Menachot 78b — the Talmud in English

A. The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering: once they have been sanctified by the mouth, they are sacred with the sanctity of their monetary value, to be forbidden in eating and benefit, but they have not been sanctified with bodily sanctity. And if they became impure, they are redeemed and go out to the unconsecrated; and the slaughtering of the sacrifice sanctifies them with bodily sanctity, so that they become disqualified through a tevul yom, through contact with one lacking atonement, and through overnight stay; and if they became impure, they are burned.

B. The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are eaten, like the thanksgiving-offering itself, throughout Jerusalem; and if they went outside their proper place after they had been sanctified with bodily sanctity, they became disqualified and are to be burned.

Mishna:

One who slaughters the thanksgiving-offering inside

in the Temple courtyard

and its loaves

of the thanksgiving-offering are found

outside the wall,

and it will be explained in the Gemara outside which wall:

the loaves are not sanctified

with bodily sanctity.

And likewise, if he

slaughtered

the thanksgiving-offering

before the loaves had formed a crust

of the thanksgiving-offering

in the oven,

and they were still not called “bread,” but rather dough,

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

the loaves are not sanctified

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

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who slaughters the thanksgiving-offering inside, while its loaves are outside the wall—the loaves are not sanctified:

The Gemara asks:

What does “outside the wall” mean,

outside the wall of what is the Mishna speaking?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Outside the wall of Beit Pagi

a place so called, which is attached from within 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 bring with the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering unleavened loaves mixed with oil.” And what the Torah said, “and he shall bring with the sacrifice,” comes to teach that the slaughtering sanctifies the loaves, and

we require

“

upon”

adjacent,

so that the loaves will be adjacent to the sacrifice 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 have gone out of Jerusalem they become disqualified by going out—

But

if the loaves were

outside the Temple courtyard,

they are

sanctified, and

because

we do not require

“

upon”

adjacent.

And we object:

But they already disputed this once before [and after all, they already disputed something similar on another occasion]!?

For we learned

in Pesachim 63a:

One who slaughters the Paschal-offering over leaven

when there is leaven belonging to the slaughterer or to one of the members of the group of that Paschal-offering, the slaughterer

transgresses a prohibition,

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the daily-offering

of the afternoon, which is slaughtered on Passover eve by one who possessed leaven—the slaughterer transgresses a prohibition, because the Torah said, “the blood of My sacrifice,” and this implies also: My sacrifice that is unique to Me, namely, the daily-offering.

And

concerning this

Reish Lakish said: He is never liable—

for the Paschal-offering—

until

the leaven is

either his

belonging to the slaughterer,

or belonging to the one who sprinkles

the blood of the Paschal-offering,

or belonging to one of the members of the group

of this Paschal-offering—

That is, one who slaughters the Paschal-offering while he possessed leaven, or one who sprinkles the blood of the Paschal-offering while he possessed leaven, and likewise these two cases when one of the members of the group possessed leaven, they are liable to lashes—

and

they are not lashed

until

the leaven is

with him—

with the slaughterer or the one who sprinkles—

in the Temple courtyard, because it is stated “over leaven,” and “over” implies adjacency.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even though the leaven is not

with the leaven

with him in the Temple courtyard,

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

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

And if so, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish need to dispute twice concerning whether “upon” must mean adjacent!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to state their dispute in these two cases, for one cannot learn one from the other:

For if it had been stated in that case,

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

In that case Rabbi Yohanan says

that he transgresses even though the leaven is not with him in the Temple courtyard, because

wherever it is found

wherever the leaven is found

it is in a state of prohibition

the owner of the leaven is transgressing in a state of prohibition, since the time for removing the leaven has already arrived.

But concerning sanctifying the loaves, say that he agrees with Reish Lakish, for if the loaves are

inside,

inside

in the Temple courtyard, indeed

sanctified

are the loaves; but if the loaves are

outside

outside the Temple courtyard,

they are not sanctified

the loaves.

And if it had been stated in this case,

if their dispute had been taught only concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, I would say:

In this case

concerning the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering alone,

Reish Lakish says

that we require it to be adjacent,

but in that case,

concerning the Paschal-offering over leaven, since wherever it is, it is in a state of prohibition,

say that he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan,

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

Therefore

it is necessary

to state their dispute in these two matters.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan

in the explanation of our Mishna:

If one slaughtered the thanksgiving-offering inside, and its bread outside

the wall of Beit Pagi, the bread was not consecrated

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

We learned in the Mishna:

If he slaughtered it before they formed a crust in the oven

the bread was not consecrated:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters?

And the Gemara explains,

for the Sages taught:

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

And the meaning of the verse

“upon cakes of leavened bread he shall bring”

teaches that the bread is not consecrated unless they have formed a crust on

its surface in the oven,

because as long as its surface has not formed a crust in the oven it is not called “bread”; and from this verse we learn that the bread is consecrated through the slaughtering of the sacrifice, as is explained in the continuation of the beraita.

And the meaning of the verse

“he shall bring his offering with the sacrifice” [

the expression refers to slaughtering ],

teaches that the bread is not consecrated

and called “his offering”

except through the slaughtering of the sacrifice.

And the meaning of the verse

“the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering

of his peace-offerings” teaches:

if he slaughtered it not for its purpose [

for the purpose of the thanksgiving-offering ],

the bread was not consecrated,

because this is the meaning of the verse: He shall bring his offering with a sacrifice that was slaughtered for the purpose of a thanksgiving-offering.

The Sages taught: One fulfills

the obligation of matza on Passover

with raw matza

that is not baked all that is required, and likewise

with matza made in a pan

[in a pot].

And we explain:

What is raw matza,

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Any [matza] that,

after its baking,

one can break, and no threads

—of dough—

are drawn out from it.

Rava said: And likewise with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

—as we learned in our Mishna: If he slaughtered it before they formed a crust in the oven, the bread was not consecrated—the measure is: that one can break it and no threads are drawn out from it.

And we challenge Rava: Is it not

obvious

that the measure of baking is the same for matza and for the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, since

here,

with regard to matza,

“bread”

[“bread of affliction”]

is written, and here,

with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

“bread”

is written; and if with regard to matza the measure of “bread” is when no threads are drawn out from it, then it is obvious that this is so with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering!?

And we answer: Rava needed to teach that this measure suffices with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, because

it might enter your mind to say:

“One,”

the Merciful One said,

with regard to the teruma, “he shall not take a broken one,”

and this—

“raw bread”—

resembles something already broken

[as though it were already broken], because since it is not baked properly, it breaks by itself; and if so, with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering this is not sufficient—

It teaches us

that even with regard to the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering this suffices, and it is not considered a broken one, since it has not yet actually become broken.

It was stated:

The loaves of the thanksgiving-offering are only forty loaves; one may neither add to them nor subtract from them. And if there was

a thanksgiving-offering that he slaughtered with eighty loaves,

that is to say,

he brought eighty loaves to the Temple courtyard:

Hezekiah said: Forty were consecrated

loaves fit for the thanksgiving-offering

from among

the

eighty

that he designated; and it is uncertain which of them are consecrated, and therefore all of them shall be eaten with the stringency of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, for one day and one night.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: They were not consecrated

even

forty from among

the

eighty,

and he did not fulfill his vow.

Rabbi Zeira said

to explain in what manner they disagreed:

Everyone—

both Hezekiah and Rabbi Yohanan—

agrees:

a.

Where he said:

“Let forty be consecrated

only

from among

the

eighty,”

that is to say, if he intended that only forty should become consecrated, and he brought the rest as replacements, so that if these were lost, those would be in their place—everyone agrees that

forty were consecrated from among the eighty, and all of them are uncertain.

b.

b. Where he said:

“Let forty not become consecrated unless eighty become consecrated,”

that is to say, if he did not intend that forty should become consecrated without all eighty becoming consecrated, as we examined him and he said, “I intended [the consecration] of all of them”—

Everyone agrees that

they were not consecrated

at all.

They disagree when he acted without specification,

when he slaughtered without specifying and went away:

One

—Hezekiah—

held:

He did not intend that all eighty should become consecrated, but

he intended them as replacements,

so that if these were lost he would bring those.

And the other held: He intended a large sacrifice

of eighty loaves

he intended,

and this is impossible; therefore they were not consecrated at all.

Abaye said

to explain the reason for their dispute in another manner:

The knife with which the sacrifice is slaughtered is a service vessel, and it is what consecrates the bread that accompanies the sacrifice.

For everyone intends a large sacrifice,

and

with a service vessel

—the knife—

they consecrate

the items fit for them

without the knowledge

of the owner of the sacrifice;

they disagree:

One

—Hezekiah—

held: Service vessels consecrate without knowledge,

and although his intention was for all eighty, nevertheless the service vessels consecrate what is fit for them, and forty from among eighty were consecrated.

And the other

—Rabbi Yohanan—

held: Service vessels do not consecrate without knowledge,

and since his intention was for all eighty, the forty alone were not consecrated.

Rav Pappa said

to explain their dispute in another manner:

Everyone intends a large sacrifice, and

everyone agrees that

the other

service vessels,

apart from the knife,

consecrate

what is fit for them

without knowledge; and here, with the knife,

specifically

they disagree:

One

—Hezekiah—

held:

Even

the knife consecrates, like

the other

service vessels,

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

And the other

—Rabbi Yohanan—

held: The knife, since it does not have

a receptacle

within it [

a receiving receptacle ], whereas the other service vessels consecrate only from within them, but it is a novel law that the Torah innovated concerning the knife, that it consecrates even not from within it, therefore

it does not consecrate, like

the other

service vessels,

what is fit for it without knowledge.

And there are those who say: Rav Pappa

said

thus,

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

Everyone agrees:

The other

service vessels consecrate only with knowledge, but

nevertheless

here they disagree concerning the knife:

One

—Hezekiah—

held: The knife is stronger

[stronger and superior]

than

the other

service vessels

for consecrating without knowledge,

for

behold,

although it has no receptacle,

nevertheless the Torah innovated that

it consecrates,

and therefore it is also superior in consecrating without knowledge.

And the other

—Rabbi Yohanan—

held: The knife is not stronger

for it

than

the other

service vessels

for consecrating without 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

она придерживается;

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.