotiv, vyshe ob yasneno, chto nevalidnost iz-za nedostatka myagche nevalidnosti iz-za vynosa, i tolko pri nevalidnosti iz-za nedostatka okropl enie deystvuet. Ahiezer otvetil: i zdes rech idet o sluchae, kogda vynesena byla tolko chast khleba. Poetomu, tak kak eto nevalidnost iz-za nedostatka, okropl enie deystvuet, kak ob yasneno vyshe. No vopros ostayotsya bez resheniya.

And Rabbi Akiva follows his own position, for he says —

sprinkling is effective for that which left!

And therefore here too sprinkling is effective to impose pigul even upon the loaves that left their place after slaughtering and were invalidated.