Menachos Daf 46 מנחוס דַף 46

In the Mishnah, Tannaim had argued if the שתי הלחם are מעכב the שני כבשים, or vice versa. Rebbe Yochanan says: הכל מודים שאם הוזקקו זה לזה שמעכבין זה את זה – everyone agrees that if they became connected to one another, they are מעכב one another. ואיזה הוא זיקה שלהן – And what creates their connection? שחיטה – The slaughter of the two כבשים. This is challenged from a Baraisa, which teaches that if the לחם of a קרבן תודה became invalidated after the תודה was shechted (either נפרס – [the לחם] broke, or left Yerushalayim, or became tamei), the korban’s עבודה is completed for the sake of a shelamim (and he must bring another). But if שחיטה connects the לחם to the korban, then once the לחם became פסול, the korban should likewise be פסול!? The Gemara answers that a תודה is different, because the Torah calls it a shelamim; therefore,מה שלמים קרבים בלא לחם – just as a shelamim is brought without bread, אף תודה קרבה בלא לחם – so too a todah may be offered without bread (if the לחם became פסול).

In Eretz Yisroel they asked: תנופה עושה זיקה – does waving the כבשים and לחם create a connection between them, or not? Although Rebbe Yochanan only said the shechitah creates זיקה, he may have been uncertain if תנופה does as well. This question is left unresolved. Rebbe Yirmiyah asked, if תנופה does not create זיקה, so לחם is replaced if it was lost after the תנופה, אותו הלחם טעון תנופה או אינו טעון תנופה – does that bread require waving or does it not require waving? [If the כבשים were lost and replaced, the new כבשים certainly require a new תנופה (because they are the מתירין – permitters of the offering, and because תנופה is written expressly about the כבשים).] According to בן ננס, who holds כבשים עיקר – the lambs are primary (because they are מעכב the לחם), the replaced לחם would definitely not require a new תנופה. Rebbe Yirmiyah’s question is according to Rebbe Akiva, who considers the לחם primary (since it is מעכב the כבשים): since the לחם is primary, does its replacement require a new תנופה, or not, since the כבשים are the מתירין? This question is left unresolved.

A Baraisa teaches: שתי הלחם הבאות בפני עצמן – the two loaves which are brought by themselves (following Rebbe Akiva’s opinion that they may be brought if there are no כבשים), are waved, ותעובר צורתן – and they are left out overnight until their appearance changes, ויצאו לבית השריפה – and then they go out to the place of burning. The Gemara asks that if they are supposed to be eaten, they should be eaten, and if they are supposed to be burned, they should be burned right away!? Rabbah answers that Biblically speaking, they should be eaten, but we are concerned that if the כבשים are available the following year, people may mistakenly eat the לחם before the כבשים are offered, recalling that the לחם was eaten without כבשים the previous year (and since it is a גזירה, the לחם cannot be burned until it is left overnight and becomes נותר). Rav Yosef answers that Biblically, they should be burned, and ultimately explains that they are not burned immediately in case כבשים become available later that day. Accordingly, they are burned as soon as they can no longer be offered (not the next day).