Commentary for Menachot 93:16

מיהו ר' אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ור"ע לטעמי' דאמ' זריקה מועלת ליוצא

Raba said, It is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten]. What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to Abaye too, since it is not completely hallowed it certainly may not be eaten. ohns ,ause');">⁶</span> - There is a difference between them as to whether redemption is effective; according to Abaye the redemption is effective, according to Raba it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The underlying principle is that whatever is consecrated only for its value () can be redeemed and its sanctity is thereby ;udv ,ause transferred to the money set aside for the purpose, whilst the thing itself becomes profane; but whatever is hallowed bodily () cannot be redeemed. Now, dealing with Rabbi's view, according to Abaye since the bread is not completely hallowed it may be redeemed; according to Raba, however, it is hallowed entirely, and therefore the redemption is of no effect. The text adopted is that which is preferred by Rashi. In cur. edd. the opinions are reversed, thus according to Abaye the redemption is ineffective etc.');">⁷</span> Now according to Raba there is clearly a difference of opinion between Rabbi and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon the redemption is effective and according to Rabbi it is not.');">⁸</span> but according to Abaye what difference is there between Rabbi and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both are of the opinion that the redemption is effective.');">⁹</span> - There is a difference between them as to whether it would become invalid if taken out [of the Sanctuary].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbi it would thereby become invalid but not so according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.');">¹⁰</span> R'Samuel B'R'Isaac enquired of R'Hiyya B'Abba: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, may the bread be eaten or not? According to whose view does this question arise? If [you say] according to R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, [then there is no question at all for] he holds that it is the sprinkling that hallows the bread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the bread has not been hallowed at all; obviously then it may not be eaten.');">¹¹</span> And if [you say] according to Rabbi, [then there is also no question about it for] whether one accepts the interpretation of Abaye or of Raba [the bread] is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1.');">¹²</span> The question can arise only according to the view of the following Tanna. For the father of R'Jeremiah B'Abba taught: If the Two Loaves were taken out [of the Sanctuary] between the slaughtering [of the two lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood, and subsequently [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the lambs [and expressed at the time the intention of eating the flesh] outside the prescribed time, R'Eliezer says, The bread is not subject to the law of piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> but R'Akiba says, The bread is subject to the law of piggul. And R'Shesheth said, Both these Tannaim agree with Rabbi that the slaughtering hallows the bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba and R. Eliezer therefore both agree that the bread becomes invalid by being taken out.');">¹⁴</span> but R'Eliezer maintains his view that the sprinkling has no effect upon what was taken out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the bread remains invalid but is not affected by the piggul intention expressed during the sprinkling.');">¹⁵</span> and R'Akiba his that the sprinkling has an effect upon what was taken out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in as much as the invalidity of the bread is due to an external cause (it having been taken out of the Sanctuary) and not to any defect inherent in it, the sprinkling can affect it, and as the wrongful intention expressed during the sprinkling renders the offering piggul, it also renders the bread piggul.');">¹⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 93:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.