Commentary for Menachot 94:21

ת"ר שחט שני כבשים על ארבע חלות מושך שתים מהן ומניפן

- Was not R'Giddal's statement refuted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His statement was indeed refuted, v. Me'il. 3b. The position is now that R. Papa's objection stands good, and so it is not known for certain according to whose view did R. Samuel b. Isaac raise his question.');">¹⁷</span> R'Jeremiah enquired of R'Zera: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name and then the [Two] Loaves were lost, may the blood be sprinkled now under another name<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as an ordinary peace-offering. To sprinkle the blood under their own name as lambs of Pentecost would not render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering.');">¹⁸</span> so that the flesh be permitted to be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the absence of the loaves the lambs can be regarded as peace-offerings.');">¹⁹</span> - He replied, Do you know of any offering which if offered under its own name is invalid but under another name is valid? But is there not? What of a Passover-offering offered before midday, which if offered under its own name is invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the proper time to offer the Passover lamb is after midday on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan; cf. Ex. XII, 6.');">²⁰</span> but under another name<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as an ordinary peace-offering. To sprinkle the blood under their own name as lambs of Pentecost would not render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering.');">¹⁸</span> is valid? - [He replied,] This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which was at one time fit to be offered under its own name but was rejected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the loss of the loaves.');">²¹</span> from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the Passover-offering after midday?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was available at the proper time and yet if held over till after the festival and offered under its own name as a Passover-offering is invalid, but if offered as a peace-offering is valid. The text adopted here is that of MS.M., which agrees with that in Rashi and in Sh. Mek.');">²²</span> - This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which at one time was fit to be offered under its own name, and indeed was slaughtered under its own name, but was rejected from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one of the cakes of the thank-offering was broken after the slaughtering of the animal, the blood is sprinkled as though it were a peace-offering, and not a thank-offering, and the flesh may be eaten; v. supra p. 278. Here then the thank-offering was slaughtered under its own name, was rejected from being offered under its own name, and yet is valid if offered under another name; contra R. Zera.');">²³</span> - It is different with the thank-offering for the Divine Law referred to it as a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 15. And as the peace-offering is offered without the accompaniment of loaves, the thank-offering also may be offered under its own name even without the loaves. In other words the offering of the thank-offering as a peace-offering is not regarded as offering it under another name.');">²⁴</span> Our Rabbis taught: If the two lambs were slaughtered [accompanied] by four loaves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the prescribed two loaves.');">²⁵</span> two of them should be selected and waved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is an essential rite to wave the loaves with the lambs both before and after the slaughtering of the lambs; v. infra 61a.');">²⁶</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 94:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.