Menachot

MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING WITHIN [THE TEMPLE COURT] AND THE BREAD THEREOF WAS OUTSIDE THE WALL [AT THE TIME]. THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN, OR EVEN IF ALL EXCEPT ONE HAD BECOME CRUSTED, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. GEMARA. What does ‘OUTSIDE THE WALL’ mean? — R. Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth Page;1 but Resh Lakish says, Outside the wall of the Temple court. ‘Resh Lakish says. Outside the wall of the Temple court’,for we must interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’.2 ‘R. Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth page’, but [if it was] outside the wall of the Temple court it would be hallowed, for we need not interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’. But have they not differed in this matter once already? For we have learnt:3 If a man slaughters the Passover-offering with leaven In his possession, he transgresses a negative command.4 R. Judah says. Also [if he so slaughters] the daily offering.5 Whereupon Resh Lakish said, He is never culpable unless the leaven belongs to him who slaughters or to him who sprinkles the blood or to any one of the members of the company,6 and it is also with him in the Temple court;7 but R. Johanan said, Even if it is not with him in the Temple court! — Both disputes are necessary. For if it were stated only there [in connection with the Passover-offering, I would say that] only there does R. Johanan [hold him culpable even though the leaven was not with him], for wherever it happens to be it is a prohibited matter,8 but as regards the hallowing of the bread I would say that he concurs with Resh Lakish, that if it is within the Temple court it is hallowed, but if outside it is not hallowed. And if it were stated only here I would say that only here does Resh Lakish [insist that the bread in order to be hallowed must be within the Temple court], but there I would say that he concurs with R. Johanan [that he is culpable even though the leaven is not with him]. Hence both disputes are necessary. There has been taught [a Baraitha] in accord with R. Johanan's view. If a man slaughtered the thank-offering within [the Temple court] and the bread thereof was outside the wall of Beth Page [at the time], the bread is not hallowed. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN [...THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED]. Whence is this derived? — From the following which our Rabbis taught: With cakes of leavened bread he shall present:9 this teaches that the bread is hallowed only if [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven10 [before the slaughtering of the sacrifice]. ‘He shall present his offering with the slaughtering’:11 this teaches that the bread is hallowed only by the slaughtering of the sacrifice.’ The slaughtering of the thank-offering’:11 this teaches that if he slaughtered [the thank-offering] under the name of another offering, the bread is not hallowed. Our Rabbis taught:12 One fulfils one's obligation [on the Passover] with unleavened bread partially baked, and with unleavened bread prepared in a stewing pot. What is meant by ‘unleavened bread partially baked’? — Rab Judah explained in the name of Samuel, It is [any unleavened bread which] when broken has no threads dragging from it. Raba said, And the same rule applies to the loaves of the thank-offering.13 Surely this is obvious, for here the expression ‘bread’ is used and there too the expression ‘bread’ is used!14 — You might think that since the Divine Law stated, One,15 intimating that he may not take what is broken, such16 is regarded as broken;17 he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. It was stated:18 If the thank-offering was slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves,19 Hezekiah ruled, Forty out of the eighty are hallowed;20 and R. Johanan ruled, Not even forty out of the eighty are hallowed.21 Said R. Zera, All agree that if he declared, ‘Let forty out of the eighty be hallowed’, they are hallowed; like- wise If he declared, ‘The forty shall not be hallowed unless all the eighty are hallowed’, they are not hallowed; they differ only where no specific statement was made: one Master22 is of the opinion that his intention23 was to ensure the prescribed number,24 while the other Master25 holds the view that his intention was to provide a large offering. 26 Abaye said,27 They differ as to whether vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention;28 one Master is of the opinion that vessels of ministry hallow even in the absence of the [owner's] intention,29 while the other Master holds the view that vessels of ministry do not hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention.30 R.Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry hallow in the absence of the [owner's] intention, but they differ only as to the knife; one Master31 is of the opinion that the knife hallows just as any vessel of ministry, while the other Master32 holds the view that it does not hallow like any other vessel of ministry, since it has no receptacle. Others quote [R. Papa] in this form: R. Papa said, All agree that vessels of ministry only hallow with the [owner's] intention, but they differ as to the knife; one Master31 holds that the knife is more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry, seeing that it hallows even though it has no receptacle;33 whilst the other Master32 holds that the knife is no more efficacious than any other vessel of ministry. MISHNAH. IF HE SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING [INTENDING TO EAT THEREOF] OUTSIDE ITS PROPER TIME34 OR OUTSIDE ITS PROPER PLACE,35 THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED.36 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED.37 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO HAVE A BLEMISH, R. ELIEZER SAYS, THE BREAD IS [NEVERTHELESS] HALLOWED. BUT THE SAGES SAY, IT IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNDER ANOTHER NAME, AND SO, TOO, IF THE RAM OF THE CONSECRATION-OFFERING OR THE TWO LAMBS OFFERED AT PENTECOST WERE SLAUGHTERED UNDER ANOTHER NAME, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. GEMARA. In accordance with whose view is the ruling in our Mishnah?-It is in accordance with the view of R. Meir; for it was taught: This is the general rule: If the disqualifying defect befell [the thank-offering] before the slaughtering, the bread is not hallowed; (if after the slaughtering, the bread is hallowed).38 Thus if he slaughtered it [intending to eat thereof] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is hallowed; if he slaughtered it and it was found to be trefah, the bread is not hallowed. identical with outside Jerusalem. V. Neubauer, Geog. 147-149. Maim. in his Com. on this Mishnah gives the interesting reading hdc ,hc, explaining it as the place close to the Temple mount where the meal-offerings were prepared and baked. He thus connects this word with dc , Dan. I, 5, meaning food. implies that the cakes must be near the sacrifices, i.e., with it in the Temple court. XXXIV, 25). also prohibited, according to R. Judah, as being implied in the expression ‘My sacrifice’. V. Prec. n. next interpretation; they are omitted by Rashi. thank-offering. the thank-offering. the thank-offering. hallowed loaves. should replace them. At no time, however, was it ever intended that more than forty loaves should be offered with the thank-offering. add at the beginning of Abaye's words: ‘All agree that his intention was to provide a large offering’. Var. lec. to ensure the prescribed number’. as there are more than the prescribed number of loaves and there is no specific statement by the owner as to his intention, the question is whether the knife automatically hallows forty out of the eighty loaves or not. that all hold that the owner's intention was to provide a large offering, then the expression ,gsn tka should be rendered ‘against the owner's intention’ and not ‘in the absence of the owner's intention. (v. Glos.). the bread is hallowed. V. Gemara, and Zeb. 84a. in fact misleading for what it really means to imply is that if the disqualifying defect did not befall it before the slaughtering the bread is hallowed.