Menachot 92

אבדו כבשים אבדו כבשים אבד הלחם

the lambs must be destroyed, and if the lambs were lost the bread must be destroyed. But if you were to say that the waving does not create an attachment, then in the case where the bread-offering and the lambs had been brought [into the Sanctuary] and after they had been waved together the bread was lost and other bread was brought in its place, the question would arise, must the second bread be waved or not?

ואם תמצא לומר תנופה אינה עושה זיקה הביא לחם וכבשים והונפו ואבד הלחם והביא לחם אחר אותו הלחם טעון תנופה או אינו טעון תנופה

Of course, if it was the lambs that were lost [and other lambs were brought in their place], there is no question at all that [the second pair of lambs] must be waved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Together with the two loaves, for in the first place, it is the lambs which render the two loaves permissible to be eaten, and secondly, the rite of waving is stated primarily of the lambs; cf. Lev. XXIII, 20.');">¹</span> The question can only arise when it was the bread that was lost.

אבדו כבשים לא תיבעי לך דודאי בעי תנופה כי תיבעי לך אבד הלחם

And again, according to Ben Nanos, who said that the lambs constitute the main part of the offering, this question cannot arise;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the lambs are still here and have once been waved nothing further is required.');">²</span> but it can only arise according to R'Akiba, who maintains that the bread constitutes the main part of the offering.

ואליבא דבן ננס לא תיבעי לך דאמר כבשים עיקר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר"ע דאמר לחם עיקר מאי

And the question is, Shall we say that since the bread constitutes th main part of the offering, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the second bread, brought as a substitute for the first which was lost.');">³</span> requires to be waved; or perhaps, since it is the lambs which render the bread permissible it does not require to be waved? - This must remain undecided.

כיון דלחם עיקר בעי תנופה או דלמא כיון דמתירין דידיה כבשים נינהו לא צריך תנופה תיקו

Abaye said to Raba, Why is it that the two lambs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered on the Feast of Weeks.');">⁴</span> hallow the bread and [their absence] renders [the bread] invalid, whereas the seven lambs and the bullock and the rams<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Offered on the Feast of Weeks.');">⁴</span>

אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא שני כבשים דמקדשי לחם ומעכבי ומאי שנא שבעה כבשים ופר ואילים דלא מקדשי לחם ולא מעכבי

do not hallow the bread and [their absence] does not render [the bread] invalid? - He replied, It is because they have become attached to each other by the waving.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two lambs must be waved before the Lord together with the two loaves.');">⁵</span> But take the case of the thank-offering, where [the animal-offering and the bread] are not attached to each other by any waving, and yet the one hallows the other and the [absence of] one invalidates the other! - Let us indeed compare it with the thank-offering, as the thank-offering is a peace-offering [and that alone hallows the bread] so here too it is the peace-offering [alone which hallows the bread].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the seven lambs, the bullock, and the rams are burnt-offerings.');">⁶</span>

אמר לי' הואיל והוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה והרי תודה דלא הוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה ומקדשא ומעכבא

But can we make this comparison? In that case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the thank-offering.');">⁷</span>

אלא כתודה מה תודה שלמים אף הכא נמי שלמים

there are no other offerings with it, but here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With regard to the offerings of the Feast of Weeks.');">⁸</span> since there is another kind of offering that goes with it, both kinds should hallow [the bread]? - We should, however, compare this case with the ram of the Nazirite; as with the ram of the Nazirite, although there are other offerings that go with it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Nazirite at the fulfilment of his period of consecration must bring a ram for a peace-offering as well as a male lamb for a burnt-offering and an ewe lamb for sin-offering, v. Num. VI, 14.');">⁹</span>

מי דמי התם ליכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה הכא דאיכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה ליקדשו הני והני

it is the peace-offering only and nothing else that hallows the bread, so it is in this case too. And whence do we know this there? - Because it is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M. and Sh. Mek. In cur. edd. 'For it was taught'.');">¹⁰</span>

אלא כאיל נזיר מה איל נזיר אע"ג דאיכא זבחים אחריני שלמים הוא דמקדשי מידי אחרינא לא הכא נמי לא שנא

And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17.');">¹¹</span> which teaches us that the basket [of bread] comes as an obligation for the ram, and the slaughtering of the ram hallows it.

והתם מנלן דתניא (במדבר ו, יז) ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות מלמד שהסל בא חובה לאיל ושחיטת איל מקדשן לפיכך שחטו שלא לשמו לא קדשו הלחם

Therefore, if it was slaughtered under the name of any other offering, the bread is not hallowed thereby. Our Rabbis taught: If the Two Loaves were brought alone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the two lambs were not available the loaves, according to R. Akiba, may be offered by themselves, since they constitute the main part of the Festival-offering.');">¹²</span>

תנו רבנן שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן יונפו ותעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה

they must [none the less] be waved, and then their appearance must be spoilt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they must be kept overnight whereby they become invalid and then are burnt, for it is forbidden to destroy an offering that is still valid.');">¹³</span> and they must be taken away to the place of burning.

מה נפשך אי לאכילה אתיין ליכלינהו אי לשריפה אתיין לשרפינהו לאלתר למה להו עיבור צורה

But say what you will, if they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the Two Loaves when brought without the lambs.');">¹⁴</span> are brought to be eaten then let them be eaten, and if they are brought to be burnt then let them be burnt immediately! Wherefore is it necessary that their appearance be spoilt? - Rabbah answered, Actually they are brought to be eaten but [they are forbidden to be eaten] as a precautionary measure lest in the following year, when they have the lambs, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the priests.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבה לעולם לאכילה אתיין גזירה שמא יזדמנו להן כבשים לשנה הבאה ויאמרו אשתקד לא אכלנו לחם בלא כבשים עכשיו נמי ניכול

might say, 'Last year did we not eat the loaves without offering the lambs? We can do the same this year', and they will not appreciate the fact that last year the loaves rendered themselves permissible because there were no lambs, but now that there are lambs it is the lambs that render them permissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But since the Two Loaves are in fact a valid offering they must not be destroyed unless they were first made invalid.');">¹⁶</span>

ואינהו לא ידעי דאשתקד לא הוו כבשים אינהו שריין נפשייהו השתא דאיכא כבשים כבשים הוא דשרו להו

Rabbah said, Whence do I arrive at this view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Two Loaves even when brought by themselves without the lambs, are offered to be eaten.');">¹⁷</span> Because we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. I, 4. V. supra p. 139 and the notes thereon.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתנן א"ר יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא

R'Judah said, Ben Bokri testified at Jabneh that a priest who paid the shekel has committed no sin. Rabban Johanan B'Zakkai said to him, Not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel has committed a sin.

אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן

The priests, however, used to expound the following verse to their advantage, And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');">¹⁹</span> Since the 'Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They argued that if they were to contribute the shekel for the public-offerings they would then have a share in the public-offerings, and as the priest's meal-offering must be burnt then it would follow that every meal-offering, e.g. the Shewbread, would be forbidden to be eaten, and this would be contrary to Scripture.');">²⁰</span>

(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו הן היאך נאכלין

Now what are the circumstances with regard to the Two Loaves referred to? If they are offered with the sacrifice then [the question will at once be asked], Do not the priests make a freewill-offering of a thank-offering and its loaves and also eat them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the priests' argument 'How can they be eaten?' cannot apply to this case.');">²¹</span>

הני שתי הלחם היכי דמי אילימא בבאות עם הזבח אטו תודה ולחמה מי לא מנדבי כהנים ואכלי להו

It must be that they are offered by themselves, yet it says above, 'How can they be eaten? ' We thus see that [when brought alone] they are brought to be eaten. But Abaye said to him, I maintain that it is a case when they are offered with the sacrifice, and as to your difficulty raised from the thank-offering and its loaves, [it is no difficulty at all] the loaves of the thank-offering are nowhere referred to as a meal-offering, whereas the Two Loaves are referred to as a meal-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the meal-offering of priests must be wholly burnt, hence their argument from the Two Loaves.');">²²</span>

אלא לאו בבאות בפני עצמן וקתני היאך הן נאכלין אלמא לאכילה אתיין

for it is written, When you bring a new meal-offering unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 26.');">²³</span> R'Joseph said, In fact they are brought to be burnt, but the reason why we do not burn them [immediately] is that we must not burn holy things on a Festival.

אמר ליה אביי לעולם בבאות עם הזבח ודקא קשיא לך מתודה ולחמה לחמי תודה לא איקרו מנחה שתי הלחם איקרו מנחה שנא' (במדבר כח, כו) בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה'

But Abaye said to him, Where is the comparison? There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the rule stated that holy things may not be burnt on a Festival. Cf. Shab. 23b.');">²⁴</span>

רב יוסף אמר לעולם לשריפה אתיין והיינו טעמא דלא שרפינן לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביו"ט

the precept is not to do so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The holy thing was originally not intended for burning but for eating, but as it became invalid it was condemned to be burnt; that burning may not be carried out on the Festival.');">²⁵</span> but here since it is the precept to do so they should be burnt [on the Festival], as is the case with the bullock and the he-goat offered on the Day of Atonement! - Rather, said R'Joseph, it is to be feared that later on [during the day] they might obtain lambs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is possible that later during the day the ceremony might be carried out in the manner ordained; it is therefore proper to delay the burning of the loaves as long as possible.');">²⁶</span>

א"ל אביי מי דמי התם לאו מצותן בכך הכא דמצותן בכך לישרפינהו מידי דהוה אפר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים

Said Abaye to him, This is very well [to delay the burning] as long as the time for the offering thereof continues,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., so long as the evening daily sacrifice has not been offered (Rashi) . After this, even if lambs were obtained they would not be offered.');">²⁷</span> but after that time they should be burnt, should they not? - The expression 'their appearance must be spoilt' indeed means that they must be kept as long as the time for the offering thereof continues.

אלא אמר רב יוסף גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן א"ל אביי תינח כל זמן הקרבתם לבתר הכי לשרפינהו מאי תעובר צורתן נמי דקתני צורת הקרבתם

Raba said, I maintain that they are brought to be eaten, [yet they are not eaten] because of the precautionary measure stated by Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 281.');">²⁸</span> but [the law]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the Two Loaves are brought to be eaten even when offered by themselves.');">²⁹</span>

רבא אמר לאכילה אתיין וגזירה משום דרבה ולאו מטעמיה אלא מקרא

is not derived from the passage adduced by him, but from a Scriptural verse. For I derive it, said Raba, from the following verse: Ye shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves.

ואמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה [וגו'] בכורים לה' מה בכורים בפני עצמן אף שתי הלחם בפני עצמן ומינה מה בכורים לאכילה אף שתי הלחם נמי לאכילה

for firstfruits unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 17.');">³⁰</span> As firstfruits are offered by themselves so the Two Loaves may also be offered by themselves; and it follows also, as the firstfruits are offered to be eaten so the Two Loaves also are offered to be eaten.