Menachot 94

דתנן אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמים ר' אליעזר אומר אין מועלין בהן ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא

For we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 6b, Zeb. 89b.');">¹</span>

ר"ע אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא

If the sacrificial portions of the Less Holy offerings were taken out [of the Sanctuary] before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, R'Eliezer says, They are not subject to the law of sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 15. For the sprinkling, he maintains, has had no effect upon those portions that were taken out, so that they were not consecrated for the altar; consequently no guilt-offering is incurred by the one who derives enjoyment or use therefrom.');">²</span>

מאי

and one is not liable on account of them for any transgression of the laws of piggul, nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³</span>

מדזריקת פיגול קבעה ללחם בפיגול ביוצא כבשר זריקה שלא לשמה נמי שריא ליה ללחם או דלמא לחומרא אמרינן לקולא לא אמרי'

and uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Piggul does not apply to these sacrificial portions since they are already invalid, so that if a man were to eat of them he would not be liable to the penalty of kareth. So, too, if he were to eat of them whilst he was in an unclean state, or after they had been left over beyond the time prescribed for eating, he would not be liable.');">⁴</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא וממאי דכי איתנהו אבראי פליגי

R'Akiba says, They are subject to the law of sacrilege, and one is also liable on account of them for any transgression of the laws of piggul, nothar, and uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sprinkling has had an effect upon the sacrificial portions that were taken out of the Sanctuary.');">⁵</span>

דילמא בדאיתנהו אבראי דכ"ע לא פליגי דאין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ובהדר עיילינהו פליגי דרבי אליעזר סבר לה כרבי דאמר שחיטה מקדשא ואיפסלו להו ביוצא

Now what is the position [in the aforementioned case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case put by R. Samuel b. Isaac to R. Hiyya supra, as to the permissibility of the bread where the blood of the lambs was sprinkled under another name.');">⁶</span>

ור"ע כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה לא מקדשא ולא מיפסלי ביוצא

according to R'Akiba]?

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא ר"ע כרבי ס"ל דאמר שחיטה מקדשא להו היינו דקאמר ר' עקיבא דקדשי להו בשחיטה ואתיא זריקה קבעה להו בפיגול

Shall we say that as the sprinkling performed with a piggul - intention renders the bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Akiba, not withstanding that the bread is already invalid by having been taken out.');">⁷</span>

אלא אי אמרת כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון ס"ל דאמר זביחה לא מקדשא זריקת פיגול מי מקדשא

piggul like the flesh of the offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the bread is deemed to be affected in the same way as the flesh of the offering. The text adopted is that of many MSS. and Tosaf., racf kudhpc tmuhc reading , and omitting the word .');">⁸</span>

והאמר רב גידל אמר רב זריקת פיגול אינה מביאה לידי מעיל' ואינה מוציאה מידי מעיל'

so too, the sprinkling performed under another name will render the bread permissible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the flesh of the offering is permissible in such circumstances, for all offerings even though slaughtered under another name are permitted to be eaten; v. Zeb. 2a.');">⁹</span>

אינה מביאה לידי מעילה באימורי קדשים קלים

or do we say so only where the result tends to stringency<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case of piggul.');">¹⁰</span>

ואינה מוציאה מידי מעילה בבשר קדשי קדשים

but not where it tends to leniency?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby the bread is rendered permitted.');">¹¹</span>

לאו איתותב דרב גידל אמר רב

R'Papa, however, demurred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the assumption that both R. Akiba and R. Eliezer accept Rabbi's view.');">¹²</span>

בעא מיני' ר' ירמי' מר' זירא כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן ואבד הלחם מהו שיזרוק דמן שלא לשמן להתיר בשר באכילה

saying, Why do you assume that they differ in the case where [the loaves] were still outside [the Sanctuary]?

א"ל יש לך דבר שאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו ולא והרי פסח קודם חצות דאינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

Perhaps in the case where they were still outside all agree that the sprinkling can have no effect upon what is outside;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Akiba would agree that the sprinkling can have no effect upon the bread that is still outside, for the bread cannot be regarded in the same category as the sacrificial portions of the offering, since these are part of the offering whereas the bread is something distinct and apart from it.');">¹³</span>

הכי קא אמינא יש לך דבר שנראה לשמו ונדחה מלשמו ואינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

but they differ only in the case where they were brought in again, R'Eliezer adopting Rabbi's view that the slaughtering hallows them, consequently they have become invalid by their having been taken outside, whereas R'Akiba adopts the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon that the slaughtering does not hallow them, consequently they have not become invalid by their having been taken outside! - How can this be?

ולא והרי פסח אחר זמנו בשאר ימות השנה (קודם חצות)

It is well if you say that R'Akiba adopts Rabbi's view that the slaughtering hallows [the loaves], for then the slaughtering hallows them, and having been hallowed by the slaughtering they are rendered piggul by the sprinkling.

הכי קאמינא יש לך דבר שנראה לשמו ונשחט לשמו ונדחה מלשמו ואינו כשר לשמו וכשר שלא לשמו

But if you say that he adopts the view of R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon that the slaughtering does not hallow them, then [it will be asked,] Can the sprinkling performed with a piggul-intention hallow them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And at the same time render them piggul! This surely cannot be.');">¹⁴</span>

ולא והרי תודה

Has not R'Giddal said in the name of Rab, A sprinkling performed with a piggul-intention does not bring within the law of Sacrilege nor does it take out of the law of Sacrilege; it does not bring within the law of Sacrilege-that refers to the sacrificial parts of Less Holy offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These normally are subject to the law of Sacrilege only after the sprinkling of the blood, but where the sprinkling was not validly performed these sacrificial portions are never subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁵</span>

שאני תודה דרחמנא קרייה שלמים

nor does it take out of the law of Sacrilege - that refers to the flesh of Most Holy offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is subject to the law of Sacrilege only until the sprinkling of the blood, for after the sprinkling the flesh is permitted to be eaten by the priests, and the principle is well established that whatsoever is permissible to the priests is not subject to the law of Sacrilege (cf. Me'il. 2a) . Where, however, the sprinkling was not validly performed the flesh, not being permissible to the priests, remains for all time subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁶</span>

ת"ר שחט שני כבשים על ארבע חלות מושך שתים מהן ומניפן

- Was not R'Giddal's statement refuted?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His statement was indeed refuted, v. Me'il. 3b. The position is now that R. Papa's objection stands good, and so it is not known for certain according to whose view did R. Samuel b. Isaac raise his question.');">¹⁷</span> R'Jeremiah enquired of R'Zera: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under their own name and then the [Two] Loaves were lost, may the blood be sprinkled now under another name<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as an ordinary peace-offering. To sprinkle the blood under their own name as lambs of Pentecost would not render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering.');">¹⁸</span> so that the flesh be permitted to be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the absence of the loaves the lambs can be regarded as peace-offerings.');">¹⁹</span> - He replied, Do you know of any offering which if offered under its own name is invalid but under another name is valid? But is there not? What of a Passover-offering offered before midday, which if offered under its own name is invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the proper time to offer the Passover lamb is after midday on the fourteenth of the month of Nisan; cf. Ex. XII, 6.');">²⁰</span> but under another name<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as an ordinary peace-offering. To sprinkle the blood under their own name as lambs of Pentecost would not render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering.');">¹⁸</span> is valid? - [He replied,] This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which was at one time fit to be offered under its own name but was rejected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By reason of the loss of the loaves.');">²¹</span> from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the Passover-offering after midday?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was available at the proper time and yet if held over till after the festival and offered under its own name as a Passover-offering is invalid, but if offered as a peace-offering is valid. The text adopted here is that of MS.M., which agrees with that in Rashi and in Sh. Mek.');">²²</span> - This is what I mean: Do you know of any offering which at one time was fit to be offered under its own name, and indeed was slaughtered under its own name, but was rejected from being offered under its own name, and now if offered under its own name it is invalid but under another name it is valid? But what of the thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one of the cakes of the thank-offering was broken after the slaughtering of the animal, the blood is sprinkled as though it were a peace-offering, and not a thank-offering, and the flesh may be eaten; v. supra p. 278. Here then the thank-offering was slaughtered under its own name, was rejected from being offered under its own name, and yet is valid if offered under another name; contra R. Zera.');">²³</span> - It is different with the thank-offering for the Divine Law referred to it as a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. VII, 15. And as the peace-offering is offered without the accompaniment of loaves, the thank-offering also may be offered under its own name even without the loaves. In other words the offering of the thank-offering as a peace-offering is not regarded as offering it under another name.');">²⁴</span> Our Rabbis taught: If the two lambs were slaughtered [accompanied] by four loaves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the prescribed two loaves.');">²⁵</span> two of them should be selected and waved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is an essential rite to wave the loaves with the lambs both before and after the slaughtering of the lambs; v. infra 61a.');">²⁶</span>