Menachot 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

A. Once the loaves of the todah have been sanctified through speech, they possess sanctity of value, rendering them prohibited in eating and deriving benefit, but they have not acquired intrinsic sanctity. If they become impure, they are redeemed and become non-sacred; the slaughtering of the offering sanctifies them intrinsically, so that they become disqualified through contact with a tevul yom, through contact with one lacking atonement, and through overnight disqualification. If they become impure, they must be burned.

B. The loaves of the todah are eaten, like the todah itself, throughout Jerusalem. If they leave their designated place after acquiring intrinsic sanctity, they become disqualified and must be burned.

Mishna:

One who slaughters the todah inside

in the Temple courtyard

while its loaves

of the todah are found

outside the wall

the Gemara will clarify: outside which wall

has not sanctified the loaves

with intrinsic sanctity.

Likewise, if one

slaughtered

the todah

before

the loaves of the todah

had formed a crust

in the oven, and they were still called dough rather than “bread,”

even if all of them had formed a crust except one:

The loaves were not sanctified

at all, even those that had already formed a crust.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who slaughters the todah inside while its loaves are outside the wall has not sanctified the loaves.

The Gemara asks:

What is meant by “outside the wall”

outside the wall of what does the Mishna speak?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Outside the wall of Beit Pagi

a place so named, adjacent on its inner side to the wall of Jerusalem; that is, outside the wall of Jerusalem.

Reish Lakish said: Outside the wall of the Temple courtyard.

Reish Lakish said: Outside the wall of the Temple courtyard,

as it is written: “And he shall present with the sacrifice of the todah unleavened loaves mixed with oil.” What the Torah says, “with the sacrifice,” teaches that the slaughtering sanctifies the loaves, and

we require the word

“with”

to mean adjacent,

so that the loaves will be near the offering and will then be sanctified through its slaughtering.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Outside the wall of Beit Pagi,

because the loaves are outside the place where they may be eaten, which is Jerusalem; and once they leave Jerusalem, they become disqualified for leaving their designated area—

But

if the loaves were

outside the courtyard, they are

they are

sanctified, because

we do not

require the word

“with”

to mean adjacent.

And we challenge this:

But they already disputed this once before

have they not already disagreed about a similar matter elsewhere?

For we learned

in Pesachim 63a:

One who slaughters the Paschal offering with leaven

when the slaughterer or one of the members of the group designated for that Paschal offering has leaven, the slaughterer

violates a prohibition,

as it is stated: “You shall not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice with leaven.”

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the daily offering

of the afternoon, if it is slaughtered on Passover eve by one who possessed leaven, the slaughterer violates a prohibition, because the Torah said, “the blood of My sacrifice,” which implies also: My unique offering, namely, the daily offering.

And

concerning this

Reish Lakish said: He is never liable—

for the Paschal offering—

unless

the leaven is

either his

that of the slaughterer

, or that of the one who sprinkles

the blood of the Paschal offering,

or that of one of the members of the group

for this Paschal offering—

That is, one who slaughters the Paschal offering while he possesses leaven, or one who sprinkles the blood of the Paschal offering while he possesses leaven; and in both cases, if one of the members of the group possessed leaven, they receive lashes.

And

they do not receive lashes

unless

the leaven is

with him—

with the slaughterer or the one who sprinkles—

in the courtyard,

because it is stated, “with leaven,” and “with” implies adjacency.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even though the leaven is not

the leavened bread is not

with him in the courtyard,

because we do not require “with” to mean adjacent.

And if so, the difficulty is: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish need to disagree twice concerning whether “with” must mean adjacent? And we answer:

It is necessary

to state their dispute in both cases, because neither can be derived from the other:

For if it were stated in that case,

if their dispute had been taught only concerning the Paschal offering, I would say:

In that case Rabbi Yohanan said

that he violates the prohibition even though the leaven is not with him in the courtyard, because

wherever it is found

it is under prohibition

wherever the leaven is located

; the owner of the leaven is violating the prohibition there, since the time for removing the leaven has already arrived.

But with regard to sanctifying the loaves, you might say that he agrees with Reish Lakish, for if the loaf is

in the courtyard,

inside,

the courtyard, it is indeed

sanctified,

but if the loaf is

outside

outside the courtyard

,

it is not sanctified

the loaf.

And if it were stated in this case,

if their dispute had been taught only with regard to the loaves of the todah, I would say:

In this case

with regard only to the loaves of the todah,

Reish Lakish said

that we require them to be adjacent,

but in that case,

with regard to the Paschal offering slaughtered with leaven, since wherever the leaven is located it remains under prohibition,

you might say that he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan,

that we do not require “with” to mean adjacent.

Therefore

it is necessary

to state their dispute with regard to both of these matters.

A beraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan

in explanation of our Mishna:

If one slaughtered the todah inside, while its loaves were outside

the wall of Beit Pagi, the loaves did not become sanctified

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan’s explanation.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he slaughtered it before the loaves had formed a crust in the oven

the loaves did not become sanctified:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived?

And the Gemara explains,

as the Sages taught:

It is written: “Upon loaves of leavened bread shall he bring his offering, with the sacrifice of the todah of his peace-offerings”:

And from the expression

“upon loaves of leavened bread shall he bring”

it teaches that the bread becomes sanctified only once its

surface has formed a crust in the oven

because as long as its surface has not formed a crust in the oven, it is not called “bread.” From this verse we learn that the bread becomes sanctified through the slaughter of the sacrifice, as the beraita explains below.

And from the expression

“he shall bring his offering with the sacrifice” [

this is an expression referring to slaughtering ],

it teaches that the bread becomes sanctified and is called

“his offering”

only through the slaughter of the sacrifice.

And from the expression

“the sacrifice of the todah

of his peace-offerings,” it teaches:

If he slaughtered it not for its own sake [

for the sake of the todah ],

the loaves did not become sanctified

because this is the meaning of the verse: He shall bring his offering with a sacrifice slaughtered for the sake of a todah.

The Sages taught: One fulfills

the obligation of eating matza on Passover

with partially baked matza

which has not been baked completely, and likewise

with matza made in a pan [

in a pot ].

And we explain:

What is partially baked matza

that is, how much must it be baked in order for one to fulfill his obligation with it?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Any matza such that,

after it has been baked,

one can break it, and no strands

of dough

are drawn from it.

Rava said: And the same applies with regard to the loaves of a todah

as we learned in our Mishna: If he slaughtered it before the loaves had formed a crust in the oven, the loaves did not become sanctified. The measure is: Until one can break it and no strands are drawn from it.

The Gemara challenges Rava: But

it is obvious

that the measure of baking is the same for matza and for the loaves of a todah, since

here

with regard to matza,

“bread”

“the bread of affliction”

is written, and here

with regard to the loaves of a todah,

“bread”

is written. If, with regard to matza, the measure of “bread” is when no strands are drawn from it, then it is obvious that this is also the measure with regard to the loaves of a todah!?

And we answer: Rava needed to teach that this measure suffices with regard to the loaves of a todah, because

it might enter your mind to say:

“One,”

the Merciful One stated, that he may not take a broken loaf

for the teruma,

and this—

“partially baked bread”—

is considered as though it were already broken [

as though it had already broken ], because since it has not been baked properly, it breaks by itself. If so, with regard to the loaves of a todah, this measure would not suffice—

But from the words of the Shita Mekubetzet there, where it comments on Rashi in the name of an external Tosafot: Alternatively, it is because it is written, “one from each offering,” teaching that one may not take a broken loaf, and all the loaves must be fit for the priest ; it is apparent that the Shita Mekubetzet understood Rashi there differently from what was explained above, and there is no need to elaborate. In any event, according to the Shita Mekubetzet, certainly if the loaves were considered as though they were already broken, they would be disqualified even if he had made four completely baked loaves. This teaches us

that even with regard to the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering, this degree of baking is sufficient, and the loaf is not considered broken, since it has not yet actually broken.

It teaches us

that even with regard to the loaves of a todah this measure suffices, and it is not considered broken, since it has not yet actually broken.

It was stated:

There may be only forty loaves for a todah; one may neither add to them nor subtract from them. And if there was

a todah that he slaughtered with eighty loaves, that is,

he brought eighty loaves to the Temple courtyard:

that were fit for a thanksgiving-offering

Ḥizkiya said: Forty

loaves fit for a todah

were sanctified from

the eighty that he designated. It is uncertain which of them were sanctified; therefore, all of them are eaten according to the stringency applicable to the loaves of a todah, for one day and the following night.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They did not sanctify

even

forty from

the

eighty,

and he did not fulfill his vow.

Rabbi Zeira said

to explain the manner in which they disagree:

Everyone—

both Ḥizkiya and Rabbi Yoḥanan—

agrees:

a.

Where he said:

“Let only forty

loaves

from

the

eighty be sanctified,”

that is, if he intended that only forty become sanctified, and brought the rest as substitutes, so that if these were lost, those would replace them—everyone agrees that

forty from the eighty were sanctified, and all of them are subject to uncertainty.

b.

b.

Where he said: “Let forty not become sanctified unless eighty become sanctified,”

that is, if he did not intend that forty become sanctified without all eighty becoming sanctified, as we ascertained from him when he said, “I intended all of them”—

everyone agrees that

everyone agrees that

none of them became sanctified at all.

They disagree when he made no specification,

that is, he slaughtered without specifying his intention and left:

One master—

Ḥizkiya—

held:

He did not intend that all eighty become sanctified; rather,

he intended them as substitutes,

so that if these were lost, he would bring those.

And the other master held: He intended

for a larger offering

of eighty loaves, and this is impossible; therefore none of them became sanctified.

this, which is impossible, and therefore none of them became consecrated.

Abaye said

Abaye said

to explain the reason for their dispute differently:

The knife with which the sacrifice is slaughtered is a consecrated vessel, and it is what sanctifies the bread accompanying the sacrifice.

with regard to

Everyone agrees that he intended a large offering,

and they disagree whether

consecrated vessels—

the knife—

sanctify

that which is fit for them

without

the knowledge of

the owner of the offering:

One master—Ḥizkiya—

held: Consecrated vessels sanctify without the knowledge of the owner; although his intention concerned all eighty, nevertheless the consecrated vessels sanctify that which is fit for them, and forty from the eighty became sanctified.

And the other master—Rabbi Yoḥanan—

held: Consecrated vessels do not sanctify without the knowledge of the owner; and since his intention concerned all eighty, the forty alone did not become sanctified.

held: Ministering vessels do not consecrate without the owner’s knowledge.

Since his intention was directed toward all eighty, the forty alone did not become consecrated.

Rav Pappa said

Rav Pappa said

to explain their dispute differently:

Everyone agrees that he intended a large offering, and

everyone agrees that the other

consecrated vessels,

apart from the knife,

sanctify

that which is fit for them

without the owner’s knowledge; and here, specifically, they disagree with regard to the knife

alone

they disagree:

One master—

Ḥizkiya—

held:

Even the

knife sanctifies as do the other

consecrated vessels,

consecrated vessels

that which is fit for it, even without the owners’ knowledge.

And the other master—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

held: The knife, since it has no

interior

within it [

a receptacle ], whereas the other consecrated vessels sanctify only through their interiors, but the Torah introduced a special innovation concerning the knife, that it sanctifies even without an interior; therefore

it does not sanctify, as do the other

consecrated

vessels,

that which is fit for it without the owner’s knowledge.

There are those who say: Rav Pappa

said

as follows,

to give the knife an advantage over the other consecrated vessels:

Everyone agrees:

The other

consecrated vessels sanctify only with knowledge,

but

here they disagree with regard to the knife:

One master—

Ḥizkiya—

held: The knife is more powerful [

stronger and superior ]

than

the other

consecrated vessels

with regard to sanctifying without knowledge,

as

indeed,

although it has no interior,

the Torah nevertheless introduced the innovation that

it sanctifies; therefore it is also superior in sanctifying without knowledge.

And the other master—

Rabbi Yoḥanan—

held: The knife is not more powerful

for it

than

the other

consecrated vessels

with regard to sanctifying without knowledge.

in its ability to consecrate without the owner’s knowledge.

A. One who slaughters the offering with the intention of sprinkling its blood or burning upon the altar something fit to be burned outside the Temple courtyard, or of eating from it something fit to be eaten outside the place designated for its eating—this is machshevet hamakom, “the intention concerning the place.” Offerings in which one entertained this intention are called “offerings slaughtered outside their designated place.”

B. One who slaughters the offering with the intention of sprinkling its blood after the sun has set, when it is not the time for sprinkling its blood; or of burning from it something fit to be burned on the following day, after dawn has broken, when it is not the time for burning it; or of eating from it something fit to be eaten after the time designated for its eating—this is machshevet hazman, “the intention concerning the time.” Offerings in which one entertained this intention are called “offerings slaughtered outside their designated time,” and everywhere they are called piggul. This is the piggul mentioned in the Torah; [based on the wording of Rambam, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 13:1].

C. One who eats from offerings slaughtered outside their designated time is liable to karet; but one who eats from offerings slaughtered outside their designated place is not liable to karet.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses several circumstances in which the todah is invalid: what is the status of the loaves?

A. If he

slaughtered

the todah with the intention of eating it

outside its designated time

[which is one day and one night],

and outside its designated place

[or he intended to eat it outside its designated place, meaning outside Jerusalem]—

the loaves became consecrated

to become invalid as well—

But if he

slaughtered

the todah

and it was found to be a tereifa

and therefore invalid as an offering,

the loaves did not become consecrated.

If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They became consecrated

the loaves.

And the Sages say: They did not become consecrated

the loaves.

If he slaughtered

the todah

not for its own sake—

and likewise the ram of the inauguration

which was brought with loaves, and whose slaughter consecrated the loaves that accompanied it—

and likewise the two sheep of Shavuot

which were brought with the two loaves, and whose slaughter consecrated them—

if he slaughtered them

all of these

not for their own sake, the loaves did not become consecrated

that accompanied them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he slaughtered it outside its designated time and outside its designated place, the loaves became consecrated; if he slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa, the loaves did not become consecrated; if he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish, Rabbi Eliezer says: They became consecrated, and the Sages say: They did not become consecrated:

The Gemara explains:

Whose opinion is reflected in our Mishna,

that is, whose view does our Mishna follow?

It is Rabbi Meir

as it was taught:

This is the principle

with regard to an invalid todah concerning the consecration of the loaves:

Anything whose invalidation precedes slaughter does not consecrate the loaves;

but if

its invalidation occurs after slaughter

—or at the time of slaughter—

it consecrates the loaves;

for example:

If he slaughtered

the todah with the intention of eating it

outside its designated time

and outside its designated place: the loaves became consecrated,

for its invalidation did not precede the slaughter.

If he slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa, the loaves did not become consecrated

for its invalidation preceded the slaughter.