Menachot

For we have learnt:1 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,2 and one is not liable on account of them for any transgression of the laws of piggul, nothar,3 and uncleanness.4 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.5 Now what is the position [in the aforementioned case6 according to R. Akiba]? Shall we say that as the sprinkling performed with a piggul — intention renders the bread7 piggul like the flesh of the offering,8 so too, the sprinkling performed under another name will render the bread permissible;9 or do we say so only where the result tends to stringency10 but not where it tends to leniency?11 R. Papa, however, demurred12 saying, Why do you assume that they differ in the case where [the loaves] were still outside [the Sanctuary]? Perhaps in the case where they were still outside all agree that the sprinkling can have no effect upon what is outside;13 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? 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. 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?14 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;15 nor does it take out of the law of Sacrilege — that refers to the flesh of Most Holy offerings?16 — Was not R. Giddal's statement refuted?17 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 name18 so that the flesh be permitted to be eaten?19 — 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 invalid20 but under another name18 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 rejected21 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?22 — 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?23 — It is different with the thank-offering for the Divine Law referred to it as a peace-offering. 24 Our Rabbis taught: If the two lambs were slaughtered [accompanied] by four loaves,25 two of them should be selected and waved26 they were not consecrated for the altar; consequently no guilt-offering is incurred by the one who derives enjoyment or use therefrom. 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. lambs was sprinkled under another name. many MSS. and Tosaf., reading racf kudhpc, and omitting the word tmuhc. another name are permitted to be eaten; v. Zeb. 2a. 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. was not validly performed these sacrificial portions are never subject to the law of Sacrilege. 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. not known for certain according to whose view did R. Samuel b. Isaac raise his question. render their flesh permitted for the two loaves are absolutely indispensable to the validity of the offering. 6. 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. 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. 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. 61a.