Menachot 48a — the Talmud in English

And the remainder,

which are the other two,

are eaten through redemption. 28 .

The Sages stated

this beraita

before Rav Hisda,

and they thought to say:

This—

is not according to Rabbi,

who holds that through slaughter the sanctity of the body takes effect.

For if it is Rabbi

who taught it,

since he said, “slaughter consecrates,”

some of these two loaves have the laws of sanctity of the body, and we do not know which of them the sacrifice consecrated and which are the two that remain with only sanctity of value. And in order to eat them, he is compelled to redeem the other two, bring money, and say: Wherever the two that were consecrated only with sanctity of value are, they shall be redeemed upon these [coins], and they shall become unconsecrated.

And if so, there is a question:

Where does he redeem them?

Where does he redeem them?

If he redeems them outside,

meaning that he removes all of them, since he does not know which two have sanctity of value and therefore removes all of them outside the wall of the courtyard, this cannot be done,

since it is written

regarding the two loaves, “And the priest shall wave them upon the bread of the first fruits, a waving

before the Lord,”

and the meaning of the verse is that they are sanctified within. If so, when they leave,

they become disqualified

—the two that are consecrated with sanctity of the body—

by leaving?!

And since they cannot be identified, all of them are disqualified.

And if you say that he redeems them while they are still inside, this is difficult:

If inside,

if he redeems them inside, it follows that after the redemption there is unconsecrated bread in the courtyard;

is he bringing

unconsecrated [property]

into the courtyard,

and the Gemara now holds that it is included in this [prohibition] that one may not create a situation in which there is unconsecrated property in the courtyard?

Therefore, the Sages before Rav Hisda thought to explain the beraita according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, according to whom [the loaves] are not disqualified through leaving, since they were not consecrated through the slaughter. Therefore, the solution is effective: he draws out whichever two loaves he wishes and waves them with the lambs before the sprinkling, while the two that remain have no sanctity of the body at all, but only sanctity of value, and he redeems them outside. 29 .

Rav Hisda said to them:

There is no necessity to establish it according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rather,

it can always be according to Rabbi,

it can be explained,

and he redeems them inside,

that is, inside, so that they should not become disqualified through leaving.

And unconsecrated property—

has thereby come to be

in the courtyard, through their having been redeemed, and he did not bring them in while they were unconsecrated; therefore, there is no prohibition in this. 30 .

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But it was taught

and it is written in a beraita:

When he redeems them,

the two out of the four,

he redeems them only outside,

and it implies that he redeems them outside because of bringing unconsecrated property into the courtyard.

And he answered him:

This—

what is written, that he redeems them outside—

certainly

is

according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that their sanctity does not become sanctity of the body until the sprinkling,

for if it were according to Rabbi,

have they not become disqualified through leaving!

And according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, since it is possible to remove them, it is certainly preferable to redeem them outside. Therefore, according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, he can designate two loaves upon which to sprinkle, and remove two outside and redeem them.

Rav Aha son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that it is a refutation of Rabbi Yohanan,

in his dispute with Hezekiah below,

from this

beraita, which says in the beraita that two loaves out of four become consecrated, even though the law of the offering is with two?

For it was stated: A thanksgiving-offering that he slaughtered over eighty loaves,

and it is found that there are forty extra loaves here, and the consecration is not identified.

Hezekiah said: Forty out of eighty became consecrated,

and he draws forty of them for the waving.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Forty out of eighty did not become consecrated,

since the consecration is not identified, and he has not fulfilled his thanksgiving-offering, since sanctity did not take hold in them.

And according to Rabbi Yohanan, it should likewise be said here, regarding the four loaves of Shavuot, that they are not consecrated. But from the words of the beraita, which says that he draws two of them, it is proven that two of them are consecrated.

And we answer:

But was it not stated concerning it,

with regard to the dispute of Rabbi Yohanan and Hezekiah,

Rabbi Zeira said: All agree that where he said, “Let forty out of eighty become consecrated,” they become consecrated,

and he fulfills his thanksgiving-offering, even though he did not specify which of them he consecrated, since this is like one who makes it dependent upon clarification afterward.

Here too,

the beraita can be explained as referring to four thanksgiving-offering loaves, and as one who

said, “Let two out of four become consecrated,”

for in such a manner they became consecrated even according to Rabbi Yohanan.

Rabbi Hanina Tirata taught before Rabbi Yohanan: If he slaughtered four lambs over two loaves,

and it is found that there are two slaughtered lambs here whose offering cannot be completed for the sake of the peace-offerings of Shavuot,

he draws two of them

from among the lambs

and sprinkles their blood not for their sake,

to remove them from the category of the peace-offerings of Shavuot, and he does this before he sprinkles the blood of the other two for their sake.

For if you do not say so,

but he first sprinkles the blood of the two lambs designated for the peace-offerings of Shavuot for their sake—

you have caused the latter ones to be lost!

For even if afterward he sprinkles their blood not for their sake, this will not help them, because they have already been rejected from being sprinkled for their sake, and sprinkling not for their sake does not help them, as explained above [47b]. 32 .

Rabbi Yohanan said to him:

The thought of not for their sake in an offering is a sin, since it is forbidden to alter sacred things. If so—

does one say to a person, “Stand and sin”

in this act

“so that you may merit”

another matter?! Here, for example, he sins through thought in order to permit eating the meat of the remaining two?

But we learned

that one does not say this, for we learned in a Mishna:

The limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering,

and the law of the limbs of the sin-offering is that they are eaten, while the limbs of the burnt-offering are burned on the altar.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They shall place

all the limbs of the mixture

above,

on the pyre,

and I regard the flesh of the sin-offering above—

even though it is subject to the prohibition “You shall not burn,”

as though it were wood,

and there is no burning of a sin-offering here, since he does not intend to burn it [as a sin-offering].

And the Sages say:

It does not help to regard the sin-offering as wood; therefore,

its form shall pass

through being left overnight

and they shall go to the place of burning,

for there is no remedy for the entire mixture.

And if it is as you say, that one says to him, “Sin so that you may merit,”

why

do the Sages hold that it becomes disqualified and is burned?

Let us say—

“Stand and sin

by burning the sin-offering, which is not fit to be burned,

so that you may merit”

not losing the burnt-offering?!

And we answer:

“Stand and sin with a sin-offering so that you may merit through a sin-offering”—we say,

and likewise, the sin of offering not for their sake in the case of the lambs of Shavuot grants him the mitzva of eating the remaining lambs, which are also peace-offerings of Shavuot. But with regard to a mixture of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering,

“Stand and sin with the sin-offering

to burn its flesh

so that you may merit through the burnt-offering”

to burn it—

we do not say this,

but the entire mixture is burned.

And we object:

And with one matter,

such as from one sin-offering to another sin-offering,

does he say

“Sin so that you may merit”?

But it was taught: The lambs of Shavuot that he slaughtered not for their sake,

so that they do not fulfill the obligation of the Shavuot-offering,

or that he slaughtered them either before their time or after their time,

when they can now be made valid only not for their sake—

the blood shall be sprinkled

not for their sake,

and the flesh shall be eaten!

For before the slaughter the lambs had not become consecrated, and he can change them to another offering.

And if it was

that Shavuot fell on

Shabbat,

and one does not sprinkle on Shabbat the blood of sacred offerings that are not a communal offering,

he shall not sprinkle,

and consequently the offering will become disqualified at sunset.

And if he sprinkled in

violation of a rabbinic prohibition,

it is accepted, so that the sacrificial portions may be burned in the evening,

for this burning is not permitted on Shabbat.

And we object:

Why

should he not sprinkle on Shabbat in the first place?

Let us say

to him:

“Stand and sin

through sprinkling

so that you may merit”

the burning and eating of this offering itself, for now, if he does not sprinkle, he loses the offering?!

And we answer:

“Stand and sin on Shabbat so that you may merit on Shabbat

itself

”—we say,

such as in the case of the lambs, through which he merits eating them on that very day. However,

“Stand and sin on Shabbat so that you may merit on a weekday”—we do not say!

Here, the burning of the sacrificial portions and the eating will be on a weekday, for certainly on Shabbat there is no burning of an offering that is not a communal obligation, since burning is forbidden by Torah law. 33 .

And we object:

And with two matters,

such as from a sin-offering to a burnt-offering,

he did not say

“Stand and sin in this so that you may merit through that”?

But we learned

in the Mishna in tractate Terumot:

A barrel of teruma that broke in the upper winepress,

and now, if he does not receive it in a vessel, it will flow into the lower winepress,

and in the lower one,

that is, in the pit into which the wine descends, there are

impure unconsecrated [produce],

and the teruma too will become impure because of it, and everything will be forbidden to eat,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree—

the one who disputes below [and is concerned about the loss of unconsecrated produce]—

that if he can save a quarter

of a log from the teruma in the upper winepress

in purity, he shall save it,

even if, while he troubles himself to find a pure vessel for this quarter, some of the teruma descends to the lower winepress and the unconsecrated produce is ruined,

but if not,

if he has no pure vessel with which to save even the measure of a quarter in purity—