Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 156:24

דתניא זה הכלל כל שפיסולו קודם שחיטה לא קדש הלחם פיסולו אחר שחיטה קדש הלחם שחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה קדש הלחם שחטה ונמצאת טריפה לא קדש הלחם

was to ensure the prescribed number,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If for some reason it should happen that as many as forty loaves become unfit or are lost, the remaining loaves should replace them. At no time, however, was it ever intended that more than forty loaves should be offered with the thank-offering.');">²⁴</span> while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">²⁵</span> holds the view that his intention was to provide a large offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But this is not permissible, hence none of the loaves are hallowed.');">²⁶</span> Abaye said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text is somewhat uncertain and the reading adopted is that of Rashi and Sh. Mek. and of many MSS. Cur edd. add at the beginning of Abaye's words: 'All agree that his intention was to provide a large offering'. Var. lec. to ensure the prescribed number'.');">²⁷</span> They differ as to whether vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The knife used for slaughtering the thank-offering is the vessel of ministry that hallows the loaves; but in this case as there are more than the prescribed number of loaves and there is no specific statement by the owner as to his intention, the question is whether the knife automatically hallows forty out of the eighty loaves or not.');">²⁸</span> one Master is of the opinion that vessels of ministry hallow even in the absence of the [owner's] intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence forty loaves are hallowed; so Hezekiah.');">²⁹</span> while the other Master holds the view that vessels of ministry do not hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the view of R. Johanan. If it is assumed for the argument. as it is indeed stated in some texts (v. supra n. 9) , that all hold that the ,gsn tka owner's intention was to provide a large offering, then the expression should be rendered 'against the owner's intention' and not 'in the absence of the owner's intention.');">³⁰</span> R'Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention, but they differ only as to the knife; one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hezekiah.');">³¹</span> is of the opinion that the knife hallows just as any vessel of ministry while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">³²</span> holds the view that it does not hallow like any other vessel of ministry, since it has no receptacle. Others quote [R'Papa] in this form: R'Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry only hallow with the [owner's] intention, but they differ as to the knife; one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hezekiah.');">³¹</span> holds that the knife is more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry, seeing that it hallows even though it has no receptacle;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly it will also hallow even in the absence of the owner's intention.');">³³</span> whilst the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">³²</span> holds that the knife is no more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING [INTENDING TO EAT THEREOF] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the offering is piggul ('rejected', 'abhorred') , and whosoever eats thereof incurs the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.) .');">³⁴</span> OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the offering is invalid, and whosoever eats thereof incurs stripes but not the penalty of kareth.');">³⁵</span> THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the principle that if the offering first became invalid in the Temple at the time of the slaughtering the bread is hallowed. V. Gemara, and Zeb. 84a.');">³⁶</span> IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this defect obviously befell it before the slaughtering, in fact, before it was brought in the Temple.');">³⁷</span> IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A BLEMISH, R'ELIEZER SAYS, THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, AND SO, TOO, IF THE RAM OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING OR THE TWO LAMBS OFFERED AT PENTECOST WERE SLAUGHTERED UNDER ANOTHER NAME, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>In accordance with whose view is the ruling in our Mishnah? -It is in accordance with the view of R'Meir; for it was taught: This is the general rule: If the disqualifying defect befell [the thank-offering] before the slaughtering, the bread is not hallowed; (if after the slaughtering, the bread is hallowed).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is omitted in all the MSS., and is not found in Tosef. Men. VIII, whence this Baraitha is taken. The statement is in fact misleading for what it really means to imply is that if the disqualifying defect did not befall it before the slaughtering the bread is hallowed.');">³⁸</span> Thus if he slaughtered it [intending to eat thereof] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is hallowed; if he slaughtered it and it was found to be trefah, the bread is not hallowed.

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 156:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.