Menachot 47

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise moment of kedusha (consecration) for the two loaves accompanying the Shavuot sheep. Is it at shechita (slaughter), zerika (sprinkling of blood), or only after both?
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether partial kedusha allows for pidyon (redemption money to take on sanctity) or disqualification via yotzei (leaving the azara).
  • The effectiveness of zerika that is lo lishma (not for its own sake) or piggul (improper intent regarding time/place).
• Primary Sources: Menachot 47a (Baraita, Abaye/Rava, Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak's dilemma, Rabbi Yirmeya's dilemma), Bamidbar 6:17.

Text Snapshot

"שני כבשי העצרת אין מקדשין את הלחם אלא בשחיטה. כיצד? שחט לשמן וזרק לשמן – הלחם קדוש... שחט לשמן וזרק שלא לשמן – הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש, דברי רבי. ר"א בן שמעון אומר: אינו קדוש עד שישחט לשמו ויזרוק לשמו." (Menachot 47a) Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "קדוש ואינו קדוש" is enigmatic, prompting the Gemara's subsequent inquiry into its precise meaning, which forms the crux of Abaye and Rava's dispute.

Readings

Rashi's Interpretation

Rashi clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's "קדוש ואינו קדוש" implies partial consecration, which Abaye understands as insufficient for pidyon ("לא תפיס פדיונו") and eating. The initial kushya then asks for the nafka mina between R. Yehuda HaNasi (according to Abaye) and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon. (Rashi, Menachot 47a s.v. אלא לאביי)

Rashba's Elucidation

The Rashba elaborates on the nafka mina between R. Yehuda HaNasi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, particularly in light of Abaye's interpretation. He posits that the difference lies in yotzei: R. Yehuda HaNasi's partial kedusha (via shechita) is enough to disqualify the loaves if they leave the courtyard, whereas R. Elazar b. R. Shimon's position of no kedusha at all means yotzei is irrelevant. (Rashba, Menachot 47a s.v. בשלמא לרבא)

Friction

The Kushya: Abaye's Consecration

If, per Abaye, R. Yehuda HaNasi's "קדוש ואינו קדוש" means the loaves are not completely consecrated, pidyon isn't effective, and eating is prohibited, what distinguishes this from R. Elazar b. R. Shimon's view that they are "אינו קדוש" at all? (Menachot 47a s.v. מאי איכא בין רבי לר' אלעזר)

The Terutz: Disqualification by Yotzei

The Gemara resolves this by positing the nafka mina is לאפסולי ביוצא. R. Yehuda HaNasi holds that even partial kedusha from shechita suffices to render the loaves פסול if they leave the azara. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon, conversely, maintains that without zerika, there is no kedusha to be invalidated by yotzei. (Menachot 47a s.v. לאיפסולי ביוצא)

Intertext

• Bamidbar 6:17: "ובא את איל השלמים... וסל המצות". The Gemara derives from זבח (slaughter) that shechita is the consecrating act for accompanying loaves, a point of contention between R. Yehuda HaNasi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon regarding the Nazirite's offering, which is then applied to Shavuot loaves. (Menachot 47a)
• Me'ila 6b: A parallel machloket between R. Eliezer and R. Akiva regarding the effectiveness of zerika on kodshim kalim that left the azara before zerika. This resonates with the concept of yotzei and the status of kodshim pre- and post- zerika.

Psak/Practice

The Gemara's discussion emphasizes the conceptual depth of kedusha. While a direct psak on the machloket between R. Yehuda HaNasi and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon isn't explicitly stated here, the nafka mina of yotzei highlights how even nascent kedusha can trigger disqualifying factors. This impacts how we understand the progression of sacrificial rites and the varying degrees of sanctity.

Takeaway

The sugya masterfully dissects the nature of kedusha, demonstrating that sanctity can exist in degrees ("קדוש ואינו קדוש"), with each degree carrying distinct halachic implications for the korban and its associated elements. This nuanced understanding informs the intricate laws of kodshim.