Menachot

Our Rabbis taught: The lambs of Pentecost hallow the bread only by their slaughtering. Thus, if they were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name, the bread is hallowed thereby;1 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. So Rabbi. 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. 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,2 that is to say, the slaughtering hallows [the bread]. And R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? — The expression ‘he shall offer’ implies that he must perform all the rites of the offering.3 And Rabbi? 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;4 but now that it is written ‘he shall offer’ and then ‘slaughtering’, it clearly means, he shall offer it by the act of slaughtering. And R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? Is not the expression ‘slaughtering’ used? — That is necessary for R. Johanan's teaching, for R. Johanan said, All5 agree that the bread must be there at the time of the slaughtering. What is meant by ‘hallowed and not hallowed’? — Abaye said, It is hallowed but not completely so. Raba said, It is hallowed but not permitted [to be eaten]. What is the practical difference between them?6 — 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.7 Now according to Raba there is clearly a difference of opinion between Rabbi and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon;8 but according to Abaye what difference is there between Rabbi and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?9 — There is a difference between them as to whether it would become invalid if taken out [of the Sanctuary].10 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.11 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].12 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 piggul13 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,14 but R. Eliezer maintains his view that the sprinkling has no effect upon what was taken out,15 and R. Akiba his that the sprinkling has an effect upon what was taken out.16 the lambs of Pentecost. its sanctity is thereby transferred to the money set aside for the purpose, whilst the thing itself becomes profane; but whatever is hallowed bodily (;udv ,ause) 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. 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.