Nedarim 12b — the Talmud in English

But the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

from the forty loaves—only

after the sprinkling of the blood is it

made, for at that time all the prohibitions of the offering lapse, and then it becomes permitted for consumption by the priests; therefore, the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering is customarily separated only after the sprinkling of the blood.

And once the blood has been sprinkled, the loaves are no longer forbidden on account of a “davar ha-nadur,” as an offering, but only on account of a “davar ha-asur” for an Israelite, like teruma from grain, which is considered a davar ha-asur and not a davar ha-nadur, since it is permitted for consumption by priests and forbidden to Israelites.

And if so, necessarily, one who makes an object forbidden by associating it with the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering is prohibited only because he associates it with the original state—that is, with the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering before the sprinkling of the blood, when they are forbidden with the prohibition of consuming an offering before the sprinkling of its blood, on account of their being the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, and their status is that of an offering, whose prohibition is in the category of a davar ha-nadur; therefore, it is possible to associate an object with them!

And Rav Huna son of Rav Natan rejects the proof:

Say

that the statement should be emended, and instead of “the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering” it should read:

like the teruma of the Temple chamber.

That is, the shekels that they would “contribute” into three boxes from all the money found in the “chamber” [in the Temple courtyard, beside the Temple].

In the chamber they would gather all the shekels received year after year from the contribution of the half-shekel by the Jewish people, and with the money in the boxes, which was “contributed” from all the shekels in the chamber, they would purchase communal offerings.

And it follows that one who makes an object forbidden by associating it with the “teruma of the Temple chamber” is indeed associating it with the present state, with property that now possesses the sanctity of an offering, which is a davar ha-nadur, and therefore he is

forbidden.

But the Gemara raises an objection:

But

one who makes an object forbidden by associating it with the

teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—what

is its law, in your opinion, since he associates it with the present state?—

Permitted.

For now the loaves do not possess the sanctity of an offering.

If so, it should be difficult:

let it teach

in our Mishna that one who makes an object forbidden by associating it

with the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

after the sprinkling of the blood is permitted.

And there is a greater novelty in this matter than in the law that one who makes an object forbidden by associating it with teruma or with challa is permitted—for although originally these loaves possessed the sanctity of an offering, which is a “davar ha-nadur,” nevertheless the object that he now associates with the teruma of the loaves is not forbidden. Since he associates it with the present state, and now the loaves from which the teruma was taken do not possess the sanctity of an offering, but they have only the law of consumption: that they are permitted for consumption by priests and not by Israelites.

And all the more so,

one who makes an object forbidden by associating it with

his teruma

that he separated from grain is permitted, since teruma of grain is never a davar ha-nadur. For even originally, when the grain was tevel, it was not considered a davar ha-nadur, but a davar ha-asur!

And we answer: The loaves of the teruma of the thanksgiving-offering are also included in what the Mishna later said: “like Aaron’s challa and like his teruma.”

And

this teaches us

that the Mishna included them within the category of teruma, that

the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

is included within

his teruma!

And if you wish, say: The teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, too, -

It is possible that

it is before the sprinkling of the blood

that it is made.

And

for example, that he separated them

the loaves of teruma from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering already

at

the time of

kneading

the dough, when the blood of the thanksgiving-offering had still not been sprinkled, and it follows that the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering possessed the sanctity of an offering, which is a davar ha-nadur.

And the Gemara proves that it is possible to separate the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering at such an early stage—

And is it not that which Rav Tovi bar Kisna said in the name of Shmuel: If one baked the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering as four loaves

from the four types of loaves of the thanksgiving-offering—

he has fulfilled his obligation.

And now the Gemara discusses Shmuel’s statement, and proves that necessarily his statement must be established as referring to a case in which he separated the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering at the time of kneading:

And we inquire concerning Shmuel’s statement:

But it is written “

forty

loaves,” and how could Shmuel say that it is possible to bake the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering as four loaves? And his statement must be explained as follows: the requirement to bake forty separate loaves is only the law initially,

for

the fulfillment of the

mitzva.

But after the fact, one fulfills the obligation even when baking them as four loaves.

But it is still necessary to raise an objection against Shmuel’s statement:

How can it be possible to bake four loaves from four types and thereby fulfill the obligation after the fact?

But it is necessary to take teruma!

For it is necessary to take four loaves from the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering for the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [for one is obligated to separate one loaf from every ten loaves], and how is it possible to take teruma of four loaves from four loaves!?

And should you say that he takes

perhaps you will say, in order to answer, that he can take

one loaf

one loaf from among the four loaves and separate it as teruma

for all of them.

This cannot be said. For it follows that the loaf that he separates as teruma is only one type of loaf from among the four types of the thanksgiving-offering—

But did we not learn:

It is written concerning the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering [Leviticus 7],

“one from each offering”—

the verse teaches

that he may not take from one offering

one and separate it

for its fellow!

Rather, he must take from each and every one of the four types of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering a loaf of that type—

And should you say that he takes

perhaps you will say, in order to answer Shmuel’s statement, that he cuts

a piece from each one

from the four loaves, and separates the four pieces from the four types for the four loaves.

This cannot be said. For—

But did we not learn:

“

one”—that he must take one whole loaf as teruma—

he may not take a piece!

Rather,

necessarily, Shmuel’s statement is referring to a case in which

he separated

the loaves of teruma of the thanksgiving-offering

at

the time of

kneading,

while he was kneading the dough.

For he takes one

piece of dough

from

the dough of the loaf of

leavened bread, and one

piece of dough

from

the dough of the

loaves, and one

piece of dough

from

the dough of the

flat loaves, and one

piece of dough

from

the dough of the

scalded loaf.

That is, he takes a piece of dough from each of the four loaves, in which case the piece of dough is not considered a “piece” from a loaf, and he separates the four pieces of dough from the four types of dough as teruma.

And afterward he bakes the four portions of dough as four loaves of the thanksgiving-offering, from four types.

And likewise he bakes separately the four pieces of dough in his possession as four loaves of the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering.

And it follows that he has four loaves baked as teruma in his possession, and they do not have the deficiency of a “piece.”

And since we have established Shmuel’s statement as referring to one who separated the loaves of teruma of the thanksgiving-offering while they were still dough, at the time of kneading, we have found that the teruma of the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering is separated before the sprinkling of the blood of the thanksgiving-offering.

And now the Gemara discusses whether the dispute between Rava and Rav Huna son of Rav Natan—whether one associates an object with the original state or with the present state—is a dispute among tannaim:

Shall we say that it is a dispute among tannaim?

For it was taught: One who says:

“It is incumbent upon me like a firstborn”—

Rabbi Yaakov prohibits, and Rabbi Yehuda permits.

And we inquire concerning it:

What are the circumstances?

In what manner did they disagree?

If we say

that the beraita is speaking of one who associates meat or a loaf of bread and explicitly says that he associates it with the meat of a firstborn

before the sprinkling of the blood—

what is the reason of the one who permits? For a firstborn is an offering, and it follows that he is associating the object with an offering!

After all, a firstborn animal is an offering, and it follows that he is associating the object with an offering!

And if

the case is one who explicitly associates the object with the meat of a firstborn

after the sprinkling of the blood,

when it is permitted for consumption—

what is the reason of the one who prohibits?

Rather, is it not

that the beraita is speaking of a case such as: