Menachot 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The sheep of Shavuot do not consecrate the loaves except through slaughter

that is fit for the procedure of the Shavuot peace offering.

How so?

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

the loaves are consecrated

with complete sanctity and are permitted for consumption.

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

the loaves are not consecrated

at all, as the offering of these sheep is not considered an offering on behalf of the Shavuot sheep.

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

and therefore there is here only the sanctity resulting from slaughter —

the loaves are consecrated and are not consecrated!

The Gemara below disputes how this status is to be defined. This concludes

the statement of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says:

The loaves are never consecrated, even with partial sanctity,

until one 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.

We inquire:

What is Rabbi’s reason,

for the inherent sanctity to take effect upon the loaves already through the slaughter of the offering, 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 derive the law of the consecration of the Shavuot loaves:

“And he shall prepare the ram as a peace offering to the Lord, together with the basket of matzot.”

Rabbi expounds: “He shall prepare an offering”—that is, the performance of the slaughter, which is the slaughter itself, is what consecrates the basket of matzot.

That is to say —

slaughter consecrates!

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

interprets this verse: “He shall prepare an offering,” and the meaning of

“he shall prepare” is:

until he performs

in the offering

all its procedures!

This indicates that the sprinkling of the blood is included as well.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi, too, has the word “he shall prepare” written in the verse!

This indicates that all the procedures must be performed, as Rabbi Elazar expounds.

And we answer:

Had it been written,

“And the ram

shall be prepared as an offering,”

it would have been understood

as you say

—that the offering should be prepared in the manner appropriate to it.

Now that it is written, “He shall prepare an offering

together with the basket of matzot,” Rabbi interprets it as follows:

With what shall he prepare it

so that the basket of matzot will be consecrated?

Through slaughter!

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon —

the word “offering” is written.

Yet according to him, it would have been possible to write: “And he shall prepare the ram as a peace offering”?

And we answer:

That

“offering”

is needed

to expound it

in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees

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

that the loaves must be present

also

at the time of slaughter,

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

We explain Rabbi’s statement:

What is the meaning of “consecrated and not consecrated”

that Rabbi stated with regard to a case where one slaughtered them for their sake and sprinkled their blood not for their sake?

Abaye said: They are consecrated, but not completely

with complete sanctity.

Rava said: They are consecrated

with complete sanctity. And when Rabbi said “and are not consecrated,” his intention was:

“and they are not permitted,”

as they are not permitted for consumption through this sprinkling.

We inquire:

What difference is there between them?

According to Abaye as well, they are certainly not permitted for consumption before they are rendered permitted through the sprinkling.

And we explain:

The difference between them is with regard to whether the redemption money is seized

—whether sanctity takes effect upon the money with which one redeemed the loaves.

According to Abaye, the redemption money is seized,

because the offering is still not completely an offering, as complete inherent sanctity has not taken effect upon it. Therefore, monetary sanctity takes effect upon the money, which assumes the status of the redemption money [although the sanctity of the loaves is not removed, since they were partially consecrated].

But according to Rava,

complete inherent sanctity has already taken effect upon it, and therefore

the redemption money is not seized,

as inherent sanctity cannot be transferred to money through redemption [since, as it does not leave sanctity at all, there is no possibility of imposing any sanctity upon its redemption money]. 19 .

We inquire:

Granted, according to Rava,

who holds that according to Rabbi the redemption money is not seized, since the loaves acquired inherent sanctity through the slaughter,

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

According to Rabbi Elazar, before the sprinkling the loaves possess only monetary sanctity, and the redemption money is seized; according to Rabbi, the loaves possess inherent sanctity, and the redemption money is not seized.

But according to Abaye,

who holds that according to Rabbi as well the 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 disqualification

of the loaves

by leaving

the Temple courtyard. According to Rabbi, the loaves are disqualified by leaving, since partial inherent sanctity took effect upon them, and they are not fit for other sheep to be slaughtered on their behalf. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, no inherent sanctity took effect before the sprinkling, and the loaves are not disqualified by leaving; other sheep are fit to be slaughtered on their behalf. 20 .

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the case of the Shavuot sheep that one slaughtered for their sake and sprinkled their blood not for their sake,

as they disputed above the degree of sanctity of the loaves,

what is the status of those loaves with regard to consumption?

Does permission for consumption take effect upon them through this sprinkling? And we inquire:

According to whose opinion

did Rav Shmuel raise this uncertainty?

If he raised the question according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that in this case there is only monetary sanctity,

he has said that it is the sprinkling that consecrates

with inherent sanctity, and certainly permission for consumption does not take effect through a sprinkling performed not for its sake, since there is not yet here the sanctity of an offering.

If he raised the question according to Rabbi,

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

according to both Abaye and Rava,

it is

“consecrated and not permitted,”

for even Rava, who holds that its sanctity is complete, maintains that it is not permitted—and certainly this is so according to Abaye. If so, according to whose opinion did Rav Shmuel raise the possibility that the loaves would be permitted for consumption?

And we conclude:

Rather, Rav Shmuel raised the question according to that tanna

of the beraita:

For the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba taught:

If the two loaves left

the Temple courtyard

between the slaughter and the sprinkling, and one sprinkled the blood of the sheep

with the intention of eating the two loaves and the meat of the sheep

outside its designated time,

this thought renders the sheep piggul, and had the loaves not left the Temple courtyard, piggul would have taken effect upon them as well [as explained above, on page 15].

Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves are not subject to piggul

so that one who eats them is liable to karet.

Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves are subject to piggul!

Rav Sheshet said

in explaining their dispute:

These tannaim,

both of them

hold in accordance with Rabbi, who says that slaughter consecrates

the loaves. Therefore, the disqualification of leaving the Temple courtyard takes effect upon the loaves before the sprinkling that renders the offering piggul.

However,

these tannaim had already disputed in tractate Me'ila concerning whether the law of piggul takes effect through sprinkling with regard to the part of an offering that left its proper place, and their dispute here depends upon that earlier dispute:

Rabbi Eliezer follows his own reasoning, for he says —

sprinkling is not effective for that which left its place!

It does not operate with regard to the part of the offering that left its place, to impose upon it the law of piggul, because it was already disqualified when it left, and piggul does not take effect upon a disqualified offering. 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 reasoning, for he says —

sprinkling is effective for that which left its place!

Therefore, here too, sprinkling is effective to impose piggul even upon the loaves that left their proper place after the slaughter and thereby became disqualified.