Menachot 156

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את התודה לפנים ולחמה חוץ לחומה לא קדש הלחם שחטה עד שלא קרמו פניה בתנור ואפילו קרמו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן לא קדש הלחם:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING WITHIN [THE TEMPLE COURT] AND THE BREAD THEREOF WAS OUTSIDE THE WALL [AT THE TIME]. THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי חוץ לחומה רבי יוחנן אמר חוץ לחומת בית פאגי וריש לקיש אמר חוץ לחומת העזרה

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN, OR EVEN IF ALL EXCEPT ONE HAD BECOME CRUSTED, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What does 'OUTSIDE THE WALL' mean? - R'Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth Page;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fortified suburb of Jerusalem (Jast.) . It formed the boundary of the city, hence 'outside the walls of Beth Page' is identical with outside hdc ,hc Jerusalem. V. Neubauer, Geog. 147-149. Maim. in his Com. on this Mishnah gives the interesting reading , explaining it as the place close dc to the Temple mount where the meal-offerings were prepared and baked. He thus connects this word with , Dan. I, 5, meaning food. kg');">¹</span>

ריש לקיש אמר חוץ לחומת העזרה בעינן על בסמוך

but Resh Lakish says, Outside the wall of the Temple court.' Resh Lakish says.

ורבי יוחנן אמר חוץ לחומת בית פאגי אבל חוץ לעזרה קדוש ולא בעינן על בסמוך

Outside the wall of the Temple court',for we must interpret 'al in the sense of 'near to'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'al in the verse, With ('al) cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering (Lev. VII, 13) implies that the cakes must be near the sacrifices, i.e., with it in the Temple court.');">²</span> R'Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth page', but [if it was] outside the wall of the Temple court it would be hallowed, for we need not interpret 'al in the sense of 'near to'.

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא

But have they not differed in this matter once already? For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 63b.');">³</span>

דתנן השוחט את הפסח על החמץ עובר בלא תעשה רבי יהודה אומר אף התמיד ואמר ריש לקיש לעולם אינו חייב עד שיהא או לשוחט או לזורק או לאחד מבני חבורה עמו בעזרה ורבי יוחנן אמר אף על פי שאין עמו בעזרה

If a man slaughters the Passover-offering with leaven In his possession, he transgresses a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition is: Thou shalt not slaughter the blood of My sacrifice' with ('al) leavened bread (Ex. XXIII, 18 and XXXIV, 25) .');">⁴</span> R'Judah says.

צריכא דאי איתמר בההיא בההיא קא אמר ר' יוחנן דכל היכא דאיתיה באיסורא קאי אבל לענין מקדש לחם אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש דאי איתיה בפנים קדוש אבראי לא קדוש

Also [if he so slaughters] the daily offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he slaughters the evening daily offering of the fourteenth of Nisan whilst having leaven in his possession. This is also prohibited, according to R. Judah, as being implied in the expression 'My sacrifice'. V. Prec. n.');">⁵</span> Whereupon Resh Lakish said, He is never culpable unless the leaven belongs to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles the blood or to any one of the members of the company,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Registered for this sacrifice.');">⁶</span>

ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן צריכא

and it is also with him in the Temple court;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resh Lakish holding that the term 'al in the verse quoted (v. n. 3) must be taken in the sense of 'near to'.');">⁷</span> but R'Johanan said, Even if it is not with him in the Temple court! - Both disputes are necessary.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן השוחט את התודה לפנים ולחמה חוץ לחומת בית פאגי לא קדש הלחם:

For if it were stated only there [in connection with the Passover-offering, I would say that] only there does R'Johanan [hold him culpable even though the leaven was not with him], for wherever it happens to be it is a prohibited matter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once the time for the removal of leaven has gone by.');">⁸</span> but as regards the hallowing of the bread I would say that he concurs with Resh Lakish, that if it is within the Temple court it is hallowed, but if outside it is not hallowed.

שחטה עד שלא קרמו פניה בתנור:

And if it were stated only here I would say that only here does Resh Lakish [insist that the bread in order to be hallowed must be within the Temple court], but there I would say that he concurs with R'Johanan [that he is culpable even though the leaven is not with him]. Hence both disputes are necessary.

מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ז, יג) על חלות לחם חמץ יקריב קרבנו על זבח מלמד שאין הלחם קדוש אלא אם כן קרמו פניה בתנור יקריב קרבנו על זבח מלמד שאין הלחם קדוש אלא בשחיטת הזבח זבח תודת מלמד שאם שחט שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם

There has been taught [a Baraitha] in accord with R'Johanan's view. If a man slaughtered the thank-offering within [the Temple court] and the bread thereof was outside the wall of Beth Page [at the time], the bread is not hallowed.

תנו רבנן יוצאין במצה נא ובמצה העשויה באילפס מאי מצה נא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שפורסה ואין חוטין נמשכין הימנה

IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN [. THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED].

אמר רבא וכן לענין לחמי תודה פשיטא הכא לחם כתיב והכא לחם כתיב

Whence is this derived? - From the following which our Rabbis taught: With cakes of leavened bread he shall present:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 13. The additional words 'his offering with the slaughtering' are deleted by Sh. Mek. as anticipating the next interpretation; they are omitted by Rashi. ojk');">⁹</span> this teaches that the bread is hallowed only if [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only then are the loaves regarded as 'bread'.');">¹⁰</span>

מהו דתימא אחד אמר רחמנא שלא יטול פרוס והא כמאן דפריסא דמיא קמשמע לן

[before the slaughtering of the sacrifice].' He shall present his offering with the slaughtering':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹¹</span>

איתמר תודה ששחטה על שמונים חלות חזקיה אמר קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים ורבי יוחנן אמר לא קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים

this teaches that the bread is hallowed only by the slaughtering of the sacrifice.' Th slaughtering of the thank-offering':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבי זירא הכל מודים היכא דאמר ליקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים קדשו אל יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן יקדשו שמונים לא קדשו כי פליגי בסתמא מר סבר לאחריות קא מיכוין ומר סבר לקרבן גדול קא מיכוין

this teaches that if he slaughtered [the thank-offering] under the name of another offering, the bread is not hallowed. Our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 37a.');">¹²</span>

אביי אמר דכולי עלמא (לאחריות) קא מיכוין ובכלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי מר סבר כלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת ומר סבר כלי שרת אין מקדשין שלא מדעת

One fulfils one's obligation [on the Passover] with unleavened bread partially baked, and with unleavened bread prepared in a stewing pot. What is meant by 'unleavened bread partially baked'? - Rab Judah explained in the name of Samuel, It is [any unleavened bread which] when broken has no threads dragging from it.

רב פפא אמר דכולי עלמא כלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת והכא בסכין קא מיפלגי מר סבר סכין מקדשת ככלי שרת [ומר סבר סכין כיון דלית ליה תוך אינה מקדשת ככלי שרת]

Raba said, And the same rule applies to the loaves of the thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the loaves must already be baked as much as this in order to be hallowed by the slaughtering of the thank-offering.');">¹³</span> Surely this is obvious, for here the expression 'bread' is used and there too the expression 'bread' is used!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 13 and Deut. XVI, 3. And surely what is regarded as bread for the Passover is regarded as bread for the thank-offering.');">¹⁴</span>

ואיכא דאמרי רב פפא אמר דכולי עלמא כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת והכא בסכין קא מיפלגי מר סבר סכין אלימא מכלי. שרת דאף על גב דלית ליה תוך מיקדשה ומר סבר סכין לא אלימא ליה מכלי שרת:

- You might think that since the Divine Law stated, One,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 14: And he shall present one out of each offering. V. supra p. 461.');">¹⁵</span> intimating that he may not take what is broken, such<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what is partially baked.');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה קדש הלחם שחטה ונמצאת טריפה לא קדש הלחם

is regarded as broken;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it would fall to pieces when handled, and therefore is not regarded as sufficiently baked for the purposes of the thank-offering.');">¹⁷</span> he therefore teaches us [that it is not so].

שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום ר' אליעזר אומר קידש וחכמים אומרים לא קידש

It was stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra. 48a, 'Er. 50a, Kid. 51a.');">¹⁸</span> If the thank-offering was slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the prescribed forty.');">¹⁹</span>

שחטה שלא לשמה וכן איל המילואים וכן שני כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם:

Hezekiah ruled, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the eighty loaves, however, must be eaten in conditions of sanctity since is it not known which are the forty hallowed loaves.');">²⁰</span> and R'Johanan ruled, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the offerer has not thereby fulfilled his obligation.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתניתין מני רבי מאיר

Said R'Zera, All agree that if he declared, 'Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed', they are hallowed; like- wise If he declared, 'The forty shall not be hallowed unless all the eighty are hallowed', they are not hallowed; they differ only where no specific statement was made: one Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hezekiah.');">²²</span> is of the opinion that his intention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In bringing eighty loaves.');">²³</span>

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.