## Menachot Daf 47b

###### Menachot 47b:1
[Menachot 47b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:1)

דִּתְנַן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 47b:2
[Menachot 47b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:2)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Menachot 47b:3
[Menachot 47b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:3)

מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Menachot 47b:4
[Menachot 47b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:4)

מִדִּזְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל קָבְעָה לְלֶחֶם בְּפִיגּוּל בְּיוֹצֵא כְּבָשָׂר, זְרִיקָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ נָמֵי שָׁרְיָא לֵיהּ לְלֶחֶם, אוֹ דִלְמָא לְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:5
[Menachot 47b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:5)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִמַּאי דְּכִי אִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Menachot 47b:6
[Menachot 47b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:6)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 47b:7
[Menachot 47b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:7)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה לָא מְקַדְּשָׁא, וְלָא מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 47b:8
[Menachot 47b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.**


###### Menachot 47b:9
[Menachot 47b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:9)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ, כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: זְבִיחָה לָא מְקַדְּשָׁא, זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל מִי מְקַדְּשָׁא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Menachot 47b:10
[Menachot 47b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:10)

וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַב: זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מְעִילָה, וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה מִידֵי מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Menachot 47b:11
[Menachot 47b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:11)

אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה לִידֵי מְעִילָה – בְּאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:12
[Menachot 47b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:12)

וְאֵינָהּ מוֹצִיאָה מִידֵי מְעִילָה – בִּבְשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 47b:13
[Menachot 47b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:13)

לָאו אִיתּוֹתַב דְּרַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:14
[Menachot 47b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:14)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְאָבַד הַלֶּחֶם – מַהוּ שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן לְהַתִּיר בָּשָׂר בַּאֲכִילָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?**


###### Menachot 47b:15
[Menachot 47b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יֵשׁ לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?! וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, דְּאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:16
[Menachot 47b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:16)

הָכִי קָא אָמֵינָא: יֵשׁ לָךְ דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִדְחֶה מִלִּשְׁמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 47b:17
[Menachot 47b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:17)

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח אַחַר זְמַנּוֹ, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:18
[Menachot 47b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:18)

הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא: יֵשׁ לָךְ דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִשְׁחָט לִשְׁמוֹ, וְנִדְחֶה מִלִּשְׁמוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Menachot 47b:19
[Menachot 47b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:19)

וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי תּוֹדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 47b:20
[Menachot 47b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:20)

שָׁאנֵי תּוֹדָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא קַרְיַיהּ ״שְׁלָמִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Menachot 47b:21
[Menachot 47b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/47b:21)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים עַל אַרְבַּע חַלּוֹת – מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁתַּיִם מֵהֶן וּמְנִיפָן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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,