Menachot 91

שאם הוזקקו זה לזה שמעכבין זה את זה ואיזה הוא זיקה שלהן שחיטה

that if they were attached to each other the [absence of] one invalidates the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the two loaves and the two lambs were together in the Sanctuary intended and ready for the Festival-offering, that fact attached them to each other; and therefore if one kind, either the loaves or the lambs, was lost, the remaining kind may not be offered, but must be taken away to be burnt.');">¹</span>

אמר עולא בעו במערבא תנופה עושה זיקה או אינו עושה זיקה

And what creates this attachment? - It is the slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the loaves were in the Sanctuary at the time of the slaughtering of the lambs they at once become attached to each other, and one may not be offered without the other.');">²</span>

פשוט ליה מדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן שחיטה עושה זיקה מכלל דתנופה אינו עושה זיקה

'Ulla reported that in the West [Palestine] the following question was raised: Does the waving<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is prior to the slaughtering, for the two lambs were waved before the Lord whilst still living together with the two loaves, v. Lev. XXIII, 20.');">³</span>

דר' יוחנן גופא קא מיבעיא ליה מיפשט פשיטא ליה לרבי יוחנן דשחיטה עושה זיקה ותנופה אינו עושה זיקה או דלמא שחיטה פשיטא ליה ותנופה מספקא ליה תיקו

create any attachment or not? - But surely this can be solved from the foregoing statement of R'Johanan, for since R'Johanan said that the slaughtering creates the attachment, it follows that the waving does not! - That very statement of R'Johanan gave rise to doubts, viz. , Was R'Johanan certain that the slaughtering creates an attachment and that the waving does not, or was he certain only about the slaughtering, but about the waving he was in doubt? - This remains undecided.

א"ל ר' יהודה בר חנינא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע והא כי כתיב (ויקרא כג, כ) קודש יהיו לה' לכהן בתר תנופה כתיב ופליגי בן ננס ור' עקיבא

R'Judah B'Hanina said to R'Huna the son of R'Joshua, Behold, the verse, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest', is written after the rite of waving, nevertheless Ben Nanos and R'Akiba differ!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether it is the lambs that may be offered in the absence of the loaves or vice versa, but one may certainly be offered without the other; it is evident, therefore, that the waving stated at the beginning of the verse in question creates no attachment whatsoever between the lambs and the loaves.');">⁴</span>

וליטעמיך בתר תנופה ולא בתר שחיטה

- But according to your view, too, [this same argument can be put forward, for is the verse written] only after the rite of waving and not after the slaughtering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This verse clearly relates to the time after the slaughtering, for only then can they be considered for the priest, and yet they differ as to which is indispensable; hence the argument could be adduced to prove that even the slaughtering does not create any attachment.');">⁵</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימרא מעיקרא קאי ומאי קדש יהיו לה' לכהן דבר שסופו לכהן הכא נמי דבר שסופו לכהן

You have therefore no alternative but to say that [the rule contained in this verse]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that one may be offered without the other.');">⁶</span>

ושחיטה עושה זיקה ורמינהי עד שלא שחטה נפרס לחמה יביא לחם אחר ושוחט

applies to the early stage of the offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the slaughtering.');">⁷</span>

מששחטה נפרס לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול

and that the verse, 'They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest', is to be understood in the sense that later on they will be for the priest; then one c say the same here, too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the rule that one may be offered without the other relates only to the early stage of the offering, namely, before the waving, for the waving, it may be said, creates an attachment.');">⁸</span>

נזרק הדם תורם מן השלם על הפרוס

that only later on they will be for the priest.

עד שלא שחטה יצא לחמה מכניסה ושוחט

And does the slaughtering create any attachment?

מששחטה יצא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול נזרק הדם תורם ממה שבפנים על שבחוץ

But the following contradicts it, for it was taught: If a cake<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the four kinds of bread which accompanied the thank-offering v. Lev. VII, 22,23.');">⁹</span>

עד שלא שחטה נטמא לחמה מביא לחם אחר ושוחט מששחטה נטמא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו יצא שהציץ מרצה על הטמא והלחם פסול

broke<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The disqualifying effect of a broken loaf is derived according to Rashi from the Shewbread (v. Rashi) .');">¹⁰</span>

נזרק הדם תורם מן הטהור על הטמא

before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offerer of the thank-offering.');">¹¹</span>

ואי ס"ד שחיטה עושה זיקה כיון דהוזקקו זה לזה בשחיטה איפסיל ליה לחם תיפסל נמי תודה

should bring another cake and then the offering may be slaughtered.

שאני תודה דרחמנא קרייה שלמים מה שלמים קרבים בלא לחם אף תודה קרבה בלא לחם

If the cake broke after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an ordinary peace-offering and not as a thank-offering.');">¹²</span>

א"ר ירמיה אם תמצא לומר תנופה עושה זיקה אבד הלחם

and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., none of the cakes may be eaten. V. Rashi.');">¹³</span> If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake broke], he must give as the priestly offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priestly share of the bread-offering was one out of every ten cakes; moreover what he received had to be whole and not broken; v. infra 77b.');">¹⁴</span> a whole cake in place of the broken one. If a cake had been taken outside<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Outside the walls of Jerusalem.');">¹⁵</span> before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, it should be brought in again and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake had been taken outside after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not thereby fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid. If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake had been taken outside], he must give as the priestly offering a cake which had remained inside in place of that which had been taken outside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When giving the tenth part to the priest the broken cake or what was taken outside or what was unclean must be included in the total, although these particular cakes may not be given to the priest.');">¹⁶</span> If a cake had become unclean before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he should bring another cake and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake had become unclean after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten, and he has also fulfilled his vow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to MS.M.: 'He has not fulfilled his vow', and omitting 'for the plate . . unclean'; so also in Tosef. Men. VIII. This text is preferred vyjaan by Tosaf. s.v. , and by Sh. Mek.');">¹⁷</span> for the [High Priest's] plate renders acceptable the offering which became unclean; but the bread is invalid. If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake became unclean], he must give as the priestly offering a clean cake in place of that which had become unclean. Now if one were to hold that the slaughtering creates an attachment [between the animal offering and the cakes], then surely when this attachment has already been created by the slaughtering and thereafter the cakes become invalid, the thankoffering should also be invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the blood should not be permitted to be sprinkled even as a peace-offering.');">¹⁸</span> should it not? - The thank-offering is a special case, for Holy Writ refers to it as a peace-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 15.');">¹⁹</span> and as peace-offerings are offered without any bread-offering so the thank-offering too may be offered without the bread-offering. R'Jeremiah said, If you were to say that the waving creates an attachment, then it is clear that if the bread-offering was lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the waving.');">²⁰</span>