כי מטי ליליא דבי שימשי ליקדוש וליפסול אמר רבא בשקדם וסילק
if a rite performed during the night preceding its appointed time is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, then when the night arrives, i.e., the twilight of Shabbat eve, the arrangement of loaves remaining on the Table should be consecrated and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight. Rava says: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest removed the shewbread from the Table before nightfall on Shabbat eve in order to prevent its consecration, and arranged it again the following day.
מר זוטרא ואיתימא רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא בשלא קדם וסילק כיון דסידרו שלא כמצותו נעשה כמי שסדרו הקוף:
Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say the mishna is referring to a case where one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, the loaves are not consecrated by the Table. Since the priest arranged the shewbread at a time that was not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, it is considered as though a monkey had arranged the shewbread, and it is not consecrated by the Table.
מתני׳ שתי הלחם נאכלות אין פחות משנים ולא יותר על שלשה כיצד נאפות מערב יום טוב נאכלות ביום טוב לשנים חל יום טוב להיות אחר השבת נאכלות לשלשה
MISHNA: The two loaves that are brought on Shavuot are eaten by the priests no less than two days and no more than three days after they were baked. How so? They are generally baked on the eve of the festival of Shavuot and they are eaten on the day of the Festival, which is on the second day. If the Festival occurs after Shabbat, on Sunday, the loaves are baked on Friday, in which case they are eaten on the third day.
לחם הפנים נאכל אין פחות מתשעה ולא יותר על אחד עשר כיצד נאפה מערב שבת ונאכל בשבת לתשעה חל יום טוב להיות ערב שבת נאכל לעשרה
The shewbread is eaten no less than nine days and no more than eleven days after it is baked. How so? It is generally baked on Shabbat eve and eaten on the following Shabbat, which is on the ninth day. If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve the shewbread is baked on the eve of the Festival, on Thursday, in which case it is eaten on the tenth day.
שני ימים [טובים] של ראש השנה נאכל לאחד עשר ואינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי שמעון בן הסגן דוחה את יום טוב ואינו דוחה את יום צום:
If the two festival days of Rosh HaShana occur on Thursday and Friday, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, in which case it is eaten on the eleventh day. And this is because the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: Their preparation overrides a Festival but does not override the fast day of Yom Kippur.
גמ׳ אמר רבינא לדברי האומר נדרים ונדבות אין קריבין ביום טוב לא תימא מדאורייתא מיחזא חזו ורבנן הוא דגזרו שלא ישהא אלא מדאורייתא נמי לא חזו
GEMARA: Ravina said: According to the statement of the one who says vow offerings and voluntary offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, do not say they are fit to be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law and it is the Sages who decreed they may not be sacrificed. The Sages might have issued such a decree so that one would not delay sacrificing his offerings until he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival. Rather, vow offerings and voluntary offerings are unfit to be sacrificed on a Festival also by Torah law.
דהא שתי הלחם דחובת היום הוא וליכא למימר שמא ישהא וקתני אינו דוחה לא את השבת ולא את יום טוב:
Ravina explains this may be inferred from the mishna, as the offering of the two loaves is an obligation of the day of Shavuot. It is therefore not possible to say that the Sages decreed they may not be prepared on the Festival lest one delay bringing them. And yet the mishna teaches that baking and preparing the two loaves overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. All the more so that vow offerings and voluntary offerings, which do not need to be sacrificed specifically on a Festival, may not be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law.
הדרן עלך פרק שתי הלחם
מתני׳ המנחות והנסכים שנטמאו עד שלא קדשו בכלי יש להם פדיון משקידשו בכלי אין להם פדיון
MISHNA: With regard to the fine flour for meal offerings or the wine for libations that became ritually impure, as long as they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel and assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is possible. If they are redeemed, their sanctity will be transferred to the redemption money. Once they have been consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is no longer possible, and they are burned like any other offerings that became ritually impure.
העופות והעצים והלבונה וכלי שרת משנטמאו אין להן פדיון שלא נאמר פדיון אלא בבהמה:
With regard to consecrated birds, wood for the altar, frankincense, and service vessels, once they became ritually impure they have no possibility of redemption, as redemption of items consecrated for the altar was stated only with regard to a consecrated animal that developed a blemish, not with regard to other consecrated items.
גמ׳ אמר שמואל ואפילו הן טהורין נפדין מאי טעמא כמה דלא קדשי בכלי קדושת דמים נינהו וקדושת דמים נפדין
GEMARA: According to the mishna, impure meal offerings and libations may be redeemed as long as they have not yet been placed in a service vessel. Shmuel says: Even if they are ritually pure, they also may be redeemed. What is the reason for this? As long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel, they possess sanctity that inheres only in their value, and items whose sanctity inheres only in their value may be redeemed.
והא נטמאו תנן הוא הדין דאף על גב דלא נטמאו ואיידי דקא בעי מיתנא סיפא משקידשו בכלי אין להן פדיון דאפילו נטמאו נמי לא תנא נמי רישא שנטמאו עד שלא קדשו בכלי
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: The meal offerings and libations that became ritually impure are redeemed? The Gemara answers: The same is true even if they had not become ritually impure. And the tanna mentions a case where they became ritually impure since he wants to teach the latter clause, which states: Once they were consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, they have no possibility of redemption, meaning that even when they became ritually impure and are disqualified from use as an offering, they still have no possibility of redemption. Therefore, the tanna also taught the first clause: That became ritually impure before they were consecrated in a service vessel.
פשיטא קדושת הגוף נינהו
With regard to flour or oil that has been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that they are not redeemed, as they are consecrated with inherent sanctity?
איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ובעל מום איקרי טמא טמא נמי כבעל מום דמי ואף על גב דקדוש קדושת הגוף כי נפיל ביה מום מיפריק הני נמי ליפרוק קמשמע לן דלאו כי האי טמא קרייה רחמנא לבעל מום
The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state that items consecrated in a service vessel cannot be redeemed, as it may enter your mind to say: Since a blemished animal is called impure, as the Gemara will explain shortly, this analogy could be reversed and an impure animal could also have a status similar to that of a blemished animal. And just as in the case of a blemished animal, even though it is consecrated with inherent sanctity, when it develops a blemish it is redeemed, so too these impure items discussed in the mishna may also be redeemed despite their possessing inherent sanctity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is not in this context that the Merciful One called a blemished animal “impure.”