בִּכְדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי חֶסְרוֹנָן — מוֹכְרָן בְּבֵית דִּין. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא, דְּהָא פְּסִידִי לִגְמָרֵי. their decrease in value is at the standard rate of stored produce, due to rot and rodents. However, if their decrease in value is beyond the standard rate, everyone agrees that one sells them in court; and all the more so in the case here, with regard to leavened bread, as the bread will be entirely lost. Once the leaven is prohibited, it remains prohibited even after Passover. Consequently, everyone agrees that one is obligated to sell the leaven.
וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת כּוּ׳. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה ״עַל גַּב הָאִיצְטְבָא״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי לְהַצְנִיעָן הוּא צָרִיךְ?! תְּנִי ״עַל גַּג הָאִיצְטְבָא״. We learned in the mishna: And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: Two disqualified loaves of a thanks-offering are placed on the pillars surrounding the Temple as an indicator. The tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall taught a baraita before Rav Yehuda: The loaves were placed on [al gav] the bench in the Temple. He said to him: And does he need to conceal them? No one would see them if they were placed there. Rather, teach the baraita: On the roof of [al gag] the colonnade, where everyone could see them.
אָמַר רַחֲבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הַר הַבַּיִת סְטָיו כָּפוּל הָיָה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַר הַבַּיִת סְטָיו כָּפוּל הָיָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִיסְטְווֹנִית הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת — סְטָיו לְפָנִים מִסְּטָיו. Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The Temple Mount was a double colonnade, i.e., surrounded by two rows of columns. That was also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says it was called an istevanit and it was a colonnade within a colonnade.
פְּסוּלוֹת וְכוּ׳. אַמַּאי פְּסוּלוֹת? אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהָיוּ מְרוּבּוֹת — נִפְסָלוֹת בְּלִינָה. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מְבִיאִין תּוֹדָה בְּחַג הַמַּצּוֹת, מִפְּנֵי חָמֵץ שֶׁבָּהּ. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says these two loaves placed outside were disqualified. The Gemara asks: Why were they disqualified? What caused their disqualification? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Since the thanks-offerings brought that day are numerous, and the priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings, the remaining loaves are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight. The Gemara explains that so many loaves were brought that day, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not bring a thanks-offering on the festival of Passover due to the leavened bread included with it, as ten of the forty loaves brought with a thanks-offering are loaves of leavened bread.
פְּשִׁיטָא? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הָכָא בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר עָסְקִינַן, וְקָסָבַר: אֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that one may not bring this offering on Passover, as it contains leaven. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here this baraita is not referring to the prohibition against bringing the offering on Passover itself. Rather, we are dealing with the issue of sacrificing a thanks-offering on the fourteenth of Nisan, and this tanna maintains: One may not bring consecrated offerings to a situation where the time that they may be eaten is restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of disqualification. Although it is permitted to eat leavened bread until the sixth hour of the fourteenth of Nisan, one may not bring a thanks-offering on Passover eve. The reason is that a thanks-offering may be eaten for one full day and the following night, and if it is brought on the eve of Passover, the time available before disqualification is reduced.
וְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר מַיְיתֵי לְהוּ, וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהֵן מְרוּבּוֹת — נִפְסָלוֹת בְּלִינָה. And therefore, everyone who ascended on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and were obligated to bring thanks-offerings brought them on the thirteenth of Nisan. And since these thanks-offerings are numerous, they are disqualified by virtue of their being left overnight, as priests are unable to eat their portions from the loaves of all the offerings brought that day.
מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמְרוּ: כְּשֵׁירוֹת הָיוּ, וְאֶלָּא אַמַּאי קָרֵי לְהוּ פְּסוּלוֹת — שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט עֲלֵיהֶן הַזֶּבַח. וְנִשְׁחוֹט! שֶׁאָבַד הַזֶּבַח. They said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The loaves placed as an indicator were not disqualified by being left overnight. Rather, why did the tanna call them disqualified? It was due to the fact that no animal offering was slaughtered together with them to consecrate them, but they were consecrated as thanks-offering loaves independently. They could not be eaten until the offering with which they were brought was slaughtered. The Gemara asks: And let us slaughter the thanks-offering to render the loaves permitted. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case where the animal for the offering was lost.
וְנַיְיתֵי זֶבַח אַחֵר וְנִשְׁחוֹט! דְּאָמַר: ״זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְזוֹ לַחְמָהּ״, וְכִדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם — מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר, אָבְדָה תּוֹדָה — אֵין מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא — לֶחֶם גְּלַל תּוֹדָה, וְאֵין תּוֹדָה גְּלַל לֶחֶם. The Gemara raises a further difficulty: And let us bring another animal to replace the first one for sacrifice and let them slaughter it. The Gemara answers: This is a case where the one who consecrated the thanks-offering said: This is a thanks-offering and these are its loaves. He consecrated the animal and the loaves together, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: If the loaf of a thanks-offering is lost, its owner brings another loaf to complete the offering. However, if the thanks-offering was lost and the loaves remain, one may not bring another thanks-offering. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought due to the thanks-offering but the thanks-offering is not brought on account of the loaves. The animal sacrificed is the primary component of the offering while the loaves are subordinate to it.
וְנִיפְרְקִינְהוּ וְנַפְּקִינְהוּ לְחוּלִּין! אֶלָּא: לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט עֲלֵיהֶן הַזֶּבַח וְנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם. The Gemara asks: And let us redeem the loaves from their consecrated status and render them non-sacred, and there will be no need to burn the loaves. Rather, the Gemara explains that actually the case is one where the animal offering was indeed slaughtered over the loaves to permit them, but the animal’s blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Once the animal has been slaughtered, the loaves are fully consecrated and cannot be redeemed, but in this case, neither can they be eaten, as the blood was not sprinkled on the altar.
וּכְמַאן — כְּרַבִּי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים הַמַּתִּירִין — מַעֲלִין זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה. דְּתַנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן — קִידֵּשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. And in accordance with whose opinion is this statement that the slaughter of the animal consecrates the loaves and from that point they can no longer be redeemed? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Each of two factors that are indispensable in permitting the sacrifice of an offering, elevates the subordinate components of the offering to consecrated status, without the other. In this case, the loaves are consecrated when the animal to be sacrificed is slaughtered, even if the blood was not sprinkled, as it was taught in a baraita: The lambs sacrificed on the festival of Assembly, i.e., Shavuot, consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot, in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.
שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן — לֹא קִידֵּשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן — לֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. However, if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake, and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ הַלֶּחֶם, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט לִשְׁמָן וְיִזְרוֹק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering permitted were properly performed. The previous answer in the Gemara is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל הַדָּם בְּכוֹס וְנִשְׁפַּךְ, The Gemara adds: Even if you say that the previous answer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it is understood, as with what case are we dealing here? It is in a unique case where after the slaughter, the blood was received in the cup and it only then spilled before it was sprinkled.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לֵיהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who stated a principle: The legal status of any blood that is about to be sprinkled and prepared for sprinkling is like that of blood that had already been sprinkled. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated when the blood is received in the vessel and thereby prepared to be sprinkled. They may not be eaten until the blood is actually sprinkled.
תָּנָא, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ: כְּשֵׁירוֹת הָיוּ. כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁמּוּנָּחוֹת — כׇּל הָעָם אוֹכְלִין. נִיטְּלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן — תּוֹלִין; לֹא אוֹכְלִין וְלֹא שׂוֹרְפִין. נִיטְּלוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן — הִתְחִילוּ כּוּלָּן שׂוֹרְפִין. It was taught in the Tosefta that they said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: These loaves were entirely fit. As long as the loaves were placed there, the entire nation continued to eat leaven. When one of the loaves was taken away, the people knew that the time had come to place the leaven in abeyance, meaning that they neither eat nor burn their leaven. When both of the loaves were taken away, they all began burning their leaven.
תַּנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: It was taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: