Menachot 48a (מח.) — the Talmud in English

And the remainder

which are the other two

may be eaten after redemption. 28 .

The Sages stated

this beraita

before Rav Ḥisda,

and they thought to say:

This—

is not in accordance with Rabbi,

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

For if it is Rabbi

whose opinion is reflected here,

since he said: Slaughter effects consecration,

two of these loaves have the laws of the sanctity of the offering, but we do not know which of them the offering consecrated and which are the two that remain with only monetary sanctity. In order to eat them, he must redeem the other two, bringing money and saying: Wherever the two that were consecrated only with monetary sanctity are located, they shall be redeemed onto this money, and their sanctity shall depart.

And if so, one must ask:

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 possess monetary sanctity and therefore takes all of them outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, this cannot be done,

since it is written

concerning the two loaves: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits as a wave-offering

before the Lord,”

and the verse indicates that they possess inner sanctity. If so, when they leave—

they become disqualified

the two that possess the sanctity of the offering

because they left?!

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 too is difficult:

If inside,

if he redeems them inside, then after the redemption there will be unconsecrated bread in the Temple courtyard.

Is he not bringing

unconsecrated property

into the Temple courtyard,

and the Gemara presently assumes that it is prohibited to create a situation in which unconsecrated property is in the Temple courtyard?

Therefore, the Sages before Rav Ḥisda thought to explain the beraita in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the loaves are not disqualified through leaving, since they were not consecrated through slaughter. Accordingly, the proposed solution is effective: He selects whichever two loaves he wishes and waves them with the rams before the sprinkling, while the two that remain possess no sanctity of the offering, only monetary sanctity, and he redeems them outside. 29 .

Rav Ḥisda said to them:

There is no necessity to establish it in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon. Rather,

it may always be in accordance with Rabbi

and the beraita may be explained as follows:

And he redeems them inside,

that is, inside, so that they will not be disqualified through leaving.

And unconsecrated property—

is automatically present

in the Temple courtyard as a result of their redemption; he did not bring them there while they were unconsecrated, and therefore there is no prohibition. 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,

indicating that he redeems them outside because of the prohibition against bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

And he answered him:

This

statement that he redeems them outside

certainly

is in accordance with

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that their sanctity does not become the sanctity of the offering until the sprinkling.

For if it were Rabbi—

they would have become disqualified through leaving!

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, once it is certainly possible to remove them, it is preferable to redeem them outside. Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, he may designate two loaves for sprinkling upon them, while he removes the other two outside and redeems them.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Shall we say that this is a refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan,

in his dispute with Ḥizkiya below,

from this

beraita, which states that two loaves out of the four become consecrated, even though the law of the offering requires only two?

As it was stated: A thanksgiving-offering that one slaughtered over eighty loaves,

so that there are forty surplus loaves here, and the consecration is not identified.

Ḥizkiya said: Forty out of the eighty became consecrated,

and he selects forty of them for the waving.

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

since the consecrated ones cannot be identified, and he has not fulfilled his thanksgiving-offering, because no sanctity took effect upon them.

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the same should be said here regarding the four loaves of Shavuot: They do not become consecrated. Yet from the beraita’s statement that he selects two of them, it is evident that two of them are consecrated.

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning it,

with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Ḥizkiya,

Rabbi Zeira said: Everyone agrees that where he said, “Let forty out of the eighty become consecrated,” they become consecrated,

and he fulfills his thanksgiving-offering even though he did not specify which of them he consecrated, since he made the matter dependent upon subsequent clarification.

Here too,

the beraita can be explained as referring to the four loaves of a thanksgiving-offering, and as stating that he said:

“Let two out of the four become consecrated,”

in which case they become consecrated even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata taught before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered four rams over two loaves,

so that there are two slaughtered rams whose offering cannot be completed for the sake of the peace-offerings of Shavuot,

he selects two of them

from among the rams

and sprinkles their blood not for their sake,

thereby removing them from the status of the peace-offerings of Shavuot; he does this before sprinkling the blood of the other two rams for their sake.

For if you do not say so,

but first sprinkle the blood of the two rams designated as the peace-offerings of Shavuot for their sake—

you have forfeited the latter ones!

For even if he subsequently 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 in their case, as explained above (47b). 32 .

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:

The thought of not for their sake in an offering is a sin, because it is prohibited to alter sacred offerings. If so—

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

by performing this act

“so that you will merit”

something else—as here, where he sins through his intention in order to permit the meat of the remaining two to be eaten?

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,

the law being that the limbs of the sin-offering are to be eaten and the limbs of the burnt-offering are to be burned on the altar.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They shall place

all the limbs of the mixture

above

on the altar’s arrangement,

and I regard the flesh of the sin-offering as though it were wood above,

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

as though it were wood,

and this is not considered burning a sin-offering, since he does not intend to burn it as such.

And the Sages say:

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

its form shall be allowed to pass

through overnight,

and they shall be taken to the place of burning,

since there is no remedy for the entire mixture.

And if it is as you say, that one tells him to sin so that he will 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 will merit”

not forfeiting the burnt-offering!?

And we answer:

We do say, “Stand and sin with a sin-offering so that you will merit with a sin-offering,”

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

“Stand and sin with a sin-offering”

by burning its flesh

“so that you will merit with the burnt-offering”

by burning it

we do not say;

rather, the entire mixture is burned.

And we raise a difficulty:

And in one matter,

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

who says

that one should sin so that he will merit?

But it was taught: If the rams of Shavuot were slaughtered not for their sake,

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

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

when they can now be made fit only by being offered not for their sake—

the blood shall be sprinkled

not for their sake,

and the meat shall be eaten!

For before slaughter the rams had not become consecrated, and he can redirect 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 communal offerings,

he shall not sprinkle it,

and the offering will consequently become disqualified at sunset.

And if he sprinkled it in violation of

the rabbinic prohibition of shevut,

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

since this burning is not permitted on Shabbat.

And we raise a difficulty:

And why

should he not sprinkle it on Shabbat ab initio?

Let us say

to him:

“Stand and sin”

through sprinkling

“so that you will merit”

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

And we answer:

“Stand and sin on Shabbat so that you will merit on Shabbat”

itself

we do say,

as in the case of the rams, which he thereby merits eating on that very day. However,

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

Here, the burning of the sacrificial portions and the eating will take place on a weekday, since certainly on Shabbat the sacrificial portions of an offering that is not a communal obligation may not be burned, as burning them is prohibited by Torah law. 33 .

And we raise a difficulty:

And in two matters,

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

did he not say

“Stand and sin in this matter so that you will merit in that matter”?

But we learned

in the Mishna in tractate Terumot:

If a barrel of teruma broke in the upper winepress,

and if they do 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 flows, there are

impure unconsecrated wine,

and the teruma will also become impure because of it, and everything will be prohibited to eat,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua concede

—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 a state of purity, he should save it,

even if, while he takes the trouble to find a pure vessel for this quarter-log, some of the teruma flows into the lower winepress and the unconsecrated wine is ruined,

but if not,

if he has no pure vessel with which to save even a quarter-log in purity—