1 that if they were attached to each other the [absence of] one invalidates the other. And what creates this attachment? — It is the slaughtering. ‘Ulla reported that in the West [Palestine] the following question was raised: Does the waving 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. 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! — 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? You have therefore no alternative but to say that [the rule contained in this verse] applies to the early stage of the offering, 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 can say the same here, too, that only later on they will be for the priest. And does the slaughtering create any attachment? But the following contradicts it, for it was taught: If a cake broke before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he should bring another cake and then the offering may be slaughtered. If the cake broke after [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, the blood should be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid. If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake broke], he must give as the priestly offering a whole cake in place of the broken one. If a cake had been taken outside 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. 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, 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, should it not? — The thank-offering is a special case, for Holy Writ refers to it as a peace-offering, 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 lost20ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗ
2 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. 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; 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, it 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 lambs hallow the bread and [their absence] renders [the bread] invalid, whereas the seven lambs and the bullock and the rams 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. 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]. But can we make this comparison? In that case there are no other offerings with it, but here, 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, 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, And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread, 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, they must [none the less] be waved, and then their appearance must be spoilt, and they must be taken away to the place of burning. But say what you will, if they 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 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. Rabbah said, Whence do I arrive at this view? Because we have learnt: 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. Since the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten? 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? 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, for it is written, When you bring a new meal-offering unto the Lord. 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? There the precept is not to do so, 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. Said Abaye to him, This is very well [to delay the burning] as long as the time for the offering thereof continues, 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, but [the law] 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. 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.ᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣ