תנו רבנן כבשי עצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה

§ The Gemara cites further discussion of the two sheep and the two loaves of Shavuot : The Sages taught in a baraita:

The two sheep of Shavuot consecrate the two loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter.

כיצד שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן לשמן קדש הלחם שחטן שלא לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם שחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש דברי רבי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אינו קדוש עד שישחוט לשמן ויזרוק דמן לשמן

How so? If one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake, as the peace offerings that are supposed to be sacrificed on Shavuot , and then the priest sprinkled their blood on the altar for their own sake, then the loaves are consecrated. But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The loaves are never consecrated at all until one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake.

מאי טעמא דרבי

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughtering of the sheep partially consecrates the loaves even without the sprinkling of the blood?

דכתיב ואת האיל יעשה זבח שלמים לה׳ על סל המצות למימרא דשחיטה מקדשא

The Gemara answers: It is based on the fact that it is written concerning the ram brought by the nazirite when he completes his naziriteship:“ And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ] of peace offerings to the Lord, with the basket of unleavened bread” (Numbers 6:17). Since the verse uses the word zevaḥ, which also means slaughter, and the verse then makes reference to the loaves, that is to say that it is specifically the slaughter that consecrates the loaves that accompany the offering. Similarly, the slaughter of the sheep brought as peace offerings on Shavuot consecrates the accompanying two loaves, as the halakha of the loaves of Shavuot is derived from that of the loaves of the nazirite.

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון יעשה עד שיעשה כל עשיותיו

The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood together consecrate the loaves? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the term:“ He shall offer, ” which he understands to mean that the loaves are not consecrated until the priest performs all of the actions included in the sacrificial rites of that offering, including the sprinkling of the blood.

ורבי נמי הכתיב יעשה אי כתיב זבח יעשה כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב יעשה זבח במה יעשה בזביחה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also, isn’t it written: “ He shall offer, ” which indicates that the loaves are consecrated only once the blood has been sprinkled on the altar? The Gemara answers: If it were written: A sacrifice [zevaḥ] he shall offer, it would be as you are say ing that he should slaughter it and then perform a further action, i. e., sprinkling the blood, in order to consecrate the loaves. Now that it is written: “ He shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [zevaḥ], ” it should be understood as: By what means should he offer the ram in order to consecrate the loaves? By means of slaughtering [zeviḥa].

ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון הכתיב זבח ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שצריך שיהא לחם בשעת שחיטה

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, isn’t it written: “ A sacrifice [zevaḥ], ” indicating that slaughtering alone consecrates the loaves? The Gemara answers: He requires that expression for that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that everyone, including Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that the loaves must be in existence at the time of the slaughter.

מאי קדוש ואינו קדוש אביי אמר קדוש ואינו גמור רבא אמר קדוש ואינו ניתר

§ The Gemara asks: What is meant by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement in the baraita that if one slaughtered the sheep for their own sake and sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, then the loaves are partially consecrated, but they are not fully consecrated? Abaye says: The loaves are consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but their consecration is not complete. Rava says: The loaves are fully consecrated by means of the slaughtering, but they are not thereby permitted to be eaten.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו למיתפס פדיונו לאביי לא תפיס פדיונו לרבא תפיס פדיונו

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? Everyone concedes that the loaves may not be eaten as a result of this slaughtering. The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the ability to transfer sanctity to their redemption money. According to Abaye, who holds that the loaves are not completely consecrated, they do not transfer sanctity to their redemption money if one tries to redeem them for money. According to Rava, who holds that the loaves are completely consecrated, they transfer sanctity to their redemption money.

בשלמא לרבא היינו דאיכא בין רבי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אלא לאביי מאי איכא בין רבי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rava, who holds that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the loaves are completely sanctified, that is the difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, what difference is there between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?

איכא [בינייהו] לאיפסולי ביוצא

The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to whether the loaves are rendered unfit by means of leaving the Temple courtyard after the slaughtering of the offering. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the loaves are rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard. According to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the loaves are not consecrated, they are not rendered unfit if they leave the courtyard.

בעא מיניה רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק מרבי חייא בר אבא כבשי עצרת ששחטן לשמן וזרק דמן שלא לשמן אותו הלחם מהו באכילה

§ The Gemara continues the discussion of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concerning the consecration of the two loaves by means of the slaughter and sprinkling of the blood of the sheep of Shavuot . Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: In the case of a communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot that one slaughtered for their sake but the priest sprinkled their blood not for their sake, concerning those accompanying loaves, what is the halakha with regard to eating them?

אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון האמר זריקה היא דמקדשא אי אליבא דרבי בין לאביי בין לרבא קדוש ואינו ניתר הוא

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion was this dilemma raised? If it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, doesn’t he say that it is the sprinkling of the blood that consecrates the loaves? Consequently, if the blood was not properly sprinkled, it is clear that the loves are unfit and may not be eaten. And if it was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, both according to the opinion of Abaye and according to that of Rava, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the loaves are consecrated but are not permitted to be eaten.

אלא אליבא דהאי תנא דתני אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא שתי הלחם שיצאו בין שחיטה לזריקה וזרק דמן של כבשים חוץ לזמנן רבי אליעזר אומר אין בלחם משום פיגול רבי עקיבא אומר יש בלחם משום פיגול

The Gemara responds: Rather, one must say that the question was asked in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna. As the father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba teaches in a baraita:

In a case where the two loaves left the Temple courtyard between the slaughtering of the offering and the sprinkling of its blood, and then the priest sprinkled the blood of the sheep with the intent that their meat would be eaten beyond their designated time, the sheep are rendered piggul. With regard to the loaves, Rabbi Eliezer says: The loaves do not become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul. Rabbi Akiva says: The loaves do become prohibited due to the prohibition of piggul.

אמר רב ששת הני תנאי כרבי סבירא להו דאמר שחיטה מקדשא

Rav Sheshet said: These tanna’im, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughtering consecrates the loaves by itself. Consequently, if the loaves are taken out of the Temple courtyard after the sheep are slaughtered, the loaves become disqualified.

מיהו רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ורבי עקיבא לטעמיה דאמר זריקה מועלת ליוצא

But they disagree as to the following: Rabbi Eliezer conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Eliezer says that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Since the loaves left the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time does not render the loaves piggul. And Rabbi Akiva conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rabbi Akiva says that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard. Therefore, the intent of the priest while sprinkling the blood that the offering be eaten outside of its designated time renders the loaves piggul, even though they left the courtyard.