Menachot

that if they were attached to each other the [absence of] one invalidates the other.1 And what creates this attachment? — It is the slaughtering. 2 ‘Ulla reported that in the West [Palestine] the following question was raised: Does the waving3 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!4 — 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?5 You have therefore no alternative but to say that [the rule contained in this verse]6 applies to the early stage of the offering,7 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,8 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 cake9 broke10 before [the thank-offering] had been slaughtered, he11 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 sprinkled12 and the flesh may be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow; moreover the bread is invalid.13 If the blood had already been sprinkled [and then the cake broke], he must give as the priestly offering14 a whole cake in place of the broken one. If a cake had been taken outside15 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.16 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,17 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,18 should it not? — The thank-offering is a special case, for Holy Writ refers to it as a peace-offering,19 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 lost20 that fact attached them to each other; and therefore if one kind, either the loaves or the lambs, was lost, the remaining kind may not be offered, but must be taken away to be burnt. each other, and one may not be offered without the other. two loaves, v. Lev. XXIII, 20. offered without the other; it is evident, therefore, that the waving stated at the beginning of the verse in question creates no attachment whatsoever between the lambs and the loaves. they differ as to which is indispensable; hence the argument could be adduced to prove that even the slaughtering does not create any attachment. before the waving, for the waving, it may be said, creates an attachment. and not broken; v. infra 77b. included in the total, although these particular cakes may not be given to the priest. VIII. This text is preferred by Tosaf. s.v. vyjaan, and by Sh. Mek.