Menachos Daf 47 מנחוס דַף 47

A Baraisa teaches that the כבשי עצרת are מקדש – sanctify the שתי הלחם with shechitah. Thus, if both the שחיטה and זריקה were done לשמן, the לחם may be eaten. If they were shechted שלא לשמן, the לחם is not sanctified. If the shechitah was לשמן but the זריקה was שלא לשמן, Rebbe says: הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש – the bread is “sanctified and not sanctified” (explained below). Rebbe Elazar bar Rebbe Shimon says it is not קדוש unless both the שחיטה and זריקה were לשמן. Rebbe’s ruling that the לחם is "קדוש ואינו קדוש" is explained in two ways: Abaye says: קדוש ואינו גמור – it is sanctified, but not completely. Rava says: קדוש ואינו ניתר – it is sanctified, but not permitted to eat. The Gemara explains that the practical difference between Abaye and Rava is למיתפס פדיונו – whether [the לחם’s] redemption money would be invested with קדושה. According to Abaye, that the לחם attains partial קדושת הגוף – physical sanctity (which is unredeemable), the remaining קדושת דמים – monetary sanctity transfers onto the money, which must be used for communal sacrifices. According to Rava, that the לחם attains complete קדושת הגוף, the redemption is ineffective and the money remains chullin.

A Baraisa teaches that if the שתי הלחם left Yerushalayim between the שחיטה and זריקה, and the זריקה was done with intent to eat the lambs חוץ לזמנן – outside their allotted time, Rebbe Eliezer says the לחם does not become פיגול, and Rebbe Akiva says it does. Rav Sheishess explains they both hold that shechitah is מקדש the לחם, and follow their opinions whether זריקה is effective for kodashim which is outside its prescribed area: Rebbe Eliezer says that אימורין which left the עזרה before זריקה do not become subject to me’ilah, nor make one liable for consuming פיגול, נותר, or טמא, and Rebbe Akiva says they do, because the זריקה was effective for them. An Amora asks, according to Rebbe Akiva, if we say that just as זריקה with פיגול intent makes even the לחם piggul, so too zerikah שלא לשמה would also be effective for the לחם (to permit it in consumption, like the meat). Or, does Rebbe Akiva only hold the זריקה is effective for the bread לחומרא – for a stringency (i.e., פיגול), but not לקולא – for a leniency (to allow eating the לחם)? Rav Pappa explains the first machlokes differently.

Rebbe Yirmiyah asked Rebbe Zeira: if the כבשים were shechted properly, and the לחם was subsequently lost (so if the זריקה is completed properly, the כבשים would need to be destroyed), מהו שיזרוק דמן שלא לשמן להתיר בשר באכילה – can he throw their blood not for their sake to permit the meat for consumption? [If זריקה is performed for the sake of an ordinary שלמים, it removes the "כבשי עצרת" status from the כבשים, and may permit their consumption without לחם]. Rebbe Zeira replied: יש לך דבר שאינו כשר לשמו – Do you have anything which is not valid where its זריקה is performed for its own sake, וכשר שלא לשמו – yet is valid when its זריקה is performed not for its own sake?! Although a korban pesach is invalid when shechted לשמו both before and after Pesach, yet is valid (as a shelamim) when shechted שלא לשמו (both before and after Pesach), the Gemara clarifies Rebbe Zeira meant there is nothing שנראה לשמו – that was once fit to be offered for its own sake, and was additionally shechted לשמו, ונדחה מלשמו – and then became rejected from being offered for its own sake, that would be valid שלא לשמו.