Menachot — Daf 46b

אבדו כבשים אבדו כבשים אבד הלחם

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

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

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

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

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

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

אלא כתודה מה תודה שלמים אף הכא נמי שלמים

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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'

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

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

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

רבא אמר לאכילה אתיין וגזירה משום דרבה ולאו מטעמיה אלא מקרא

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

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? 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.1 The question can only arise when it was the bread that was lost. And again, according to Ben Nanos, who said that the lambs constitute the main part of the offering, this question cannot arise;2 but it can only arise according to R. Akiba, who maintains that the bread constitutes the main part of the offering. And the question is, Shall we say that since the bread constitutes the main part of the offering, it3 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. Abaye said to Raba, Why is it that the two lambs4 hallow the bread and [their absence] renders [the bread] invalid, whereas the seven lambs and the bullock and the rams4 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.5 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].6 But can we make this comparison? In that case7 there are no other offerings with it, but here,8 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,9 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,10 And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread,11 which teaches us that the basket [of bread] comes as an obligation for the ram, and the slaughtering of the ram hallows it. 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,12 they must [none the less] be waved, and then their appearance must be spoilt,13 and they must be taken away to the place of burning. But say what you will, if they14 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, they15 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.16 Rabbah said, Whence do I arrive at this view?17 Because we have learnt:18 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. 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.19 Since the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?20 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?21 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], for 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,22 for it is written, When you bring a new meal-offering unto the Lord.23 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. But Abaye said to him, Where is the comparison? There24 the precept is not to do so,25 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.26 Said Abaye to him, This is very well [to delay the burning] as long as the time for the offering thereof continues,27 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. Raba said, I maintain that they are brought to be eaten, [yet they are not eaten] because of the precautionary measure stated by Rabbah,28 but [the law]29 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 . . . for firstfruits unto the Lord.30 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. eaten, and secondly, the rite of waving is stated primarily of the lambs; cf. Lev. XXIII, 20. lamb for a burnt-offering and an ewe lamb for sin-offering, v. Num. VI, 14. they constitute the main part of the Festival-offering. offering that is still valid. 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. be burnt; that burning may not be carried out on the Festival. therefore proper to delay the burning of the loaves as long as possible. would not be offered.