Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 48

1) THE "SHTEI HA'LECHEM" BECOMING "KADOSH" WHEN THEY ARE BAKED

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if four loaves were prepared instead of two loaves for the Shtei ha'Lechem, two are taken in order to do the Tenufah (waving the loaves together with the Kevasim, both when the Kevasim are alive and after they are slaughtered), and two are "redeemed" and eaten by the Kohanim. The Gemara says that the Beraisa can even be according to the view of Rebbi, even though he maintains that the Shtei ha'Lechem become Kadosh when the Kevasim are slaughtered.

The Gemara asks that the Beraisa does not seem to be following the view of Rebbi. How can the extra loaves be redeemed after they have already become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf at the time of the Shechitah of the Kevasim? The Beraisa cannot mean that they can be redeemed outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, because, since they are Kadosh, it is forbidden to bring them outside! On the other hand, the Beraisa also cannot mean that they can be redeemed inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because they would then become Chulin in the Azarah, and once is not allowed to bring Chulin into the Azarah. The Gemara answers that according to Rebbi, there is no prohibition to redeem an object of Kedushah that is already inside the Azarah and make it Chulin. The prohibition is only to *bring* a Chulin item into the Azarah.

TOSFOS (DH l'Olam) points that the baking of the loaves in the oven does not give the loaves the Kedushah of a Korban; only the Shechitah of the Kevasim gives Kedushah to the loaves. This is because all four are not fit to be brought as the Shtei ha'Lechem; only two loaves are fit. Normally, though, when only two loaves are baked, they become Kadosh when they are baked (see Me'ilah 9a).

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH (on the Rambam, published at the end of SEFER HAR HA'MORIYAH) has difficulty with Tosfos' question. Why does Tosfos think that the baking of the Shtei ha'Lechem should make them Kadosh any more than the Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres makes them Kadosh? Rebbi holds that the Shechitah makes them Kadosh, and that the Kedushah that they get at that time is an even more specific Kedushah than the Kedushah they get when they are baked, and yet he still holds that loaves may be redeemed! Why, then, should we be concerned about the Kedushah they attain when they are baked?

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHOK NASAN explains that Tosfos is justified in suspecting that the Kedushah given by the baking is more than the Kedushah of the Shechitah. This is because the Kedushah given by the oven is due to the fact that the loaves are baked *inside* of the oven which itself is Kadosh, and the Torah says with regard to the Klei Shares, "Kol ha'Noge'a Bahem Yikdash" -- "whatever touches them becomes Kadosh" (Shemos 30:29). The Shechitah of the Kevasim, in contrast, does not make the loaves Kadosh through "touching," leaving a doubt about whether we can prove from the fact that the Shechitah (in the case of the Gemara) does not give Kedushah to the loaves that the oven does not give Kedushah to the loaves.

This explanation is consistent with Tosfos' explanation of the Gemara in Me'ilah (9a). The Mishnah there states that once the "face of the loaf becomes baked" ("Karmu Paneha," the exact definition of which is subject to discussion among the Rishonim), the loaves are able to become Pasul by being touched by a person who is a Tevul Yom. If the loaves become Kadosh by being inside the oven, then why does the Mishnah say that they reach this degree of Kedushah when they become partially baked? Being placed in the oven should suffice! Tosfos there (8a, DH Karmu) explains that the reason why the oven is not Mekadesh the loaves right away is because a Kli Shares is only Mekadesh what is placed into it when it performs the functions to the Korban for which it is designated. Since the purpose of the oven is to bake the loaves, the Kedushah does not occur until they are partially baked.

(b) The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH suggests that Tosfos is asking an entirely different question. The Gemara's question is based on the fact that Rebbi holds that the Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres is Mekadesh the Shtei ha'Lechem. Tosfos does not understand why this question should be based on Rebbi's opinion. According to everyone, the loaves become Kadosh when they are in the oven! This alone should make them able to become Pasul if they are taken outside to be redeemed, and it should create a problem of Chulin in the Azarah if they are redeemed in the Azarah.

(c) The Birkas ha'Zevach suggests another possible explanation. Tosfos is asking his question according to Rav Chisda, who says that the Beraisa could be following the view of Rebbi. Since Rebbi himself says that the oven is Mekadesh its contents (see 72b), why does a Beraisa -- that is following the view of Rebbi -- make the Kedushah contingent on the Shechitah? It should simply say that if all four loaves were *baked* for the Shtei ha'Lechem, then two should be used for the Tenufah and two should be redeemed, because they have Kedushah from the time they are partially baked (and not just from when the Kevasim are slaughtered).

The Chok Nasan rejects both of these possibilities for one reason. He explains that Tosfos himself says earlier (46a, DH v'Eizo) that the Kedushah of the oven *does not* cause the loaves to become Pasul if they are subsequently taken out of the Azarah. This negates the part of the question which asks that they cannot be taken outside the Azarah since they will become Pasul because of "Yotzei." Only the Shechitah can make the loaves become Pasul because of "Yotzei." It is therefore illogical to say that Tosfos is suggesting that the Beraisa should have expressed the Halachah differently. (Y. Montrose)

48b

OPINIONS: The Gemara cites Rav Yitzchak who says that Kivsei Atzeres that are slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" are Pasul, and they should be left overnight and then taken to be burned. What does Rav Yitzchak mean when he says that they were slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan"?

(a) RASHI (DH Ki Asa) in his first explanation explains that this means that the Korbanos are slaughtered with intention that they are a different Korban. TOSFOS (DH Kivsei Atzeres) has difficulty with this explanation. We know that the Mishnah in Zevachim (2a) says that all Korbanos are valid even if they are done with intention that they are a different Korban, with the except of a Korban Pesach and a Chatas, which are Pasul if done with the wrong intention. If Kivsei Atzeres are also Pasul when slaughtered with the wrong intention, then why does the Mishnah at the beginning of Zevachim not include them, together with Pesach and Chatas, in the list of exemptions?

1. Tosfos answers for Rashi that although the Tana of the Mishnah in Zevachim agrees that the Kivsei Atzeres slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah are Pasul like Pesach and Chatas, the Tana did not want to mention Kivsei Atzeres because "it was not absolutely certain for him to exclude Shelamim." What does Tosfos mean? The TZON KODASHIM explains that Tosfos understands that the Tana omitted Kivsei Atzeres out of a concern that one might mistakenly think that all other Shelamim are also Pasul when slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah.

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH explains that Tosfos means that the Tana in Zevachim lists only general Korbanos which are exceptions, and not specific Korbanos. He mentions Pesach and Chatas, because those are general types of Korbanos which include all types of Pesach and Chatas. He does not include Kivsei Atzeres, because that is a specific form of Shelamim.

2. Alternatively, Tosfos suggests that the Tana in Zevachim is listing only Korbanos that are important in their own right, and not Korbanos which are brought only because of another Korban (such as the Kivsei Atzeres which are brought only because of the Shtei ha'Lechem).

However, Tosfos rejects Rashi's explanation because of the Beraisa cited earlier (48a). The Beraisa explicitly states that in a case in which the Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered with intention that they are a different Korban, the Zerikah should still be performed and the meat should be eaten. Why does the Gemara not ask how Rav Yitzchak, an Amora, can say that the Korban is Pasul, when the Beraisa earlier contradicts his statement?

(b) Rashi quotes another explanation of "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" in the name of "HA'MOREH" and the GE'ONIM. They explained that this means that the Kevasim that were slaughtered were two years old, instead of one year old.

Rashi says that this explanation is insufficient, because it does not fit into the words of Rav Yitzchak. Rav Yitzchak says that the problem is that the Kevasim were "slaughtered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan. If the problem is that they were too old, then Rav Yitzchak should say that they were "offered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan, since the problem is related to their intrinsic state and is not related to something that occurred during the Shechitah.

Tosfos answers Rashi's question and explains that Rav Yitzchak does not say that the Kevasim were "offered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan because he wants to imply not only a case of an animal that was too old, but also a case of an animal that was too young (less than one year old).

Tosfos' answer is not clear. The fact that the animal is Pasul because it is too young, or too old, still has nothing to do with the Shechitah of the animal! How does this answer Rashi's question?

The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Tosfos is giving a reason why Rav Yitzchak does not use the word "offered" instead of "slaughtered." Since an animal that is too young *may* be offered as a Korban when it is older, we cannot say that the animal is Pasul to be offered. This is why Rav Yitzchak chooses to say "slaughtered" instead.

The Tzon Kodashim has difficulty with Tosfos for the same reason that Tosfos has difficulty with Rashi. The Beraisa earlier (48a) discusses a case in which the Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered before or after their time, and the Beraisa said that they are valid b'Di'eved. How, then, can Rav Yitzchak say that they are Pasul in such a case, without the Gemara questioning his statement from the earlier Beraisa? (See KEREN ORAH.) (Y. Montrose)