Menachot 93

ת"ר כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה

Our Rabbis taught: The lambs of Pentecost hallow the bread only by their slaughtering.

כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון אומר לעולם אינו קדוש עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן

Thus, if they were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name, the bread is hallowed thereby;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bread, i.e., the Two Loaves, may now be eaten, and if taken out of the Sanctuary would become invalid.');">¹</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי

if they were slaughtered under another name and their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is not hallowed; if they were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is hallowed and not hallowed.

דכתיב (במדבר ו, יז) ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה' על סל המצות למימרא דשחיטה מקדשא

So Rabbi.

ור' אלעזר ברבי שמעון יעשה עד שיעשה כל עשיותיו

R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon says, [The bread] always remains unhallowed unless [the lambs] were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name.

ורבי נמי הכתיב יעשה אי כתיב זבח יעשה כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב יעשה זבח במה יעשה בזביחה

What is the reason for Rabbi's view? - Because it is written, And the ram he shall offer by slaughtering it as a peace-offering unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 17, literally translated. The reference is to the sacrifice brought by the Nazirite, but the law is the same for the lambs of Pentecost.');">²</span>

ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון הכתיב זבח ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן הכל מודים שצריך שיהא לחם בשעת שחיטה

that is to say, the slaughtering hallows [the bread].

מאי קדוש ואינו קדוש אביי אמר קדוש ואינו גמור רבא אמר קדוש ואינו ניתר

And R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon? - The expression 'he shall offer' implies that he must perform all the rites of the offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including the sprinkling of the blood.');">³</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למיתפס פדיונו לאביי לא תפיס פדיונו לרבא תפיס פדיונו

And Rabbi?

בשלמא לרבא היינו דאיכא בין רבי לר' אלעזר בר"ש אלא לאביי מאי איכא בין רבי לר' אלעזר בר' שמעון

Is not the expression 'he shall offer' used? - Had the term 'slaughtering' been followed by 'he shall offer' I agree that the meaning would be as you say;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that in addition to the slaughtering there is also another essential act of offering, namely the sprinkling.');">⁴</span>

איכא [בינייהו] לאיפסולי ביוצא

but now that it is written 'he shall offer' and then 'slaughtering', it clearly means, he shall offer it by the act of slaughtering.

בעא מיניה ר' שמואל בר רב יצחק מר' חייא בר אבא כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן אותו הלחם מהו באכילה

And R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon?

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון האמר זריקה היא דמקדשא אי אליבא דרבי בין לאביי בין לרבא קדוש ואינו ניתר הוא

Is not the expression 'slaughtering' used? - That is necessary for R'Johanan's teaching, for R'Johanan said, All<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintains that the sprinkling is the principal service.');">⁵</span>

אלא אליבא דהאי תנא דתני אבוה דר' ירמיה בר אבא שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה לזריקה וזרק דמן של כבשים חוץ לזמנן ר' אליעזר אומר אין בלחם משום פיגול רבי עקיבא אומר יש בלחם משום פיגול

agree that the bread must be there at the time of the slaughtering.

אמר רב ששת הני תנאי כרבי סבירא להו דאמ' שחיטה מקדשא

What is meant by 'hallowed and not hallowed'? - Abaye said, It is hallowed but not completely so.

מיהו ר' אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ור"ע לטעמי' דאמ' זריקה מועלת ליוצא

Raba said, It is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten]. What is the practical difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to Abaye too, since it is not completely hallowed it certainly may not be eaten. ohns ,ause');">⁶</span> - There is a difference between them as to whether redemption is effective; according to Abaye the redemption is effective, according to Raba it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The underlying principle is that whatever is consecrated only for its value () can be redeemed and its sanctity is thereby ;udv ,ause transferred to the money set aside for the purpose, whilst the thing itself becomes profane; but whatever is hallowed bodily () cannot be redeemed. Now, dealing with Rabbi's view, according to Abaye since the bread is not completely hallowed it may be redeemed; according to Raba, however, it is hallowed entirely, and therefore the redemption is of no effect. The text adopted is that which is preferred by Rashi. In cur. edd. the opinions are reversed, thus according to Abaye the redemption is ineffective etc.');">⁷</span> Now according to Raba there is clearly a difference of opinion between Rabbi and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon the redemption is effective and according to Rabbi it is not.');">⁸</span> but according to Abaye what difference is there between Rabbi and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both are of the opinion that the redemption is effective.');">⁹</span> - There is a difference between them as to whether it would become invalid if taken out [of the Sanctuary].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rabbi it would thereby become invalid but not so according to R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon.');">¹⁰</span> R'Samuel B'R'Isaac enquired of R'Hiyya B'Abba: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, may the bread be eaten or not? According to whose view does this question arise? If [you say] according to R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, [then there is no question at all for] he holds that it is the sprinkling that hallows the bread.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the bread has not been hallowed at all; obviously then it may not be eaten.');">¹¹</span> And if [you say] according to Rabbi, [then there is also no question about it for] whether one accepts the interpretation of Abaye or of Raba [the bread] is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1.');">¹²</span> The question can arise only according to the view of the following Tanna. For the father of R'Jeremiah B'Abba taught: If the Two Loaves were taken out [of the Sanctuary] between the slaughtering [of the two lambs] and the sprinkling of their blood, and subsequently [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the lambs [and expressed at the time the intention of eating the flesh] outside the prescribed time, R'Eliezer says, The bread is not subject to the law of piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span> but R'Akiba says, The bread is subject to the law of piggul. And R'Shesheth said, Both these Tannaim agree with Rabbi that the slaughtering hallows the bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba and R. Eliezer therefore both agree that the bread becomes invalid by being taken out.');">¹⁴</span> but R'Eliezer maintains his view that the sprinkling has no effect upon what was taken out,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the bread remains invalid but is not affected by the piggul intention expressed during the sprinkling.');">¹⁵</span> and R'Akiba his that the sprinkling has an effect upon what was taken out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in as much as the invalidity of the bread is due to an external cause (it having been taken out of the Sanctuary) and not to any defect inherent in it, the sprinkling can affect it, and as the wrongful intention expressed during the sprinkling renders the offering piggul, it also renders the bread piggul.');">¹⁶</span>