Menachot Daf 47 (מנחות דף מ״ז)
Daf: 47 | Amudim: 47a – 47b | Date: 28 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (47a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: The sheep of Shavuot consecrate the loaves only through slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites further discussion of the two sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot: The Sages taught in a baraita: The two sheep of Shavuot consecrate the two loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita establishes the fundamental principle that opens the daf’s discussion: the two loaves of Shavuot become consecrated specifically through the slaughter of the accompanying two sheep. This principle connects to the broader discussion from the previous daf about the bond (zikka) between the sheep and loaves. The baraita will now elaborate on what happens when the slaughter or blood-sprinkling is performed with improper intent.
Key Terms:
- כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת = The two sheep (lambs) brought as communal peace offerings on Shavuot
- מְקַדְּשִׁין = Consecrate; here refers to establishing the sacred status of the loaves through the sacrificial act
Segment 2
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi vs. Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon on when slaughter and sprinkling consecrate the loaves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד? שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט לִשְׁמָן וְיִזְרוֹק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן.
English Translation:
How so? If one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake, as the peace offerings that are supposed to be sacrificed on Shavuot, and then the priest sprinkled their blood on the altar for their own sake, then the loaves are consecrated. But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The loaves are never consecrated at all until one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents three scenarios and a tannaitic dispute. The first two cases are clear: proper intent for both slaughter and sprinkling consecrates the loaves; improper intent for both does not. The crux is the third case — proper slaughter but improper sprinkling. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds the loaves are “consecrated but not consecrated” (a partial status), while Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon requires both acts to be performed properly. This dispute will drive the entire daf’s analysis.
Key Terms:
- לִשְׁמָן = For their own sake; i.e., with the proper intent that they are the Shavuot peace offerings
- קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ = Consecrated but not consecrated; Rabbi’s enigmatic formulation of a partial sanctity status
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Question: What is the scriptural basis for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s view?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughtering of the sheep partially consecrates the loaves even without the sprinkling of the blood?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now seeks the scriptural derivation behind the dispute. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s position that slaughter alone creates partial consecration needs a textual basis, since one might expect that only the complete sacrificial process (including blood-sprinkling) would consecrate the loaves.
Key Terms:
- מַאי טַעְמָא = What is the reasoning; a standard Talmudic formula asking for the scriptural or logical basis of a position
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Answer: The word “zevaḥ” (sacrifice/slaughter) in Numbers 6:17 proves slaughter alone consecrates
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֶת הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַה׳ עַל סַל הַמַּצּוֹת״, לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is based on the fact that it is written concerning the ram brought by the nazirite when he completes his naziriteship: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (Numbers 6:17). Since the verse uses the word zevaḥ, which also means slaughter, and the verse then makes reference to the loaves, that is to say that it is specifically the slaughter that consecrates the loaves that accompany the offering. Similarly, the slaughter of the sheep brought as peace offerings on Shavuot consecrates the accompanying two loaves, as the halakha of the loaves of Shavuot is derived from that of the loaves of the nazirite.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives his position from the nazirite’s ram offering (Numbers 6:17), where the word “zevaḥ” (which means both “sacrifice” and “slaughter”) appears in connection with the basket of unleavened bread. Since the verse links the act of slaughter specifically to the loaves, Rabbi concludes that slaughter alone creates a consecrating bond. The Shavuot loaves are derived from the nazirite model, as both involve loaves accompanying a peace offering.
Key Terms:
- זֶבַח = Sacrifice/slaughter; the double meaning allows Rabbi to derive that slaughter is the operative act
- סַל הַמַּצּוֹת = Basket of unleavened bread; the loaves accompanying the nazirite’s ram
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: “He shall offer” — all actions required
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״יַעֲשֶׂה״ – עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה כָּל עֲשִׂיּוֹתָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood together consecrate the loaves? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the term: “He shall offer,” which he understands to mean that the loaves are not consecrated until the priest performs all of the actions included in the sacrificial rites of that offering, including the sprinkling of the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon focuses on a different word in the same verse — “ya’aseh” (he shall offer/do). He reads this as requiring the completion of all the sacrificial rites, including blood-sprinkling, before the loaves become consecrated. Both tannaim derive their positions from Numbers 6:17 but emphasize different words: Rabbi focuses on “zevaḥ” (slaughter), while Rabbi Elazar focuses on “ya’aseh” (he shall perform).
Key Terms:
- יַעֲשֶׂה = He shall offer/perform; Rabbi Elazar reads this as requiring completion of all sacrificial actions
- עֲשִׂיּוֹתָיו = Its actions/rites; refers to the full range of sacrificial procedures including blood-sprinkling
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge and answer: How does Rabbi deal with “ya’aseh”? — Word order matters
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי הָכְתִיב ״יַעֲשֶׂה״? אִי כְּתִיב ״זֶבַח יַעֲשֶׂה״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח״ – בְּמָה יַעֲשֶׂה? בִּזְבִיחָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “He shall offer,” which indicates that the loaves are consecrated only once the blood has been sprinkled on the altar? The Gemara answers: If it were written: A sacrifice [zevaḥ] he shall offer, it would be as you are saying that he should slaughter it and then perform a further action, i.e., sprinkling the blood, in order to consecrate the loaves. Now that it is written: “He shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ],” it should be understood as: By what means should he offer the ram in order to consecrate the loaves? By means of slaughtering [zeviḥa].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: doesn’t “ya’aseh” imply all actions must be completed? Rabbi responds with a subtle grammatical argument based on word order. If the verse read “zevaḥ ya’aseh” (a sacrifice he shall offer), it would mean: first slaughter, then do something more. But since it reads “ya’aseh zevaḥ” (he shall offer [as] a sacrifice), the question becomes: by what means shall he consecrate? Answer: by the act of slaughter (zeviḥa).
Key Terms:
- זֶבַח יַעֲשֶׂה vs. יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח = The word order changes the meaning: “a sacrifice he shall offer” vs. “he shall offer by means of sacrifice/slaughter”
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Challenge and answer: How does Rabbi Elazar deal with “zevaḥ”? — Loaves must exist at slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָכְתִיב ״זֶבַח״? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא לֶחֶם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it written: “A sacrifice [zevaḥ],” indicating that slaughtering alone consecrates the loaves? The Gemara answers: He requires that expression for that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that everyone, including Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that the loaves must be in existence at the time of the slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now challenges Rabbi Elazar: doesn’t the word “zevaḥ” support the opposing view that slaughter alone consecrates? Rabbi Elazar uses “zevaḥ” for a different teaching — Rabbi Yoḥanan’s universally accepted principle that the loaves must at least be present at the time of slaughter, even if the slaughter itself doesn’t consecrate them. This is a key point of agreement: both sides require the loaves’ existence at slaughter, even though they disagree about when actual consecration occurs.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁיְּהֵא לֶחֶם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה = That the bread must exist at the time of slaughter; a universally accepted requirement
Segment 8
TYPE: מחלוקת אמוראים
Abaye vs. Rava: What does “consecrated but not consecrated” mean?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי ״קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ״? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ גָּמוּר. רָבָא אָמַר: קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִיתָּר.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara asks: What is meant by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement in the baraita that if one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, then the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated? Abaye says: The loaves are consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but their consecration is not complete. Rava says: The loaves are fully consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but they are not thereby permitted to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara unpacks Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s enigmatic phrase “kadosh ve’eino kadosh” through two amoraic interpretations. Abaye understands it as an incomplete consecration — the slaughter begins the process but doesn’t complete it. Rava understands the loaves as fully consecrated but not permitted for eating. This distinction will have practical ramifications regarding whether the loaves can transfer sanctity to redemption money.
Key Terms:
- קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ גָּמוּר = Consecrated but not complete; Abaye’s view — partial sanctity
- קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִיתָּר = Consecrated but not permitted; Rava’s view — full sanctity but no eating permission
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Practical difference: Can the loaves transfer sanctity to redemption money?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ: לְאַבָּיֵי – לָא תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ, לְרָבָא – תָּפֵיס פִּדְיוֹנוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Everyone concedes that the loaves may not be eaten as a result of this slaughtering. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the ability to transfer sanctity to their redemption money. According to Abaye, who holds that the loaves are not completely consecrated, they do not transfer sanctity to their redemption money if one tries to redeem them for money. According to Rava, who holds that the loaves are completely consecrated, they transfer sanctity to their redemption money.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies a practical difference between Abaye and Rava even though both agree the loaves may not be eaten. The question is whether attempting to redeem the loaves for money would transfer sanctity to that money. For Rava, since the loaves are fully consecrated, redemption money would acquire sanctity. For Abaye, since the consecration is incomplete, the money would not acquire sanctity. This reflects a broader principle about the threshold of kedusha needed for monetary transactions.
Key Terms:
- פִּדְיוֹנוֹ = Its redemption; the money paid to redeem a consecrated item
- תָּפֵיס = Seizes/acquires; here, whether the redemption money “catches” the sanctity of the loaves
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: According to Abaye, what distinguishes Rabbi from Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא, הַיְינוּ דְּאִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין רַבִּי לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rava, who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the loaves are completely sanctified, that is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, what difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Abaye’s interpretation. If according to Abaye, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the loaves are only partially consecrated, this seems very close to Rabbi Elazar’s position that they are not consecrated at all. The Gemara needs to identify a practical difference between these two tannaim according to Abaye’s understanding, or Abaye’s interpretation would effectively collapse the dispute.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = Granted; a standard term introducing the unproblematic side of a comparison before challenging the other side
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Answer: The difference is whether loaves become disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard (yotzei)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא [בֵּינַיְיהוּ] לְאִיפְּסוֹלֵי בְּיוֹצֵא.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether the loaves are rendered unfit by means of leaving the Temple courtyard after the slaughtering of the offering. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the loaves are rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the loaves are not consecrated, they are not rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Even according to Abaye’s understanding of partial consecration, there is a practical difference. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even partial consecration means the loaves have enough sacred status to become disqualified if they leave the Temple courtyard (yotzei). Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon holds the loaves have no sanctity at all before blood-sprinkling, so leaving the courtyard has no effect. This distinction will become central to the subsequent discussion about piggul and leaving the courtyard.
Key Terms:
- יוֹצֵא = That which left; an item that left its designated area (Temple courtyard) and thereby became disqualified
Segment 12
TYPE: בעיא
Dilemma: If sheep slaughtered properly but blood sprinkled improperly — may the loaves be eaten?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מֵרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – אוֹתוֹ הַלֶּחֶם מַהוּ בַּאֲכִילָה?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara continues the discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerning the consecration of the two loaves by means of the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of the sheep of Shavuot. Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the case of a communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot that one slaughtered for their sake but the priest sprinkled their blood not for their sake, concerning those accompanying loaves, what is the halakha with regard to eating them?
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dilemma arises: when the sheep are slaughtered with proper intent but the blood is sprinkled improperly, may the loaves be eaten? This question tests the practical implications of the dispute. The dilemma is more subtle than it appears, because neither Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi nor Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon provides a straightforward answer, as the Gemara will immediately demonstrate.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ בַּאֲכִילָה = What is its status regarding eating; a standard formulation for asking whether something is permitted to be consumed
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Analysis: The dilemma doesn’t fit either tanna as understood so far
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָאָמַר ״זְרִיקָה הִיא דִּמְקַדְּשָׁא״! אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי – בֵּין לְאַבָּיֵי בֵּין לְרָבָא, ״קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ נִיתָּר״ הוּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that it is the sprinkling of the blood that consecrates the loaves? Consequently, if the blood was not properly sprinkled, it is clear that the loves are unfit and may not be eaten. And if it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, both according to the opinion of Abaye and according to that of Rava, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the loaves are consecrated but are not permitted to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara demonstrates that the dilemma doesn’t fit either tanna straightforwardly. According to Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon, improper sprinkling means no consecration at all — the answer is obviously no. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the loaves are “consecrated but not permitted” — again, the answer seems clear. This sets up the need to identify a third tannaitic opinion that makes the question meaningful.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן = According to whom; a standard phrase asking which opinion serves as the basis for a question
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbi Akiva: Loaves that left the courtyard between slaughter and sprinkling
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּהַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁיָּצְאוּ בֵּין שְׁחִיטָה לִזְרִיקָה, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין בַּלֶּחֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ בַּלֶּחֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rather, one must say that the question was asked in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna. As the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba teaches in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves left the Temple courtyard between the slaughtering of the offering and the sprinkling of its blood, and then the priest sprinkled the blood of the sheep with the intent that their meat would be eaten beyond their designated time, the sheep are rendered piggul. With regard to the loaves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul. Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a complex baraita that combines two issues: leaving the courtyard (yotzei) and piggul intent. The scenario is: loaves leave the courtyard after slaughter but before sprinkling, and then the blood is sprinkled with intent to eat the meat beyond its designated time. Rabbi Eliezer says the loaves are not subject to piggul, while Rabbi Akiva says they are. This dispute becomes the framework for understanding the original dilemma.
Key Terms:
- פִּיגּוּל = An offering rendered prohibited due to intent to consume it beyond its designated time
- חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן = Beyond their designated time; the disqualifying intent that creates piggul
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Sheshet: Both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva follow Rabbi — slaughter consecrates
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet said: These tanna’im, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughtering consecrates the loaves by itself. Consequently, if the loaves are taken out of the Temple courtyard after the sheep are slaughtered, the loaves become disqualified.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet provides the key interpretive framework: both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva agree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that slaughter alone consecrates the loaves. Since the loaves were consecrated by the slaughter, leaving the courtyard between slaughter and sprinkling disqualifies them. Their dispute is specifically about what happens next — whether the subsequent blood-sprinkling has any further effect on these already-disqualified loaves.
Key Terms:
- הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לְהוּ = These tannaim hold in accordance with Rabbi; Rav Sheshet’s alignment of the tannaitic positions
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
The point of dispute: Is blood-sprinkling effective for offerings that left the courtyard?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיהוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.
English Translation:
But they disagree as to the following: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Eliezer says that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Since the loaves left the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time does not render the loaves piggul. And Rabbi Akiva conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Akiva says that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time renders the loaves piggul, even though they left the courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet explains the root of the dispute: does blood-sprinkling have any effect on items that have already left the Temple courtyard? Rabbi Eliezer says no — once the loaves left, sprinkling cannot render them piggul because the sprinkling simply doesn’t “reach” items outside the courtyard. Rabbi Akiva says yes — sprinkling is still effective even for items that left, and therefore the piggul-intent during sprinkling renders the loaves piggul. This is a well-known dispute that appears in Tractate Me’ila.
Key Terms:
- זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא = Sprinkling is effective with regard to that which left; Rabbi Akiva’s principle
- לְטַעְמֵיהּ = According to his own reasoning; each tanna follows a consistent position across different contexts
Amud Bet (47b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
Mishna from Me’ila: Rabbi Eliezer — sprinkling ineffective for items that left the courtyard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
English Translation:
As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 6b): In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective with regard to these portions, and therefore one is not liable for misusing them. And if one eats them, he is not liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings the source for the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva — a mishna from Me’ila. Rabbi Eliezer’s position is comprehensive: if sacrificial portions of lesser-sanctity offerings left the courtyard before the blood was sprinkled, the subsequent sprinkling has no effect at all. This means the items cannot become subject to me’ila (misuse of consecrated property), piggul, notar (leftover), or tumah (ritual impurity) prohibitions.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity (e.g., peace offerings)
- מְעִילָה = Misuse of consecrated property; a prohibition carrying a liability to bring a guilt offering
- נוֹתָר = Leftover sacrificial meat; meat remaining beyond its permitted time for consumption
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Rabbi Akiva: Sprinkling IS effective — full liability for me’ila, piggul, notar, and tumah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective and therefore, one is liable for misusing them. And if one eats them he is liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva’s opposing view is that blood-sprinkling remains effective even for items that left the courtyard. Consequently, all the standard prohibitions apply — me’ila, piggul, notar, and eating in a state of tumah. This is the source for the principle “zerika mo’elet la-yotzei” (sprinkling is effective for that which left), which is central to the Gemara’s discussion on this daf.
Key Terms:
- מוֹעֲלִין = Subject to the prohibition of me’ila (misuse of consecrated property)
Segment 3
TYPE: בעיא
Return to the original dilemma: According to Rabbi Akiva, may the loaves be eaten?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי?
English Translation:
The Gemara now concludes the dilemma that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, what is the halakha with regard to eating the loaves when the sheep were slaughtered for their own sake, but their blood was sprinkled not for their sake?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the framework — Rabbi Akiva holds that sprinkling is effective even for items that left the courtyard — the Gemara returns to the original question. Since according to Rabbi Akiva the sprinkling can affect the loaves even after they left, the question becomes: does sprinkling that is done not for its own sake (shelo lishmo) have the same reach as piggul-intent sprinkling? The single word “mai?” encapsulates the core dilemma.
Key Terms:
- מַאי = What is [the halakha]?; the Gemara’s terse return to the unresolved question
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Two sides of the dilemma: Stringency vs. leniency in applying sprinkling to yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדִּזְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל קָבְעָה לְלֶחֶם בְּפִיגּוּל בְּיוֹצֵא כְּבָשָׂר, זְרִיקָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ נָמֵי שָׁרְיָא לֵיהּ לְלֶחֶם, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Should one say that from the fact that sprinkling the blood of the sheep in a manner that renders it piggul renders the loaves piggul, like the meat of the offering, despite the fact that the loaves were disqualified by leaving the courtyard of the Temple, it can be derived that sprinkling the blood not for its own sake also permits the loaves to be eaten, just as it permits the meat of the sheep to be eaten? Or perhaps it is only to be stringent that we say that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to loaves that have left the Temple courtyard, but we do not say this in order to be lenient, e.g., to render the loaves permitted to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma is elegantly stated: is Rabbi Akiva’s principle that sprinkling is effective for yotzei a symmetric one, or is it asymmetric? If symmetric, then just as piggul-sprinkling creates a stringency (rendering the loaves piggul), non-lishmah sprinkling should create a leniency (permitting the loaves to be eaten). But perhaps the principle only works in one direction — we apply sprinkling to create stringencies but not leniencies. This is left unresolved.
Key Terms:
- לְחוּמְרָא = To be stringent; applying a ruling that creates restrictions
- לְקוּלָּא = To be lenient; applying a ruling that creates permissions
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Pappa objects: Maybe the dispute is about loaves brought back inside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִמַּאי דְּכִי אִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי?
English Translation:
Rav Pappa objects to this understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. From where do we know that they disagree in a case where the loaves are outside the courtyard at the time of the sprinkling?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa challenges the entire framework of Rav Sheshet’s explanation. He questions the assumption that the baraita discusses a case where the loaves are still outside the courtyard when the blood is sprinkled. Perhaps they were brought back inside before the sprinkling, and the dispute is about a different issue entirely. This alternative reading would fundamentally reshape the alignment of tannaitic positions.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ = He objects to it; a standard formula for raising a challenge to an interpretation
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa’s alternative: Rabbi Eliezer follows Rabbi — loaves already disqualified by yotzei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּילְמָא בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, וּבַהֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ פְּלִיגִי, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא, וְאִיפְּסִלוּ לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא.
English Translation:
Perhaps in a case where the loaves are still outside the courtyard everyone agrees that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard, and they disagree in a case where the loaves left the courtyard and one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling. As Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, and therefore the loaves became disqualified by leaving the courtyard after the sheep were slaughtered. Consequently, even if they were brought back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood they cannot become piggul because they have already been disqualified for a different reason.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa offers an alternative reading: perhaps everyone agrees that sprinkling doesn’t affect items currently outside the courtyard. The dispute is about loaves that were brought back. Under this reading, Rabbi Eliezer follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — slaughter consecrated the loaves, so leaving the courtyard disqualified them permanently. Even after returning, they remain disqualified and cannot become piggul. This fundamentally recharacterizes the dispute.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ = One brought them back in; the scenario where the loaves were returned to the courtyard before sprinkling
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Under Rav Pappa: Rabbi Akiva follows Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon — loaves not yet consecrated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה לָא מְקַדְּשָׁא, וְלָא מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves at all before the sprinkling of the blood. Since the loaves were not yet consecrated, they do not become disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard.
קלאוד על הדף:
In Rav Pappa’s alternative reading, Rabbi Akiva follows Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon: slaughter does not consecrate the loaves. Therefore, leaving the courtyard between slaughter and sprinkling doesn’t disqualify them because they had no sacred status yet. Once brought back and the blood sprinkled with piggul intent, the sprinkling both consecrates and renders them piggul simultaneously. This completely reverses the tannaitic alignments from Rav Sheshet’s reading.
Key Terms:
- לָא מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא = They are not disqualified by leaving; since unconsecrated items cannot be disqualified by exiting the courtyard
Segment 8
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: Rav Pappa’s reading doesn’t work — piggul sprinkling can’t consecrate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא לְהוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּקָדְשִׁי לְהוּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה, וְאָתְיָא זְרִיקָה קָבְעָה לְהוּ בְּפִיגּוּל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? It does not fit what they say. Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, that is what Rabbi Akiva means when he says that the loaves are consecrated by the slaughter of the sheep and then the sprinkling that was done with the intent to consume the offering after its appointed time comes and renders the loaves piggul.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins refuting Rav Pappa’s alternative reading. Under Rav Sheshet’s original explanation (where Rabbi Akiva follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi), the mechanism is clear: slaughter first consecrates the loaves, then the piggul-intent sprinkling renders them piggul. This is a two-step process that makes logical sense — you need to be consecrated first before you can become piggul.
Key Terms:
- הַאי מַאי = What is this?; an expression of strong objection to an interpretation
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: Can piggul-sprinkling simultaneously consecrate and render piggul?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ, כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: זְבִיחָה לָא מְקַדְּשָׁא, זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל מִי מְקַדְּשָׁא?
English Translation:
But if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves without the sprinkling of the blood, does sprinkling with an intent that renders the sheep piggul actually consecrate the loaves?
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the devastating objection to Rav Pappa’s reading. If slaughter doesn’t consecrate the loaves (per Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon), then the sprinkling must both consecrate the loaves AND simultaneously render them piggul. But can a defective sprinkling (one performed with piggul intent) actually achieve the positive act of consecration? This seems logically impossible — a fundamentally flawed act shouldn’t be able to create new sanctity.
Key Terms:
- זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל = Piggul-sprinkling; blood-sprinkling performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time
Segment 10
TYPE: ראייה
Proof: Rav Giddel’s principle — piggul-sprinkling doesn’t change me’ila status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מְעִילָה, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה מִידֵי מְעִילָה.
English Translation:
But doesn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav says: Sprinkling with an intent that renders an offering piggul does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites Rav Giddel’s statement in Rav’s name as further support for the objection. This principle states that piggul-sprinkling is essentially inert — it doesn’t change the me’ila status of any item. It doesn’t bring items into me’ila liability (for lesser-sanctity offerings) and doesn’t remove items from me’ila liability (for most-sacred offerings). This reinforces the idea that piggul-sprinkling cannot consecrate.
Key Terms:
- מְעִילָה = Misuse of consecrated property; a prohibition that depends on an item’s sanctified status
- מְבִיאָה/מוֹצִיאָה = Bringing into / removing from; describes the effect (or lack thereof) of piggul-sprinkling on me’ila status
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Explanation: “Not bringing into me’ila” applies to lesser-sanctity sacrificial portions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מְעִילָה – בְּאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
English Translation:
Rav explains: The halakha that it does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to: “The sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). Consequently, it does not apply to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the meat is the property of those who brought the offering, and the sacrificial portions are disqualified by the sprinkling performed with improper intent.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains the first part of Rav Giddel’s statement. Normally, after valid blood-sprinkling, the sacrificial portions (eimurim) of lesser-sanctity offerings become subject to me’ila because they are now “the Lord’s.” But when the sprinkling was done with piggul intent, it doesn’t elevate these portions to me’ila status. The defective sprinkling lacks the power to create new consecrated-property obligations.
Key Terms:
- אֵימוּרִים = Sacrificial portions; the fats and organs placed on the altar
- קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = Offerings of lesser sanctity (e.g., peace offerings, thanks offerings)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Explanation: “Not removing from me’ila” applies to most-sacred offering meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה מִידֵי מְעִילָה – בִּבְשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
And the halakha that it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to meat of offerings of the most sacred order, such as a sin offering, a guilt offering, or a communal peace offering. Since the sprinkling of the blood was not valid, the meat, which would have become permitted for the priests to eat, retains the status of “the sacred items of the Lord,” and the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property still applies.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second part of Rav Giddel’s statement is explained: for most-sacred offerings, the meat is subject to me’ila before sprinkling because it belongs to God. Valid sprinkling would remove this me’ila status by making the meat permissible for the priests. But piggul-sprinkling doesn’t accomplish this removal — the meat stays in its pre-sprinkling me’ila status. Both halves of Rav Giddel’s statement confirm that piggul-sprinkling is inert regarding status changes.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים = Offerings of the most sacred order (e.g., sin offering, guilt offering, communal peace offering)
Segment 13
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: Rav Giddel’s statement was already refuted elsewhere
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָאו אִיתּוֹתַב דְּרַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב?
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this explanation: Wasn’t that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says conclusively refuted? Consequently, one cannot ask a question based on this statement.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that Rav Giddel’s statement was conclusively refuted elsewhere in the Talmud (likely in Tractate Me’ila or Zevachim). Since the statement was refuted, it cannot serve as a reliable basis for an objection. This means the challenge against Rav Pappa’s alternative reading based on Rav Giddel’s principle is itself rejected. However, the primary objection — that piggul-sprinkling can’t consecrate — may still stand on its own logic.
Key Terms:
- אִיתּוֹתַב = It was conclusively refuted; a definitive rejection of a statement found elsewhere in the Talmud
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
New dilemma: Sheep slaughtered properly but loaves lost — may blood be sprinkled as a different offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְאָבַד הַלֶּחֶם – מַהוּ שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן לְהַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites another dilemma concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case of the two sheep of Shavuot that one slaughtered for their own sake, thereby establishing a bond between the sheep and the loaves, and the loaves were then lost, if the blood of the sheep would be sprinkled for their sake, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten because the loaves were lost. That said, what is the halakha with regard to whether the priest may sprinkle their blood not for their own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering in order to permit the meat of the sheep to be eaten?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to a new and fascinating dilemma. The sheep were properly slaughtered as Shavuot peace offerings with the loaves, but then the loaves were lost. Sprinkling the blood “for their own sake” (as Shavuot offerings) would be pointless since the loaves are gone. Can the priest instead sprinkle “not for its own sake” — treating them as generic peace offerings — to salvage the meat? This question tests whether an offering can be “downgraded” mid-process.
Key Terms:
- אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם = The loaves were lost; the scenario that triggers the dilemma
- לְהַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה = To permit the meat to be eaten; the practical goal of the proposed workaround
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Zeira’s objection and Rabbi Yirmeya’s first counter-example: the Paschal offering before midday
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?! וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, דְּאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Do you have anything that is not fit if the sacrificial rites are performed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if the sacrificial rites are performed not for its own sake? This is certainly not a logical option. Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, as it is before the proper time for the Paschal offering, and yet it is fit if it is slaughtered not for its own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
A remarkable back-and-forth exchange begins. Rabbi Zeira dismisses the question as illogical: how can something be invalid for its own sake yet valid for a different sake? Rabbi Yirmeya brilliantly cites the Paschal offering before midday on Erev Pesach — it can’t be slaughtered as a Paschal offering (too early), but it can be slaughtered as a regular peace offering. Rabbi Zeira must now refine his objection to distinguish this case.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת = The Paschal offering before midday; before its proper time it can only be sacrificed as a different offering
- לִשְׁמוֹ / שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ = For its own sake / not for its own sake; fundamental categories of sacrificial intent
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Zeira refines: The key is that the sheep were ALREADY fit, then rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא: יֵשׁ לָךְ דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִדְחֶה מִלִּשְׁמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?!
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep when the loaves were lost, and is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira adds a crucial distinction: the Paschal offering before midday was never fit as a Paschal offering at that time. But the Shavuot sheep were originally fit for their designation and then became unfit when the loaves were lost. The question is whether something that was “nireh” (initially fit) and then “nidcheh” (rejected) can be redirected to a different designation. This concept of dichuya (rejection) is fundamental to sacrificial law.
Key Terms:
- נִרְאֶה לִשְׁמוֹ = Was fit for its own sake; the initial status of the sheep before the loaves were lost
- נִדְחֶה = Was rejected/pushed aside; the status change caused by the loaves being lost
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yirmeya’s second counter: The Paschal offering after its time was fit, then rejected
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering, which was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake during its designated time, and after its designated time, during the rest of the days of the year before midday, it is not fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering but it is fit to be sacrificed as a peace offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya finds another precedent that meets Rabbi Zeira’s refined criteria. A Paschal offering that was fit during its designated time (Erev Pesach after midday) can be sacrificed during the rest of the year as a peace offering. This animal was initially fit for its designation, was then “rejected” from it (by the passage of time), and yet can still be offered under a different designation. The parallel to the lost loaves seems exact.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ = The Paschal offering after its designated time; it becomes a regular peace offering
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Zeira adds another condition: The sheep were already SLAUGHTERED for their sake
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: יֵשׁ לָךְ דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִשְׁחָט לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִדְחֶה מִלִּשְׁמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and it was slaughtered for its own sake, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep when the loaves were lost, and it is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira adds yet another criterion to distinguish the case: the Shavuot sheep were not only fit but were actually already slaughtered for their own sake. The Paschal offering precedent involved an animal that was merely designated but not yet slaughtered. Here, the slaughter already took place with the proper intent before the rejection occurred. Can you then change the designation for the remaining rites (sprinkling)? This progressive refinement of the question makes it increasingly difficult to find a precedent.
Key Terms:
- נִשְׁחָט לִשְׁמוֹ = Was slaughtered for its own sake; the additional condition that distinguishes this case from the Paschal offering precedent
Segment 19
TYPE: ראייה
Rabbi Yirmeya’s final precedent: The todah — slaughtered, loaves lost, sprinkled as shelamim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי תּוֹדָה!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the thanks offering, as the Gemara (46a) states that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and then its accompanying loaves broke into pieces and thereby became disqualified, the blood should be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering rather than a thanks offering, and then the meat may be eaten. Yet, if the blood was sprinkled for the sake of a thanks offering, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya produces the closest possible parallel: the todah (thanks offering) from the discussion on 46a. A todah was slaughtered with its loaves, then the loaves broke, and the blood was sprinkled as a regular shelamim (peace offering) rather than a todah, allowing the meat to be eaten. This exactly matches: fit → slaughtered properly → rejected (loaves lost) → redirected to another designation. This seems to be a perfect precedent for the Shavuot sheep.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹדָה = Thanks offering; an offering that requires accompanying loaves, discussed in the previous daf
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Zeira distinguishes: The todah is called “shelamim” by the Torah — the Shavuot sheep are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיַיהּ ״שְׁלָמִים״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira answered: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering (see Leviticus 7:13). Just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering may sometimes be sacrificed without loaves. Therefore, the loss of the loaves does not render the thanks offering disqualified, and this case is not comparable to the case of the two sheep and two loaves of Shavuot.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira provides the decisive distinction: the Torah itself calls the todah a “shelamim” (Leviticus 7:13), which means it inherently has the nature of a peace offering. When its loaves are lost, it can naturally revert to its shelamim identity. The Shavuot sheep, however, are a unique offering with no such built-in alternative identity. The dilemma about the Shavuot sheep therefore remains unresolved — a question without a clear precedent.
Key Terms:
- רַחֲמָנָא קַרְיַיהּ שְׁלָמִים = The Torah called it “shelamim” (peace offerings); the key textual basis for distinguishing the todah from the Shavuot sheep
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Baraita: Slaughtering sheep with four loaves instead of two — draw two and wave them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים עַל אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת – מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁתַּיִם מֵהֶן וּמְנִיפָן,
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one slaughtered the two sheep as required but they were accompanied by four loaves rather than the requisite two loaves, he draws two of the loaves from the four and waves them together with the sheep,
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends with the beginning of a new baraita that addresses a practical scenario: what happens when too many loaves accompany the sheep? The solution is straightforward — select two of the four loaves and wave them with the sheep. The remaining two loaves have no sacred status. This baraita continues on the next daf. The case illustrates the principle that only the correct number of loaves (two) can be consecrated by the offering.
Key Terms:
- מוֹשֵׁךְ = He draws/selects; the procedure for choosing the correct loaves from the extra ones
- מְנִיפָן = He waves them; the tenufah (waving) ceremony performed with the loaves and sheep