Commentary for Yevamot 208:18

ומי אמר ר' עקיבא רקיקה לא פסלה והתניא חלצה ולא

the bread becomes consecrated. If they were not slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., not for their name'; i.e., if they were intended to be merely sacrifices, not specifically those prescribed for the Pentecost festival. ');">⁴⁵</span> though their blood was sprinkled for the proper purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span> the bread does not become consecrated. If they were slaughtered for the purpose of the festival sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for their name'. ');">⁴⁴</span> and their blood was sprinkled for another purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra n. 9. ');">⁴⁶</span> [the bread] is partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is subject to some, but not to all, of the restrictions of properly consecrated bread. ');">⁴⁷</span> so Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, however, stated: [The bread] is never consecrated unless the slaughtering [of the lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood were both intended for the proper purpose of the festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra note 8. Pes. 13b, Men. 47a. Thus it has been shewn that according to Rabbi, where two acts such as proper slaughtering and proper sprinkling are required, consecration is partially effected even though the former act alone was properly performed. Similarly, in respect of halizah, one of the prescribed acts is sufficient to render the woman unfit for the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁸</span> Did R. Akiba, however, hold that the act of spitting does not render the woman unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the levirate marriage. ');">⁴⁹</span> Surely it was taught: If she drew off [the levir's shoe] but did not

Explore commentary for Yevamot 208:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.