מנחות 48:1 — Soncino English Talmud

and the other [two] may be eaten after redemption. The Rabbis who recited this in the presence of R. Hisda said, This surely does not agree with Rabbi's view, for according to Rabbi who holds that the slaughtering hallows [the loaves], where can they be redeemed? If they are [all taken] outside [the Sanctuary], and redeemed there, they become at once invalid for having been taken out, for it is written, Before the Lord; and if inside, one is thus bringing unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary! Thereupon R. Hisda said to them, It is indeed in agreement with Rabbi's view and [the loaves] are actually redeemed inside [the Sanctuary], for they became unconsecrated of themselves. Rabina said to R. Ashi, But it has been taught that when they are redeemed they must be redeemed outside [the Sanctuary] only! — He replied, That [Baraitha] is clearly in agreement with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, for according to Rabbi they would at once become invalid on being taken out. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi, Shall we say that [in this Baraitha] we have a refutation of R. Johanan's view? For it was stated: If the thank-offering was slaughtered [accompanied] by eighty cakes, Hezekiah said, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed; but R. Johanan said, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed! — Was it not also reported thereon that R. Zera said, All agree that where [the slaughterer] declared, ‘Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed’, they are hallowed? Then here, too, we will say that he declared, ‘Let two out of the four be hallowed’. R. Hanina of Tirta recited before R. Johanan: If four lambs were slaughtered [on the Pentecost accompanied] by two loaves, two of the lambs should [first] be drawn to one side and their blood sprinkled under another name, for if you do not decide to act in this way you forfeit the last [pair of lambs]. Thereupon R. Johanan said to him, Should we bid a man, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit’? Surely we have learnt: If the limbs of a sin-offering were mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, R. Eliezer says, Let them all be put above [upon the altar], for I regard the flesh of the sin-offering that is above as wood. But the Sages say, Their appearance must first be spoilt and they must all be taken away to the place of burning. But why? Should we not say, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may thereby obtain a benefit’? — We would say, ‘Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain some benefit in regard to the sin-offering itself’, but we would not say, ‘Arise and sin with the sin-offering so that you may thereby obtain a benefit in regard to the burnt-offering’. And do we say it of one subject? But it was taught: If the lambs of Pentecost were slaughtered under another name, or if they were slaughtered either before or after the proper time, the blood is to be sprinkled and the flesh may be eaten. If [the Festival] was on the Sabbath, the blood must not be sprinkled; if, however, is valid and may be eaten’, v. Zeb. a; and the second pair of lambs will Serve for the Pentecost-offering together with the two loaves. it was sprinkled, the sacrifice is acceptable, but the sacrificial portions must be burnt after dark. But why? Should we not say, ‘Arise and sin, so that you may gain an advantage’? — We would say, ‘Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on the Sabbath’, but we would not say, ‘Arise and sin on the Sabbath so that you may gain an advantage on a weekday’. And do we not say it of two subjects? But we have learnt: If a barrel [of wine of terumah] was broken in the upper part of the winepress and in the lower part there was unclean [ordinary wine], R. Eliezer and R. Joshua agree that if a man can save a quarter [log] of it in cleanness he must save it; but if not, R. Eliezer says,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ

^ᵃnote:But it agrees with the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who holds that it is the sprinkling that hallows the loaves, accordingly none of the loaves have as yet been hallowed, and therefore any two may be taken for the offering and the other two redeemed like all holy things consecrated for their value only.
^ᵇnote:Two of these loaves have already been hallowed by the slaughtering of the lambs and two have not, and the latter are therefore to be redeemed. The difficulty, however, is as to the place of the redemption, since the hallowed loaves are not distinguished and separated from the others.
^ᶜnote:The hallowed loaves.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XXIII, 20.
^ᵉnote:I.e., the redemption is to take place inside the Sanctuary and all four loaves are to be eaten inside, since it is not known which are the hallowed and which the redeemed loaves.
^ᶠnote:There is no transgression committed here, for the loaves only become unconsecrated when already in the Sanctuary.
^ᵍnote:Who maintains that the slaughtering of the lambs does not hallow the loaves, consequently, at any time before the sprinkling of the blood, two loaves can be selected to be hallowed for the offering, and the remaining two must be redeemed outside the Sanctuary.
^ʰnote:Instead of the prescribed forty.
^ⁱnote:The foregoing Baraitha which states that two out of the four loaves are hallowed thus conflicts with R. Johanan's view.
^ʲnote:Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian, p. 185, identifies it with Tirastan in the region of Mahuza.
^ᵏnote:These lambs may be eaten in accordance with the principle, ‘Every offering offered under another name
^ˡnote:But sprinkle the blood of the first pair of lambs for the Pentecost-offering.
^ᵐnote:The second pair of lambs would now be invalid and would be forbidden to be eaten, for since they were at one time fit to be offered under their own name, and indeed were slaughtered as such, but are now rejected, they cannot be valid if offered under another name. V. supra p. 288.
^ⁿnote:I.e., in order to save two lambs, that they may be eaten, a sin is deliberately committed by offering a sacrifice under some other name.
^ᵒnote:Zeb. 77a.
^ᵖnote:That are consumed by the priests.
^ᵠnote:That are burnt upon the altar.
^ʳnote:I.e., all the limbs must be kept overnight.
^ˢnote:Why should everything be burnt?
^ᵗnote:One should commit the sin of burning the limbs of a sin-offering upon the altar for the sake of the limbs of the burnt-offering, so that the latter be rendered acceptable.
^ᵘnote:And likewise with the lambs of Pentecost: a sin is committed by sprinkling the blood of the lambs under another name and the advantage is thereby gained that these lambs may be eaten.
^ᵛnote:I.e., where both the sin committed and advantage gained relate to the same thing.
^ʷnote:Bez 20b; Naz. 28b.
^ˣnote:Sc. the Festival.
^ʸnote:Under another name.
^ᶻnote:For since the offering is no longer on behalf of the community the services in connection therewith do not supersede the Sabbath laws.
^ᵃᵃnote:Let the sin of sprinkling the blood on the Sabbath be committed so as to gain the advantage of burning the sacrificial portions upon the altar after the Sabbath and then the flesh would be permitted to be eaten.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the advantage gained must be enjoyed on the same day as the commission of the sin, as is the case with the lambs of Pentecost, v. supra, p. 290, n. 10.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., to sin in one thing so as to gain an advantage in another.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ter. VIII, 9; Pes. 15a.
^ᵃᵉnote:He must endeavour to obtain clean vessels so long as he can save a quarter log of the terumah wine, although in the meantime the terumah wine is flowing down and mixing with the unclean non-terumah wine, thereby rendering the entire mixture absolutely unfit.