והשאר נאכלות בפדיון אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב חסדא הא דלא כרבי and the rest of the loaves are permitted to be eaten through redemption. The Sages said the following before Rav Ḥisda: This baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughter of the sheep grants the loaves inherent sanctity, and in this case two of the loaves have inherent sanctity but it is not known which ones.
דאי רבי כיון דאמר שחיטה מקדשא דפריק להו היכא As, if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since he says that the slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves with inherent sanctity, when the baraita states that he redeems the loaves, where does he redeem them?
אי דפריק להו מאבראי כיון דכתיב לפני ה' איפסיל להו ביוצא אי גוואי הא מעייל חולין לעזרה The process of redemption would be to place all four loaves in front of him and state that whichever two of the loaves do not have inherent sanctity are redeemed for money. If he redeems them outside of the Temple courtyard, since it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20), he disqualifies the two loaves that possess inherent sanctity by causing them to leave the courtyard, at which point they are no longer “before the Lord.” Conversely, if he redeems them inside the courtyard, once the two loaves that do not possess inherent sanctity are redeemed, he violates the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard.
אמר להו רב חסדא לעולם כרבי ופריק להו גוואי וחולין ממילא קא הוויין Rav Ḥisda said to them: Actually the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard. Nevertheless, it is not considered to be a violation of the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the courtyard because the non-sacred loaves came into the courtyard by themselves, i.e., they were already there when they became non-sacred and were not actively brought into the courtyard in their non-sacred state.
אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי והתניא כשהוא פודן אין פודן אלא בחוץ Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to this very case: When he redeems the loaves, he may redeem them only outside of the courtyard? This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard.
הא ודאי רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון היא דאי רבי הא איפסלו להו ביוצא Rav Ashi answered: This baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, because if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when he brings the loaves outside the courtyard he thereby disqualifies them by causing them to leave the courtyard.
אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי לימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר' יוחנן מיהא דאיתמר תודה ששחטה על שמונים חלות חזקיה אמר קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים ור' יוחנן אמר לא קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים § Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Let us say that the baraita, which states that if the sheep of Shavuot are slaughtered with four loaves instead of two, two of the four are invested with inherent sanctity, is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that was stated with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. In that case, Ḥizkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.
ולאו מי איתמר עלה אמר רבי זירא הכל מודים היכא דאמר ליקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים דקדשה הכא נמי דאמר ליקדשו תרתי מתוך ארבע The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yoḥanan, concedes that in a case where the individual bringing the offering said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that forty are consecrated? Here too, one can say that the baraita is referring to a case where one said: Let two of the four loaves be consecrated.
תני ר' חנינא טירתא קמיה דר' יוחנן שחט ארבעה כבשים על ב' חלות מושך שנים מהן וזורק דמן שלא לשמן § The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata taught a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered four sheep for Shavuot, rather than the required two, accompanied by two loaves, he draws two of the sheep out of the four and sprinkles their blood not for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot. He then sprinkles the blood of the other sheep for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot.
שאם אי אתה אומר כך הפסדת את האחרונים As, if you do not say to do this, but rather require him to first sprinkle the blood of two of the sheep for their own sake, then you have caused the loss of the latter two sheep. Since they were previously fit to have their blood sprinkled on the altar for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot, and were disqualified from this status when the blood of the other two sheep was sprinkled for that purpose, they are no longer fit to have their blood sprinkled even for the sake of a different offering.
אמר לו ר' יוחנן וכי אומר לו לאדם עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court say to a person: Arise and sin in order that you may gain? Is it proper for the priest to sprinkle the blood of the first pair not for their own sake so that the second pair will remain fit?
והתנן אברי חטאת שנתערבו באברי עולה ר' אליעזר אומר יתנו למעלה ורואה אני את בשר חטאת למעלה כאילו היא עצים וחכמים אומרים תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 77a) that tanna’im disagree concerning this matter? The mishna teaches: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, whose flesh is eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, not an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.
אמאי לימא עמוד וחטא בשביל שתזכה Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: According to your opinion, why do the Rabbis say that the mixture is burned? Let the court say to the priest instead: Arise and sin by burning all the limbs on the altar, including the limbs of the sin offering, in order that you may gain by performing the mitzva of sacrificing the limbs of the burnt offering.
עמוד וחטא בחטאת בשביל שתזכה בחטאת אמרינן עמוד וחטא בחטאת בשביל שתזכה בעולה לא אמרינן Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered Rabbi Yoḥanan: We do say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a sin offering, since it is the same type of offering. Similarly, one may sin with regard to the sheep of Shavuot in order to gain with regard to the other sheep brought for the same offering. We do not say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a burnt offering. Therefore, the Rabbis prohibit burning the limbs of the sin offering on the altar in order to allow for the burning of the limbs of the burnt offering.
ובחדא מילתא מי אמר והא תניא כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא לשמן או ששחטן בין לפני זמנן בין לאחר זמנן הדם יזרק והבשר יאכל Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court actually say: Arise and sin in order that you may gain in a case where the sin and the gain are with regard to one matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not for their own sake, or where he slaughtered them either before their time, i.e., before Shavuot, or after their time, that the blood shall be sprinkled, although it shall be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering, and the meat shall be eaten.
ואם היתה שבת לא יזרוק ואם זרק הורצה להקטיר אימורין לערב Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: And if the Festival was on Shabbat, one may not sprinkle the blood, the sacrificial portions may not be burned on the altar, and the meat may not be eaten. This is because the improper slaughter of the sheep disqualified them as communal offerings, whereas individual offerings may not be sacrificed on Shabbat. But if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood of these sheep on Shabbat, the offering is accepted in that it is permitted to burn its sacrificial portions on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat, and then the meat may be eaten.
ואמאי לימא עמוד חטא בשביל שתזכה Rabbi Yoḥanan concluded his proof: But according to your opinion, why is it not permitted to sprinkle the blood on Shabbat? Let the court say: Arise and sin by sprinkling the blood of these offerings in order that you may gain by being able to burn their sacrificial portions in the evening and then eat their meat.
עמוד חטא בשבת כדי שתזכה בשבת אמרינן עמוד חטא בשבת כדי שתזכה בחול לא אמרינן Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered: We do say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on Shabbat. We do not say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on a weekday.
ובתרתי מילי לא אמר והתנן חבית של תרומה שנשברה בגת העליונה ובתחתונה חולין טמאין מודה רבי אליעזר ור' יהושע שאם יכול להציל ממנה רביעית בטהרה יציל The Gemara asks: And is it so that with regard to two separate matters the court does not say that one should sin with regard to one in order to gain with regard to other? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 8:9): In the case of a barrel of wine that is teruma that broke in the upper section of a winepress, and in the lower section of the winepress there is non-sacred, impure wine, and the wine that is teruma will flow into the lower press and become impure, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua both concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log of the wine that is teruma in a pure vessel so that it retains its ritual purity, he should rescue it, even if, in the process, the rest of the wine that is teruma will mix with the non-sacred wine. This will cause the owner a financial loss, because the wine that is teruma will become impure, causing the entire mixture to become prohibited for consumption.
ואם לאו ר' אליעזר אומר But if not, i.e., one cannot save any of the wine that is teruma, e.g., if one does not have any pure vessels in which to collect it, Rabbi Eliezer says: