Menachot 200

when Sabbath eve<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the night of the twilight (of the Sabbath eve) ', i.e. Friday night.');">¹</span> approaches let it then become hallowed and also invalidated!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the night is considered 'in time' as on the day itself, then the bread and the frankincense should become hallowed on the Friday night, and after seven full days, i.e., on the Sabbath morning after the second Friday night, the bread should become invalid. According to our Mishnah, however, the bread may be eaten the whole of the second Sabbath day until midnight!');">²</span>

- Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In MS.M. and in the parallel passage in Yoma: 'Rabina'.');">³</span> said, We must assume that he had removed it before then.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest had removed the bread and the frankincense on the Friday just before the Sabbath set in and had replaced it at its proper time on the Sabbath.');">⁴</span>

Mar Zutra, or as some say, R'Ashi said, You may even assume that he had not removed it before then, since, however, he had set it down not in accordance with its prescribed rite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is out of time, being set down six days too soon.');">⁵</span> it is as though a monkey had set it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the table will not hallow it as soon as the Sabbath eve approaches neither will the Sabbath day itself hallow it, but the priest will have to enter on the morrow, remove it and replace it anew, and only then will the table hallow it. Where, however, the handful was taken from the meal-offering at night and put into a vessel of ministry, since night is not considered 'out of time', the vessel will hallow it; v. Yoma (Sonc. ed.) p. 138 and notes.');">⁶</span>

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE TWO LOAVES WERE EATEN NEVER EARLIER THAN ON THE SECOND DAY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the baking.');">⁷</span> AND NEVER LATER THAN ON THE THIRD DAY.

HOW IS THIS EXPLAINED? [NORMALLY] THEY WERE BAKED ON THE DAY BEFORE THE FESTIVAL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Feast of Weeks or Pentecost.');">⁸</span>

AND EATEN ON THE FESTIVAL, THAT IS, ON THE SECOND DAY. IF THE FESTIVAL FELL ON THE DAY AFTER THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Two Loaves would then be baked on the Friday, since the baking does not override the Sabbath.');">⁹</span>

THEY WOULD BE EATEN ON THE THIRD DAY. THE SHEWBREAD WAS EATEN NEVER EARLIER THAN ON THE NINTH DAY AND NEVER LATER THAN ON THE ELEVENTH DAY.

HOW IS THIS EXPLAINED? [NORMALLY] IT WAS BAKED ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH AND EATEN ON THE SABBATH [OF THE FOLLOWING WEEK], THAT IS ON THE NINTH DAY.

IF A FESTIVAL FELL ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Shewbread would then be baked before the Festival, on Thursday.');">¹⁰</span> IT WOULD THEN BE EATEN ON THE TENTH DAY.

IF THE TWO DAYS OF THE NEW YEAR [FELL BEFORE THE SABBATH],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It would then be baked on Wednesday. The Festival of the New Year was generally kept two days, even in Palestine. V. R.H. 30b.');">¹¹</span> IT WOULD THEN BE EATEN ON THE ELEVENTH DAY.

[THE BAKING] OVERRIDES NEITHER THE SABBATH NOR THE FESTIVAL. R'SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS IN THE NAME OF R'SIMEON, SON OF THE DEPUTY [HIGH PRIEST], IT OVERRIDES THE FESTIVAL BUT NOT THE FAST-DAY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Day of Atonement. Where the Day of Atonement fell on a Friday the Shewbread was then baked on a Thursday.');">¹²</span>

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Rabina said, According to him who rules that offerings in fulfilment of a vow and freewill-offerings may not be offered on a Festival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Bez. 20b.');">¹³</span> you should not say that Biblically they are allowed [to be offered] but the Rabbis forbade them only as a precautionary measure lest one defer [those offerings until the Festival],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One would thus be accumulating work specially for the Festival; moreover the owner may be prevented by some unforeseen circumstance from offering them on the Festival and will then have failed in the fulfilment of his obligations.');">¹⁴</span>

but even Biblically they are not allowed [to be offered]; for the Two Loaves are obligatory for that day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Feast of Weeks.');">¹⁵</span> so that there is no reason to apprehend lest one defer [them until the Festival],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they can in no wise be brought before the prescribed day. ohns ,ause');">¹⁶</span>

yet [our Mishnah] states: [THE BAKING] OVERRIDES NEITHER THE SABBATH NOR THE FESTIVAL. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF MEAL-OFFERINGS AND DRINK-OFFERINGS BECAME UNCLEAN BEFORE THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL [OF MINISTRY]. THEY MAY BE REDEEMED;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For an offering so long as it has not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry is holy only for its value, and may be redeemed; ;udv ,ause once it has been hallowed in a vessel of ministry it becomes holy in itself, and may not be redeemed.');">¹⁷</span> IF [THEY BECAME UNCLEAN] AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL, THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED. BIRD-OFFERINGS, THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE, AND THE VESSELS OF MINISTRY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So all MS.S. Cur. edd. add: After they have become unclean.');">¹⁸</span> MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, FOR THE RULE OF REDEMPTION APPLIES ONLY TO [OFFERINGS OF] CATTLE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Samuel said, Even though they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. meal-offerings and drink-offerings.');">¹⁹</span> are clean they may be redeemed, for so long as they have not been hallowed in a vessel of ministry they are holy only as to their value, and whatsoever is holy as to its value may be redeemed. But have we not learnt [in our Mishnah] BECAME UNCLEAN? - The rule is the same even though they were not unclean, but because the Tanna wished to state the next clause, AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED, in which case even though they were unclean they still may not be redeemed, he therefore stated in the first clause, BECAME UNCLEAN. IF [THEY BECAME UNCLEAN] AFTER THEY WERE HALLOWED IN A VESSEL, THEY MAY NOT BE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to MS.M., Sh. Mek. and Z.K. This is a new passage introduced by a separate Mishnah heading.');">²⁰</span> But this is obvious, for they are holy in themselves! - It was necessary to be stated, for I might have argued that since what is blemished is described as unclean, then surely what is unclean should be like that which is blemished; and therefore as that which has become blemished may be redeemed even though it was holy in itself, so this too may be redeemed; we are therefore taught that the Divine Law did not describe what is blemished as unclean in that sense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unclean after having been hallowed in a vessel of ministry.');">²¹</span>