## Menachot Daf 46a

###### Menachot 46a:1
[Menachot 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:1)

שֶׁאִם הוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה שֶׁמְּעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. (וְאֵיזֶה הוּא) [וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא] זִיקָּה שֶׁלָּהֶן – שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**that if** they **became bound to each other** and then one of them became lost, **that** the lost item **prevents** fulfillment of the mitzva with **the other,** i.e., the remaining item is unfit and must be burned. Rabbi Yoḥanan clarifies: **And what is** it that establishes **their bond?** It is the **slaughter** of the sheep. If the loaves existed at the time of the slaughter, then the loaves and sheep are sanctified as one unit. Consequently, if one of them is lost, the other is unfit and must be burned.


###### Menachot 46a:2
[Menachot 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:2)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: בָּעוּ בְּמַעְרְבָא – תְּנוּפָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the establishment of the bond between the loaves and the sheep, **Ulla said** that the Sages **in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **raise a dilemma:** Does **waving** of the sheep and loaves before the sheep are slaughtered **establish a bond** between the sheep and the loaves, such that if one is lost the other becomes unfit, **or does it not establish a bond** between them?


###### Menachot 46a:3
[Menachot 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:3)

פְּשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה, מִכְּלָל דִּתְנוּפָה אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is there a dilemma about this issue? **Resolve it from** the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **slaughter** of the sheep **establishes a bond** between sheep and the loaves. One can conclude **by inference** that **waving,** which precedes the slaughter, **does not establish a bond** between them.


###### Menachot 46a:4
[Menachot 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:4)

דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן גּוּפָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּשְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה, וּתְנוּפָה אֵינוֹ עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה? אוֹ דִלְמָא, שְׁחִיטָה פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, וּתְנוּפָה מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is with regard to the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan itself** that Ulla **raises the dilemma:** Is it **obvious to Rabbi Yoḥanan that slaughter establishes a bond** between them **but waving does not establish a bond** between them? **Or perhaps it is obvious to him** that **slaughter** establishes a bond between them, **but he is uncertain** as to whether or not **waving** establishes a bond between them. According to the second possibility, the reason that he mentioned slaughter is that he was certain about it. The Gemara notes that the question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Menachot 46a:5
[Menachot 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר חֲנִינָא לְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְהָא כִּי כְּתִיב ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ בָּתַר תְּנוּפָה כְּתִיב, וּפְלִיגִי בֶּן נַנָּס וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥanina said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: But when it is written: “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest”** (Leviticus 23:20), it is **written** immediately **after** the verse mentions **waving, and** nevertheless Rabbi Shimon **ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree,** based on this phrase, about whether the loaves can be brought without the sheep or the sheep can be sacrificed without the loaves. This indicates that the waving does not establish a bond between these two items.


###### Menachot 46a:6
[Menachot 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:6)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, בָּתַר תְּנוּפָה וְלָא בָּתַר שְׁחִיטָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, replied to Rabbi Yehuda bar Ḥanina: **And according to your reasoning** that one can infer the *halakha* based upon the placement of the phrase: “They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest,” is this phrase referring to the time **after waving but not after** the **slaughter** of the sheep? After all, the verse speaks of giving them to the priest, which is done after the sheep have been slaughtered. How then did Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva disagree concerning this verse?


###### Menachot 46a:7
[Menachot 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:7)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימְרָא, מֵעִיקָּרָא קָאֵי, וּמַאי ״קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ – דָּבָר שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לַכֹּהֵן. הָכָא נָמֵי, דָּבָר שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לַכֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what do you have to say** concerning this verse? It must be **referring** to a time **before** the slaughter, **and what** is meant by: **“They shall be holy to the Lord for the priest”?** It means **an item that is ultimately** given **to the priest. Here too,** one can explain that the verse is referring to a time before the waving, and it means **an item that is ultimately** given **to the priest.** The issue of whether or not waving establishes a bond between the sheep and loaves therefore remains an open question.


###### Menachot 46a:8
[Menachot 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:8)

וּשְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה? ורְמִינְהִי: עַד שֶׁלֹּא שְׁחָטָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – יָבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** is it so that **slaughter establishes a bond** between them? **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** to this from a *baraita* concerning a thanks offering, which consists of an animal offering accompanied by forty loaves. The *baraita* states: If one of **its** accompanying **loaves broke before he slaughtered** the thanks offering, **he should bring another loaf and slaughter** the thanks offering.


###### Menachot 46a:9
[Menachot 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:9)

מִשֶּׁשְּׁחָטָהּ נִפְרַס לַחְמָהּ – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל, וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא, וְהַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if one of **its** accompanying **loaves broke once he slaughtered** the thanks offering, it is not possible to bring another loaf because the loaves of a thanks offering are sanctified through the slaughter of the animal, which has already taken place. Consequently, **the blood** should **be sprinkled** on the altar **and the meat** should **be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow** to bring a thanks offering, **and the loaves are** all **unfit.**


###### Menachot 46a:10
[Menachot 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:10)

נִזְרַק הַדָּם, תּוֹרֵם מִן הַשָּׁלֵם עַל הַפָּרוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one of its accompanying loaves broke after **the blood was sprinkled** on the altar, the loaves are not deemed unfit and the individual has fulfilled his vow to bring a thanks offering. **He separates** the four loaves for the priest **from the whole** loaves **for the broken** loaf. The priest receives whole loaves and not the broken one.


###### Menachot 46a:11
[Menachot 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:11)

עַד שֶׁלֹּא שְׁחָטָהּ יָצָא לַחְמָהּ – מַכְנִיסָהּ וְשׁוֹחֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If one of **its** accompanying **loaves left** the confines of the walls of Jerusalem **before he slaughtered** the thanks offering, it is not unfit because the loaves were not yet sanctified by the slaughter. Therefore, **he brings it** back **into** the city **and slaughters** the thanks offering.


###### Menachot 46a:12
[Menachot 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:12)

מִשֶּׁשְּׁחָטָהּ יָצָא לַחְמָהּ – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל, וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ לֹא יָצָא, וְהַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל. נִזְרַק הַדָּם – תּוֹרֵם מִמַּה שֶּׁבִּפְנִים עַל שֶׁבַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one of **its** accompanying **loaves left** the confines of the walls of Jerusalem **once he slaughtered** the thanks offering, the loaves are rendered unfit. Consequently, **the blood** should **be sprinkled** on the altar **and the meat** should **be eaten, but he has not fulfilled his vow** to bring a thanks offering **and the loaves are** all **unfit.** If one of the loaves left the confines of the walls of Jerusalem after **the blood was sprinkled** on the altar, the remainder of the offering is fit, and **he separates** the four loaves for the priest **from the** ones **that** remained **inside** the city **for the loaf that** went **outside** the walls of the city.


###### Menachot 46a:13
[Menachot 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:13)

עַד שֶׁלֹּא שְׁחָטָהּ נִטְמָא לַחְמָהּ – מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט; מִשֶּׁשְּׁחָטָהּ נִטְמָא לַחְמָהּ – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל, וִידֵי נִדְרוֹ יָצָא, שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא, וְהַלֶּחֶם פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If one of **its** accompanying **loaves became impure before he slaughtered** the thanks offering, **he brings another loaf and slaughters** the thanks offering. But if one of **its** accompanying **loaves became impure once he slaughtered** the thanks offering, then **the blood** should **be sprinkled** on the altar **and the meat** should **be eaten, and he has fulfilled his vow** to bring a thanks offering. This is due to the fact **that the frontplate effects acceptance of** offerings that are **impure.** Nevertheless, **the loaf** that became impure **is unfit,** as the frontplate effects acceptance of the offering but does not render impure items pure.


###### Menachot 46a:14
[Menachot 46a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:14)

נִזְרַק הַדָּם – תּוֹרֵם מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: If one of its accompanying loaves became impure after **the blood was sprinkled** on the altar, **he separates** the four loaves that are given to the priest **from the** loaves that remained **pure for the impure** loaf.


###### Menachot 46a:15
[Menachot 46a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:15)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁחִיטָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה, כֵּיוָן דְּהוּזְקְקוּ זֶה לָזֶה בִּשְׁחִיטָה, אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ לֶחֶם – תִּיפְּסֵל נָמֵי תּוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comes to its question: **If it enters your mind** to say that **slaughter establishes a bond** between the sheep and the two loaves of *Shavuot*, and similarly between the animal offering and the loaves of a thanks offering, then in the cases where a loaf became unfit after the animal was slaughtered but before the blood was sprinkled, **since** the animal and the loaves **bonded with each other through the slaughtering,** once the **loaf became unfit, the thanks offering should also become unfit.** Consequently, the blood of the offering should not be sprinkled on the altar and the meat should not be eaten, contrary to what is stated in the *baraita*.


###### Menachot 46a:16
[Menachot 46a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:16)

שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיַיהּ ״שְׁלָמִים״, מָה שְׁלָמִים קְרֵבִים בְּלֹא לֶחֶם, אַף תּוֹדָה קְרֵבָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering,** as the verse states: “The sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13). Consequently, **just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering** can be **sacrificed without loaves.**


###### Menachot 46a:17
[Menachot 46a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/46a:17)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר תְּנוּפָה עוֹשָׂה זִיקָּה, אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya says: If you say** that **waving establishes a bond** between the loaves and the sheep, then in a case where **the loaves were lost** after the waving,