What is the unique connection between the 2 lambs brought together with the two breads on Shavuot? Why are they more inherently connected than the rest of the animals brought with the two breads?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 46
שאם הוזקקו זה לזה שמעכבין זה את זה ואיזה הוא זיקה שלהן שחיטה
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.
אמר עולא בעו במערבא תנופה עושה זיקה או אינו עושה זיקה
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?
פשוט ליה מדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן שחיטה עושה זיקה מכלל דתנופה אינו עושה זיקה
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. On can conclude by inference that waving, which precedes the slaughter, does not establish a bond between them.
דר’ יוחנן גופא קא מיבעיא ליה מיפשט פשיטא ליה לרבי יוחנן דשחיטה עושה זיקה ותנופה אינו עושה זיקה או דלמא שחיטה פשיטא ליה ותנופה מספקא ליה תיקו
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.
א”ל ר’ יהודה בר חנינא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע והא כי כתיב (ויקרא כג, כ) קודש יהיו לה’ לכהן בתר תנופה כתיב ופליגי בן ננס ור’ עקיבא
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.
וליטעמיך בתר תנופה ולא בתר שחיטה
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?
אלא מאי אית לך למימרא מעיקרא קאי ומאי קדש יהיו לה’ לכהן דבר שסופו לכהן הכא נמי דבר שסופו לכהן
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.
ושחיטה עושה זיקה ורמינהי עד שלא שחטה נפרס לחמה יביא לחם אחר ושוחט
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.
מששחטה נפרס לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול
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.
נזרק הדם תורם מן השלם על הפרוס
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.
עד שלא שחטה יצא לחמה מכניסה ושוחט
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.
מששחטה יצא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול נזרק הדם תורם ממה שבפנים על שבחוץ
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.
עד שלא שחטה נטמא לחמה מביא לחם אחר ושוחט מששחטה נטמא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו יצא שהציץ מרצה על הטמא והלחם פסול
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.
נזרק הדם תורם מן הטהור על הטמא
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.
ואי ס”ד שחיטה עושה זיקה כיון דהוזקקו זה לזה בשחיטה איפסיל ליה לחם תיפסל נמי תודה
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.
שאני תודה דרחמנא קרייה שלמים מה שלמים קרבים בלא לחם אף תודה קרבה בלא לחם
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.
א”ר ירמיה אם תמצא לומר תנופה עושה זיקה אבד הלחם
§ 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,
אבדו כבשים אבדו כבשים אבד הלחם
the sheep are lost as well, i.e., they cannot be sacrificed, and one must bring different loaves and sheep. Similarly, if the sheep are lost after the waving, the loaves are thereby lost as well, since a bond was established between them by means of the waving.
ואם תמצא לומר תנופה אינה עושה זיקה הביא לחם וכבשים והונפו ואבד הלחם והביא לחם אחר אותו הלחם טעון תנופה או אינו טעון תנופה
And if you say that waving does not establish a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then one can raise the following dilemma: If one brought loaves and sheep and they were waved, and then the loaves were lost and he brought other loaves to replace the original loaves, does that second set of loaves require waving with the sheep, as it has not yet been waved? Or does it not require waving, as the accompanying sheep have already been waved with the original loaves, and the sheep are the subject in the verse that serves as the source of the requirement of waving (see Leviticus 23:20)?
אבדו כבשים לא תיבעי לך דודאי בעי תנופה כי תיבעי לך אבד הלחם
Rabbi Yirmeya clarifies the dilemma: In a case where the sheep were lost after the waving, do not raise the dilemma, as in this case they certainly require waving, because the primary obligation of waving is mentioned with respect to the sheep, and these sheep have not yet been waved. When should you raise the dilemma? You should raise it in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving.
ואליבא דבן ננס לא תיבעי לך דאמר כבשים עיקר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר”ע דאמר לחם עיקר מאי
And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents one from sacrificing the loaves, do not raise the dilemma, as he says that the sheep are primary. Consequently, since the sheep have been waved, there is no need to repeat the waving. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that failure to bring the loaves prevents one from sacrificing the sheep, as he says that the loaves are primary. According to his opinion, what is the halakha concerning the loaves that are brought as replacements?
כיון דלחם עיקר בעי תנופה או דלמא כיון דמתירין דידיה כבשים נינהו לא צריך תנופה תיקו
On the one hand, one might say that since the loaves are primary and this set of loaves has not yet been waved, it requires waving. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since its permitting factors are the sheep, and they were already waved, the new set of loaves does not require waving. The Gemara concludes that the question shall stand unresolved.
אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא שני כבשים דמקדשי לחם ומעכבי ומאי שנא שבעה כבשים ופר ואילים דלא מקדשי לחם ולא מעכבי
§ Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the two sheep brought as peace offerings together with the two loaves of Shavuot, such that their slaughter sanctifies the loaves (see 47a), and according to Rabbi Yoḥanan failure to sacrifice them once they have been slaughtered prevents the bringing of the loaves; and what is different about the seven sheep, the bull, and the two rams brought on Shavuot as an additional offering, such that their slaughter does not sanctify the loaves, and failure to sacrifice them does not prevent the bringing of the loaves?
אמר לי’ הואיל והוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה והרי תודה דלא הוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה ומקדשא ומעכבא
Rava said to Abaye: The reason for the distinction is because the two sheep and the loaves brought as peace offerings are bound to each other through the waving. This is not so with regard to the additional offerings, which are not waved with the loaves. The Gemara challenges: But in the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, which are not waved together, they are not bound to each other through waving, and nevertheless the slaughter of the animal offering sanctifies the loaves and failure to sacrifice the animal offering prevents the bringing of the loaves. This indicates that the waving is not the critical factor.
אלא כתודה מה תודה שלמים אף הכא נמי שלמים
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a thanks offering. Just as a thanks offering is a peace offering, so too the two sheep are also a peace offering. Consequently, just as the slaughter of the thanks offering sanctifies the accompanying loaves, and failure to sacrifice the animal prevents one from bringing the loaves, the same applies with regard to the sheep peace offerings and loaves of Shavuot.
מי דמי התם ליכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה הכא דאיכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה ליקדשו הני והני
The Gemara responds: Are the two sheep of Shavuot and the thanks offering really comparable? There, in the case of the thanks offering, there are no other animal offerings brought with it. But here, in the case of the offerings brought on Shavuot, where there are other animal offerings brought with it, let these peace offerings and those additional offerings sanctify the loaves. Why is it only the sheep brought as peace offerings that sanctify the loaves?
אלא כאיל נזיר מה איל נזיר אע”ג דאיכא זבחים אחריני שלמים הוא דמקדשי מידי אחרינא לא הכא נמי לא שנא
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite’s ram, which is sacrificed as a peace offering when he completes his term of naziriteship, in addition to a lamb that he sacrifices as a burnt offering, a female lamb that he brings then as a sin offering, and the nazirite loaves (see Numbers 6:14–15). Just as in the case of a nazirite’s ram, even though there are other offerings brought with it, nevertheless it is the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the nazirite loaves and not the slaughter of anything else, here too, the halakha is no different, and it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offerings that sanctifies the loaves.
והתם מנלן דתניא (במדבר ו, יז) ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה’ על סל המצות מלמד שהסל בא חובה לאיל ושחיטת איל מקדשן לפיכך שחטו שלא לשמו לא קדשו הלחם
The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of the offerings of the nazirite, from where do we derive that it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the loaves? The Gemara answers: This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning a verse stated with regard to the offerings of the nazirite: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (Numbers 6:17). This verse, which connects the ram and the loaves, teaches that the basket of the nazirite loaves comes as an obligation for the ram, which is a peace offering, and the slaughter of the ram sanctifies the loaves. Therefore, if the slaughter was unfit, e.g., in a case where he slaughtered the ram not for the sake of a peace offering, the loaves were not sanctified.
תנו רבנן שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן יונפו ותעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה
§ The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Akiva failure to sacrifice the two sheep brought as peace offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the loaves. Consequently, if there are no sheep, the loaves are sacrificed by themselves. Concerning this the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, they should be waved. They should then be left overnight so that their form decays, i.e., they become disqualified, and they are then brought out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.
מה נפשך אי לאכילה אתיין ליכלינהו אי לשריפה אתיין לשרפינהו לאלתר למה להו עיבור צורה
The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult: If the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten, let the priests eat them rather than burn them. If they are brought only to be burned, let the priests burn them immediately. Why are they left overnight so that they undergo a decay of form, i.e., become disqualified?
אמר רבה לעולם לאכילה אתיין גזירה שמא יזדמנו להן כבשים לשנה הבאה ויאמרו אשתקד לא אכלנו לחם בלא כבשים עכשיו נמי ניכול
Rabba said: Actually, the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree that they not be eaten out of concern lest sheep become available to the nation the following year, and they might say: Didn’t we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.
ואינהו לא ידעי דאשתקד לא הוו כבשים אינהו שריין נפשייהו השתא דאיכא כבשים כבשים הוא דשרו להו
And they will not know that the reason they were permitted to eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep last year is that there were no sheep, and therefore the two loaves permitted themselves to be eaten, i.e., they could be eaten without the sacrifice of the sheep. But now that there are sheep, it is the sacrifice of the sheep that permits the loaves to be eaten. Since loaves brought without sheep are fit by Torah law and may not be eaten due to rabbinic decree, they may not be burned until they become disqualified by remaining overnight.
אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתנן א”ר יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא
Rabba said: From where do I say this, i.e., what is the source for my statement? It is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so.
אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן
Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case, rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.
(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו הן היאך נאכלין
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute half-shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
הני שתי הלחם היכי דמי אילימא בבאות עם הזבח אטו תודה ולחמה מי לא מנדבי כהנים ואכלי להו
Rabba discusses this mishna: What are the circumstances of these two loaves? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where they are brought with the animal offering, i.e., the two sheep brought as peace offerings, why shouldn’t the loaves be eaten? Is that to say that priests cannot volunteer to bring a thanks offering and its loaves and eat them? Just as the loaves that accompany a thanks offering may be eaten, even if brought by a priest, the same halakha should apply to the two loaves when they accompany sheep brought as peace offerings.
אלא לאו בבאות בפני עצמן וקתני היאך הן נאכלין אלמא לאכילה אתיין
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, and the mishna teaches that the priests claimed: How can they be eaten? Apparently, in principle the loaves come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until their form decays.
אמר ליה אביי לעולם בבאות עם הזבח ודקא קשיא לך מתודה ולחמה לחמי תודה לא איקרו מנחה שתי הלחם איקרו מנחה שנא’ (במדבר כח, כו) בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה’
Abaye said to Rabba in response: Actually, the mishna can be interpreted as referring to loaves brought with the animal offering, and therefore it does not prove that when the two loaves are brought by themselves they may be eaten. And as for that which is difficult for you based on the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, the resolution is that the loaves of a thanks offering are not called a meal offering, and therefore even when a priest brings a thanks offering, the loaves may be eaten. By contrast, the two loaves of Shavuot are called a meal offering, as it is stated with regard to the two loaves: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.
רב יוסף אמר לעולם לשריפה אתיין והיינו טעמא דלא שרפינן לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביו”ט
Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba’s proof: Actually, when the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves they come to be burned, i.e., they may not be eaten. And this is the reason that we do not burn them until the following day: It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival.
א”ל אביי מי דמי התם לאו מצותן בכך הכא דמצותן בכך לישרפינהו מידי דהוה אפר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is the burning of the two loaves comparable to the burning of other consecrated items, such that the loaves may not be burned right away for this reason? There, in the case of other consecrated items, this is not their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be eaten, but if they become disqualified they must be burned. Conversely, here, in the case of the two loaves of Shavuot that are brought by themselves, where this is their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be burned, let the priests burn them on the Festival, just as is the halakha in the case of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which are burned on Yom Kippur despite the fact that it is a Festival.
אלא אמר רב יוסף גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן א”ל אביי תינח כל זמן הקרבתם לבתר הכי לשרפינהו מאי תעובר צורתן נמי דקתני צורת הקרבתם
Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason the loaves are left overnight is due to a rabbinic decree not to burn them immediately, lest sheep become available to the nation afterward, i.e., later in the day, in which case the loaves could be waved with them and then eaten. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: That works out well for the entire time period when they may be sacrificed, i.e., until the afternoon daily offering is sacrificed. But after that, let them burn the loaves immediately and not wait until the next day. Rav Yosef replied: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita that teaches that the loaves must be left until their form decays? It means that they must be left until the form of their sacrifice has passed, i.e., until after the time when the sheep could be sacrificed.
רבא אמר לאכילה אתיין וגזירה משום דרבה ולאו מטעמיה אלא מקרא
Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba’s proof: When the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves, by Torah law they come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until they are disqualified. The reason for the decree is due to that which Rabba said, i.e., due to the concern that the following year sheep will be available and nevertheless the nation will bring the two loaves without sheep. But the proof that by Torah law the loaves may be eaten is not from Rabba’s line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.
ואמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה [וגו’] בכורים לה’ מה בכורים בפני עצמן אף שתי הלחם בפני עצמן ומינה מה בכורים לאכילה אף שתי הלחם נמי לאכילה
And Rava said by way of explanation: From where do I state this halakha? From the fact that it is written with regard to the two loaves: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:17). Just as first fruits are brought by themselves, without an accompanying animal offering, so too the two loaves are brought by themselves when there are no sheep available. And learn from this comparison to first fruits that just as first fruits are brought to be eaten, so too the two loaves are also brought to be eaten, even in the absence of the sheep brought as peace offerings.
Follow
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
While vacationing in San Diego, Rabbi Leah Herz asked if I’d be interested in being in hevruta with her to learn Daf Yomi through Hadran. Why not? I had loved learning Gemara in college in 1971 but hadn’t returned. With the onset of covid, Daf Yomi and Rabbanit Michelle centered me each day. Thank-you for helping me grow and enter this amazing world of learning.
Meryll Page
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot!
Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Menachot 46
שאם הוזקקו זה לזה שמעכבין זה את זה ואיזה הוא זיקה שלהן שחיטה
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.
אמר עולא בעו במערבא תנופה עושה זיקה או אינו עושה זיקה
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?
פשוט ליה מדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן שחיטה עושה זיקה מכלל דתנופה אינו עושה זיקה
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. On can conclude by inference that waving, which precedes the slaughter, does not establish a bond between them.
דר’ יוחנן גופא קא מיבעיא ליה מיפשט פשיטא ליה לרבי יוחנן דשחיטה עושה זיקה ותנופה אינו עושה זיקה או דלמא שחיטה פשיטא ליה ותנופה מספקא ליה תיקו
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.
א”ל ר’ יהודה בר חנינא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע והא כי כתיב (ויקרא כג, כ) קודש יהיו לה’ לכהן בתר תנופה כתיב ופליגי בן ננס ור’ עקיבא
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.
וליטעמיך בתר תנופה ולא בתר שחיטה
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?
אלא מאי אית לך למימרא מעיקרא קאי ומאי קדש יהיו לה’ לכהן דבר שסופו לכהן הכא נמי דבר שסופו לכהן
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.
ושחיטה עושה זיקה ורמינהי עד שלא שחטה נפרס לחמה יביא לחם אחר ושוחט
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.
מששחטה נפרס לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול
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.
נזרק הדם תורם מן השלם על הפרוס
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.
עד שלא שחטה יצא לחמה מכניסה ושוחט
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.
מששחטה יצא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו לא יצא והלחם פסול נזרק הדם תורם ממה שבפנים על שבחוץ
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.
עד שלא שחטה נטמא לחמה מביא לחם אחר ושוחט מששחטה נטמא לחמה הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל וידי נדרו יצא שהציץ מרצה על הטמא והלחם פסול
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.
נזרק הדם תורם מן הטהור על הטמא
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.
ואי ס”ד שחיטה עושה זיקה כיון דהוזקקו זה לזה בשחיטה איפסיל ליה לחם תיפסל נמי תודה
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.
שאני תודה דרחמנא קרייה שלמים מה שלמים קרבים בלא לחם אף תודה קרבה בלא לחם
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.
א”ר ירמיה אם תמצא לומר תנופה עושה זיקה אבד הלחם
§ 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,
אבדו כבשים אבדו כבשים אבד הלחם
the sheep are lost as well, i.e., they cannot be sacrificed, and one must bring different loaves and sheep. Similarly, if the sheep are lost after the waving, the loaves are thereby lost as well, since a bond was established between them by means of the waving.
ואם תמצא לומר תנופה אינה עושה זיקה הביא לחם וכבשים והונפו ואבד הלחם והביא לחם אחר אותו הלחם טעון תנופה או אינו טעון תנופה
And if you say that waving does not establish a bond between the loaves and the sheep, then one can raise the following dilemma: If one brought loaves and sheep and they were waved, and then the loaves were lost and he brought other loaves to replace the original loaves, does that second set of loaves require waving with the sheep, as it has not yet been waved? Or does it not require waving, as the accompanying sheep have already been waved with the original loaves, and the sheep are the subject in the verse that serves as the source of the requirement of waving (see Leviticus 23:20)?
אבדו כבשים לא תיבעי לך דודאי בעי תנופה כי תיבעי לך אבד הלחם
Rabbi Yirmeya clarifies the dilemma: In a case where the sheep were lost after the waving, do not raise the dilemma, as in this case they certainly require waving, because the primary obligation of waving is mentioned with respect to the sheep, and these sheep have not yet been waved. When should you raise the dilemma? You should raise it in a case where the loaves were lost after the waving.
ואליבא דבן ננס לא תיבעי לך דאמר כבשים עיקר כי תיבעי לך אליבא דר”ע דאמר לחם עיקר מאי
And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, who holds that failure to sacrifice the sheep prevents one from sacrificing the loaves, do not raise the dilemma, as he says that the sheep are primary. Consequently, since the sheep have been waved, there is no need to repeat the waving. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who holds that failure to bring the loaves prevents one from sacrificing the sheep, as he says that the loaves are primary. According to his opinion, what is the halakha concerning the loaves that are brought as replacements?
כיון דלחם עיקר בעי תנופה או דלמא כיון דמתירין דידיה כבשים נינהו לא צריך תנופה תיקו
On the one hand, one might say that since the loaves are primary and this set of loaves has not yet been waved, it requires waving. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since its permitting factors are the sheep, and they were already waved, the new set of loaves does not require waving. The Gemara concludes that the question shall stand unresolved.
אמר ליה אביי לרבא מאי שנא שני כבשים דמקדשי לחם ומעכבי ומאי שנא שבעה כבשים ופר ואילים דלא מקדשי לחם ולא מעכבי
§ Abaye said to Rava: What is different about the two sheep brought as peace offerings together with the two loaves of Shavuot, such that their slaughter sanctifies the loaves (see 47a), and according to Rabbi Yoḥanan failure to sacrifice them once they have been slaughtered prevents the bringing of the loaves; and what is different about the seven sheep, the bull, and the two rams brought on Shavuot as an additional offering, such that their slaughter does not sanctify the loaves, and failure to sacrifice them does not prevent the bringing of the loaves?
אמר לי’ הואיל והוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה והרי תודה דלא הוזקקו זה לזה בתנופה ומקדשא ומעכבא
Rava said to Abaye: The reason for the distinction is because the two sheep and the loaves brought as peace offerings are bound to each other through the waving. This is not so with regard to the additional offerings, which are not waved with the loaves. The Gemara challenges: But in the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, which are not waved together, they are not bound to each other through waving, and nevertheless the slaughter of the animal offering sanctifies the loaves and failure to sacrifice the animal offering prevents the bringing of the loaves. This indicates that the waving is not the critical factor.
אלא כתודה מה תודה שלמים אף הכא נמי שלמים
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a thanks offering. Just as a thanks offering is a peace offering, so too the two sheep are also a peace offering. Consequently, just as the slaughter of the thanks offering sanctifies the accompanying loaves, and failure to sacrifice the animal prevents one from bringing the loaves, the same applies with regard to the sheep peace offerings and loaves of Shavuot.
מי דמי התם ליכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה הכא דאיכא זבחים אחריני בהדיה ליקדשו הני והני
The Gemara responds: Are the two sheep of Shavuot and the thanks offering really comparable? There, in the case of the thanks offering, there are no other animal offerings brought with it. But here, in the case of the offerings brought on Shavuot, where there are other animal offerings brought with it, let these peace offerings and those additional offerings sanctify the loaves. Why is it only the sheep brought as peace offerings that sanctify the loaves?
אלא כאיל נזיר מה איל נזיר אע”ג דאיכא זבחים אחריני שלמים הוא דמקדשי מידי אחרינא לא הכא נמי לא שנא
Rather, the reason for the distinction is that the two sheep brought as peace offerings are comparable to a nazirite’s ram, which is sacrificed as a peace offering when he completes his term of naziriteship, in addition to a lamb that he sacrifices as a burnt offering, a female lamb that he brings then as a sin offering, and the nazirite loaves (see Numbers 6:14–15). Just as in the case of a nazirite’s ram, even though there are other offerings brought with it, nevertheless it is the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the nazirite loaves and not the slaughter of anything else, here too, the halakha is no different, and it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offerings that sanctifies the loaves.
והתם מנלן דתניא (במדבר ו, יז) ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה’ על סל המצות מלמד שהסל בא חובה לאיל ושחיטת איל מקדשן לפיכך שחטו שלא לשמו לא קדשו הלחם
The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of the offerings of the nazirite, from where do we derive that it is specifically the slaughter of the peace offering that sanctifies the loaves? The Gemara answers: This is as it is taught in a baraita concerning a verse stated with regard to the offerings of the nazirite: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (Numbers 6:17). This verse, which connects the ram and the loaves, teaches that the basket of the nazirite loaves comes as an obligation for the ram, which is a peace offering, and the slaughter of the ram sanctifies the loaves. Therefore, if the slaughter was unfit, e.g., in a case where he slaughtered the ram not for the sake of a peace offering, the loaves were not sanctified.
תנו רבנן שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן יונפו ותעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה
§ The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Akiva failure to sacrifice the two sheep brought as peace offerings does not prevent sacrifice of the loaves. Consequently, if there are no sheep, the loaves are sacrificed by themselves. Concerning this the Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, they should be waved. They should then be left overnight so that their form decays, i.e., they become disqualified, and they are then brought out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.
מה נפשך אי לאכילה אתיין ליכלינהו אי לשריפה אתיין לשרפינהו לאלתר למה להו עיבור צורה
The Gemara challenges: Whichever way you look at it, this is difficult: If the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten, let the priests eat them rather than burn them. If they are brought only to be burned, let the priests burn them immediately. Why are they left overnight so that they undergo a decay of form, i.e., become disqualified?
אמר רבה לעולם לאכילה אתיין גזירה שמא יזדמנו להן כבשים לשנה הבאה ויאמרו אשתקד לא אכלנו לחם בלא כבשים עכשיו נמי ניכול
Rabba said: Actually, the loaves are brought and waved in order to be eaten. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted a rabbinic decree that they not be eaten out of concern lest sheep become available to the nation the following year, and they might say: Didn’t we eat the loaves without any accompanying sheep last year [eshtakad]? Now too, we will eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep.
ואינהו לא ידעי דאשתקד לא הוו כבשים אינהו שריין נפשייהו השתא דאיכא כבשים כבשים הוא דשרו להו
And they will not know that the reason they were permitted to eat the loaves without sacrificing sheep last year is that there were no sheep, and therefore the two loaves permitted themselves to be eaten, i.e., they could be eaten without the sacrifice of the sheep. But now that there are sheep, it is the sacrifice of the sheep that permits the loaves to be eaten. Since loaves brought without sheep are fit by Torah law and may not be eaten due to rabbinic decree, they may not be burned until they become disqualified by remaining overnight.
אמר רבה מנא אמינא לה דתנן א”ר יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא
Rabba said: From where do I say this, i.e., what is the source for my statement? It is as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 1:4): Rabbi Yehuda said that ben Bukhri testified before the Sages in Yavne: Any priest who contributes his half-shekel is not considered a sinner, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so.
אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא אלא שהכהנים דורשין מקרא זה לעצמן
Rabbi Yehuda added that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to ben Bukhri: That is not the case, rather, any priest who does not contribute his half-shekel is considered a sinner, as they are obligated in this mitzva like all other Jews. But the priests who do not contribute the half-shekel interpret this following verse to their own advantage in order to excuse themselves from the mitzva.
(ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו הן היאך נאכלין
The verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: Since the omer offering and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat, brought on the festival of Shavuot, and the shewbread placed on the Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal offerings, are ours, then if we contribute half-shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the half-shekels. How, then, can they be eaten? They would then be regarded as priests’ meal offerings, which must be wholly burned.
הני שתי הלחם היכי דמי אילימא בבאות עם הזבח אטו תודה ולחמה מי לא מנדבי כהנים ואכלי להו
Rabba discusses this mishna: What are the circumstances of these two loaves? If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where they are brought with the animal offering, i.e., the two sheep brought as peace offerings, why shouldn’t the loaves be eaten? Is that to say that priests cannot volunteer to bring a thanks offering and its loaves and eat them? Just as the loaves that accompany a thanks offering may be eaten, even if brought by a priest, the same halakha should apply to the two loaves when they accompany sheep brought as peace offerings.
אלא לאו בבאות בפני עצמן וקתני היאך הן נאכלין אלמא לאכילה אתיין
Rather, is it not referring to a case where the two loaves are brought by themselves, and the mishna teaches that the priests claimed: How can they be eaten? Apparently, in principle the loaves come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until their form decays.
אמר ליה אביי לעולם בבאות עם הזבח ודקא קשיא לך מתודה ולחמה לחמי תודה לא איקרו מנחה שתי הלחם איקרו מנחה שנא’ (במדבר כח, כו) בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה’
Abaye said to Rabba in response: Actually, the mishna can be interpreted as referring to loaves brought with the animal offering, and therefore it does not prove that when the two loaves are brought by themselves they may be eaten. And as for that which is difficult for you based on the case of a thanks offering and its loaves, the resolution is that the loaves of a thanks offering are not called a meal offering, and therefore even when a priest brings a thanks offering, the loaves may be eaten. By contrast, the two loaves of Shavuot are called a meal offering, as it is stated with regard to the two loaves: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). Therefore, the priests held that if they would donate half-shekels, the two loaves would not be permitted to be eaten.
רב יוסף אמר לעולם לשריפה אתיין והיינו טעמא דלא שרפינן לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביו”ט
Rav Yosef said a different response to Rabba’s proof: Actually, when the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves they come to be burned, i.e., they may not be eaten. And this is the reason that we do not burn them until the following day: It is because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival.
א”ל אביי מי דמי התם לאו מצותן בכך הכא דמצותן בכך לישרפינהו מידי דהוה אפר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is the burning of the two loaves comparable to the burning of other consecrated items, such that the loaves may not be burned right away for this reason? There, in the case of other consecrated items, this is not their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be eaten, but if they become disqualified they must be burned. Conversely, here, in the case of the two loaves of Shavuot that are brought by themselves, where this is their mitzva, i.e., they are supposed to be burned, let the priests burn them on the Festival, just as is the halakha in the case of the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, which are burned on Yom Kippur despite the fact that it is a Festival.
אלא אמר רב יוסף גזירה שמא יזדמנו להם כבשים לאחר מכאן א”ל אביי תינח כל זמן הקרבתם לבתר הכי לשרפינהו מאי תעובר צורתן נמי דקתני צורת הקרבתם
Rather, Rav Yosef said: The reason the loaves are left overnight is due to a rabbinic decree not to burn them immediately, lest sheep become available to the nation afterward, i.e., later in the day, in which case the loaves could be waved with them and then eaten. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: That works out well for the entire time period when they may be sacrificed, i.e., until the afternoon daily offering is sacrificed. But after that, let them burn the loaves immediately and not wait until the next day. Rav Yosef replied: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita that teaches that the loaves must be left until their form decays? It means that they must be left until the form of their sacrifice has passed, i.e., until after the time when the sheep could be sacrificed.
רבא אמר לאכילה אתיין וגזירה משום דרבה ולאו מטעמיה אלא מקרא
Rava said that there is a different response to Rabba’s proof: When the two loaves of Shavuot are brought by themselves, by Torah law they come to be eaten, but due to rabbinic decree they are not eaten and are left overnight until they are disqualified. The reason for the decree is due to that which Rabba said, i.e., due to the concern that the following year sheep will be available and nevertheless the nation will bring the two loaves without sheep. But the proof that by Torah law the loaves may be eaten is not from Rabba’s line of reasoning, i.e., from the mishna in Shekalim; rather, it is from a verse.
ואמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דכתיב (ויקרא כג, יז) ממושבותיכם תביאו לחם תנופה [וגו’] בכורים לה’ מה בכורים בפני עצמן אף שתי הלחם בפני עצמן ומינה מה בכורים לאכילה אף שתי הלחם נמי לאכילה
And Rava said by way of explanation: From where do I state this halakha? From the fact that it is written with regard to the two loaves: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two loaves of waving of two tenth parts of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:17). Just as first fruits are brought by themselves, without an accompanying animal offering, so too the two loaves are brought by themselves when there are no sheep available. And learn from this comparison to first fruits that just as first fruits are brought to be eaten, so too the two loaves are also brought to be eaten, even in the absence of the sheep brought as peace offerings.
Follow
