מנחות דף עח

אמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי: ״תהיינה״ כתיב. אימא עשרה קפיזי? אמר רבא: בעשרונות דבר הכתוב.

Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: “They shall be” [tihyena] is written with two instances of the letter yod. The superfluous yod, whose numerical value is ten, is interpreted to indicate that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering must be prepared from ten tenths of flour. The Gemara raises an objection: Say that the superfluous yod indicates that the loaves must be prepared with ten half-kav, a smaller measure than ten tenths of an ephah? Rava says: One cannot say this, since the verse habitually spoke of tenths of an ephah and not other measures.

למדנו עשרה לחמץ. עשרה למצה מנין? תלמוד לומר ״על חלות לחם חמץ״, כנגד חמץ הבא מצה.

§ The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita: We have learned that there are ten tenths of an ephah of flour for the loaves of leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. From where is it derived that there are ten tenths of an ephah for the thirty loaves of matza? The verse states: “With cakes of leavened bread,” after mentioning the three types of matza accompanying the thanks offering (Leviticus 7:12–13), indicating that one must bring the matza in a measure corresponding to the measure of the loaves of leavened bread.

וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש, חוזר ומלמד בהיקש? הימנו ודבר אחר הוא, וכל הימנו ודבר אחר – לא הוי היקש.

The Gemara asks: But can a matter that was derived by comparison then come back and teach the matter by comparison with regard to consecrated matters? Since the halakha that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering are prepared from ten tenths of an ephah is itself derived by comparison to the two loaves, can one then derive from it that the matza loaves of the thanks offering consist of ten tenths of an ephah? The Gemara responds: The halakha that the loaves of leavened bread consist of ten loaves made from ten tenths of an ephah is not derived solely by comparison to the two loaves; rather, it is derived from itself, as the halakha that there are ten loaves is stated in the verse concerning the thanks offering, and from another matter, and any halakha derived from itself and from another matter is not considered a comparison. Consequently, the halakha with regard to the matza loaves may be derived from it.

הניחא למאן דאמר לא הוי היקש, אלא למאן דאמר הוי היקש, מאי איכא למימר? ״תביאו״ רבויא היא.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a halakha derived from itself and from another matter does not constitute a comparison, but according to the one who says that a halakha derived from itself and from another matter does constitute a comparison, what is there to say? The Gemara responds: According to that opinion, the halakha that each loaf is prepared from a tenth of an ephah is derived from that which the verse states with regard to the two loaves: “You shall bring” (Leviticus 23:17), which is a term of amplification that serves to teach that the loaves of leavened bread of the thanks offering consist of ten tenths of an ephah of flour. Since this halakha is derived not by comparison but by amplification from the two loaves, one can derive the halakha with regard to the matza loaves by comparison to the loaves of leavened bread.

מתני׳ המילואים היו באין כמצה שבתודה – חלות, ורקיקין, (ורביכה) [ורבוכה].

MISHNA: The loaves that accompanied the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle would come parallel to the three types of matza that accompany the thanks offering: Loaves, wafers, and loaves poached in water and made with oil (see Leviticus 8:26). The loaves of leavened bread that accompany the thanks offering were not brought with the ram of inauguration.

נזירות היתה באה שתי ידות כמצה של תודה, חלות ורקיקין, ואין בה רבוכה, נמצא עשרה קבין ירושלמית, שהן ששה עשרונות ועודיין.

The loaves that accompany the offering that the nazirite brings upon completion of his period of naziriteship would come with only two parts of the three types of matza that accompany the thanks offering, namely, loaves and wafers, but there is no matza poached in water (see Numbers 6:15). Consequently, the loaves of the offering of a nazirite are from ten kav of fine flour according to the Jerusalem measure, as taught in the previous mishna that each type of the loaves of matza comes from five kav of flour, which equal six-and-two-thirds tenths of an ephah according to the wilderness measure, as each type of the loaves of matza comes from three-and-one-third tenths of an ephah.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי? אמר רב חסדא, אמר רב חמא בר גוריא: דאמר קרא ״ומסל המצות אשר לפני ה׳ לקח חלת מצה אחת וחלת לחם שמן

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the loaves that accompanied the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle consisted of the three types of matza brought with a thanks offering: Loaves, wafers, and loaves poached in water and made with oil. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is derived from that which the verse states: “And out of the basket of unleavened bread that was before the Lord, he took one unleavened cake, and one cake of oiled bread, and one wafer” (Leviticus 8:26). Granted, “cakes” are cakes, and “wafer” is a wafer. But what is “oiled bread” referring to? Is this not referring to matza poached in water and made with oil?

אחת ורקיק אחד״. בשלמא ״חלות״ – חלות, ״רקיק״ – רקיק, ״שמן״ מאי נינהו? לאו רבוכה.

מתקיף לה רב אויא: אימא אנתא דמשחא! אלא, כדדרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא משמיה דרבי טבלא: ״זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה׳ ביום המשח אתו״.

Rav Avya objects to this: One can say that “oiled bread” is referring to a cake of oil. Rather, derive it as Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught in the name of Rabbi Tavla, that the verse states: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall bring to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: The tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering perpetually, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening. On a pan it shall be made with oil; when it is poached, you shall bring it in; in broken pieces shall you bring the meal offering for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall bring it” (Leviticus 6:13–15).

וכי מה למדנו לבניו ביום המשחו? אלא מקיש חינוכו להמשחו: מה המשחו רבוכה, אף חינוכו רבוכה.

One can ask: And what have we learned with regard to Aaron’s sons, i.e., the ordinary priests, from the instructions for the High Priest on the day that he is anointed? Rather, the verse juxtaposes the meal offering brought by an ordinary priest during his inauguration with the meal offering brought by the High Priest when he is anointed. This juxtaposition teaches that just as the meal offering brought by the High Priest when he is anointed is poached in water, so too the meal offering brought by an ordinary priest during his inauguration is poached in water. Similarly, the loaves brought with the ram of the inauguration of the Tabernacle included loaves poached in water.

אמר רב חסדא: כהן גדול המתקרב לעבודה צריך שתי עשרונות האיפה, אחת להמשחו, ואחת לחינוכו. מר בר רב אשי אמר: שלש.

§ Concerning the matter of the High Priest’s meal offering on the day of his inaugural service in the Temple, Rav Ḥisda says: A High Priest who approaches the Temple service on the day that he is anointed is required to bring two meal offerings consisting of two tenths of an ephah, one for the fact that he is anointed as the High Priest and must bring the daily meal offering of the High Priest, and one for his inauguration. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: He requires three tenths of an ephah.

ולא פליגי, הא – דעבד עבודה כשהוא כהן הדיוט, הא – דלא עבד עבודה כשהוא כהן הדיוט.

And they do not disagree. This one, Rav Ḥisda, is referring to a High Priest who already performed the Temple service as an ordinary priest. Accordingly, he has already brought a meal offering for his inauguration as an ordinary priest. He therefore brings only two tenths of flour, one for his inauguration as High Priest and one for the daily meal offering of the High Priest. And that one, Mar bar Rav Ashi, is referring to a High Priest who has not yet performed the Temple service as an ordinary priest. He must therefore bring three tenths, one for his inauguration as an ordinary priest, one for his inauguration as High Priest, and one for the daily meal offering of the High Priest.

נזירות היתה באה שתי ידות, כמצה שבתודה.

§ The mishna teaches: The loaves that accompany the offering that the nazirite brings upon completion of his period of naziriteship would come with only two parts, parallel to the types of matza that come with the thanks offering, i.e., loaves and wafers, but not matza poached in water.

תנו רבנן: ״שלמיו״ – לרבות שלמי נזיר, לעשרת קבין ירושלמיות ולרביעית שמן.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the loaves brought with a thanks offering: “If he sacrifices it for a thanks offering, then he shall sacrifice with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached. With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:12–13). “His peace offerings” serves to include the nazirite’s peace offering in the halakhot that its accompanying meal offerings must consist of ten Jerusalem kav and one-quarter of a log of oil, just like the measurements required for the cakes and wafers of the thanks offering.

יכול לכל מה שאמור בענין, תלמוד לומר ״מצות״.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the verse indicates that the meal offering of the nazirite’s peace offering is equivalent to the loaves of the thanks offering concerning all that is stated with regard to the matter of the thanks offering, and that one brings three types of matza consisting of fifteen Jerusalem kav and half a log of oil. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the nazirite’s peace offering: “And a basket of unleavened bread, loaves of fine flour mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Numbers 6:15), to indicate that the nazirite’s meal offering consists only of matza loaves and matza wafers, and not matza poached in water.

מאי תלמודא? אמר רב פפא: דבר שנאמר בו ״מצות״, לאפוקי רבוכה דלא נאמר בו ״מצות״. דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא: ״מצות״ – כלל, ״חלות ורקיקין״ – פרט,

The Gemara clarifies: What is the biblical derivation by which “matza” indicates that loaves poached in water were not brought? Rav Pappa says: The verse indicates that the nazirite brings matza specifically from an item of which it was stated: “Matzot.” This serves to exclude loaves poached in water, of which it is not stated: Matzot. In addition, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Unleavened bread” is a generalization; “loaves of fine flour mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil” is a detail. When the Torah states a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only what is in the detail. Therefore, loaves and wafers are included in the nazirite’s meal offering, while other items are not.

כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, חלות ורקיקין – אין, מידי אחרינא – לא.

מתני׳ השוחט את התודה לפנים ולחמה חוץ לחומה – לא קדש הלחם. שחטה עד שלא קרמו פניה בתנור, ואפילו קרמו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן – לא קדש הלחם.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters the thanks offering in its proper place inside the Temple courtyard, and at that time its forty loaves were outside the wall, the loaves were not consecrated. Likewise, if he slaughtered the thanks offering before the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, and even if the surface of all the loaves formed a crust except for one of them, the loaves were not consecrated.

גמ׳ מאי ״חוץ לחומה״? רבי יוחנן אמר: חוץ לחומת בית פאגי, וריש לקיש אמר: חוץ לחומת העזרה.

GEMARA: The Gemara clarifies: What is meant by outside the wall? Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it means outside the wall of Beit Pagei in Jerusalem. And Reish Lakish says that it means outside the wall of the Temple courtyard.

ריש לקיש אמר: חוץ לחומת העזרה, בעינן ״על״ בסמוך.

The Gemara elaborates: Reish Lakish says that it means outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, because the verse states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “Then he shall sacrifice with [al] the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). And we require that the thanks offering be slaughtered strictly “with [al]” the accompanying loaves, i.e., with the loaves nearby. If the loaves are outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, they are not considered nearby.

ורבי יוחנן אמר: חוץ לחומת בית פאגי, אבל חוץ לעזרה – קדוש, ולא בעינן ״על״ בסמוך.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the loaves were outside the wall of Beit Pagei, they are not consecrated, because it is prohibited to eat the loaves outside the wall of Beit Pagei. Since if they were taken outside the wall of Beit Pagei, they would be disqualified because they were removed from their permitted area, they cannot be consecrated if they are there. But if they were merely outside the Temple courtyard, where they may be eaten, they are consecrated. And we do not require that the thanks offering be slaughtered strictly “with” the accompanying loaves, i.e., nearby.

והא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא?

The Gemara objects: Why is it necessary for Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish to disagree with regard to a case where the loaves were situated outside the wall when the thanks offering was slaughtered? But didn’t they already disagree with regard to this matter one other time?

דתנן: השוחט את הפסח על החמץ – עובר בלא תעשה. רבי יהודה אומר: אף התמיד. ואמר ריש לקיש: לעולם אינו חייב עד שיהא או לשוחט, או לזורק,

This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 63a) with regard to the slaughtering of the Paschal offering: One who slaughters the Paschal offering with leavened bread still in his possession transgresses a prohibition, as the verse states: “You shall not sacrifice the blood of My offering with [al] leavened bread; neither shall the offering of the festival of Passover be left until the morning” (Exodus 34:25). Rabbi Yehuda says: Even one who slaughters the daily afternoon offering on Passover eve with leavened bread in his possession transgresses the prohibition. And Reish Lakish says: Actually, one is not liable unless the leavened bread is in the possession of the one who slaughters the offering, or the one who sprinkles its blood, or one of the members of the group, and the leavened bread is with that person in the Temple courtyard. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One is liable even if the leavened bread is not with that person in the Temple courtyard. Evidently, they already disagree with regard to the meaning of the word “al.”

או לאחד מבני חבורה – עמו בעזרה. ורבי יוחנן אמר: אף על פי שאין עמו בעזרה.

צריכא, דאי איתמר בההיא – בההיא קא אמר רבי יוחנן, דכל היכא דאיתיה באיסורא קאי, אבל לענין מקדש לחם – אימא מודי

The Gemara replies: It is necessary to state the dispute concerning both matters. As, if their disagreement were stated only with regard to that matter of the Paschal offering, one might think that only with regard to that matter Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is liable even if the leavened bread is not inside the Temple courtyard, since wherever there is leavened bread, its owner stands in violation of the prohibition against owning leavened bread at that time. But with regard to the matter of the consecration of the loaves of the thanks offering, one could say that he concedes to Reish Lakish that if the loaves are inside the Temple courtyard when the thanks offering is slaughtered, they are consecrated, but if they are outside, they are not consecrated.

ליה לריש לקיש דאי איתיה בפנים – קדוש, אבראי – לא קדוש.

ואי איתמר בהא, בהא קאמר ריש לקיש, אבל בהך אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן, צריכא.

And if their disagreement were stated only with regard to this matter of the loaves of the thanks offering, one might think that only with regard to this matter Reish Lakish says that the loaves are consecrated only if they were within the walls of the Temple courtyard. But with regard to that matter of the Paschal offering, one could say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥanan that one is liable for slaughtering the Paschal offering while in possession of leavened bread even if it was not with him inside the Temple courtyard, as wherever there is leavened bread, its owner stands in violation of the prohibition against owning leavened bread at that time. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute concerning both matters.

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן: השוחט את התודה לפנים, ולחמה חוץ לחומת בית פאגי – לא קדש הלחם.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of one who slaughters the thanks offering inside the Temple courtyard, and at that time its loaves were outside the walls of Beit Pagei, the loaves were not consecrated.

שחטה עד שלא קרמו פניה בתנור.

§ The mishna teaches: If he slaughtered the thanks offering before the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, the loaves were not consecrated. The next mishna also teaches: If one slaughtered the thanks offering not for its sake, the loaves were not consecrated.

מנא הני מילי? דתנו רבנן: ״על חלות לחם חמץ יקריב קרבנו על זבח״ – מלמד שאין הלחם קדוש אלא אם כן קרמו פניה בתנור.

The Gemara seeks to clarify: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to the loaves accompanying the thanks offering: “With cakes of leavened bread he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:13). This teaches that the loaves are not consecrated unless the surface of the loaves formed a crust in the oven, as only then can they be considered “cakes of leavened bread.” The phrase “he shall present his offering with the sacrifice” teaches that the loaves are consecrated only upon the slaughtering of the offering. The phrase “the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” teaches that if one slaughtered the offering not for its sake, the loaves were not consecrated.

״יקריב קרבנו על זבח״ – מלמד שאין הלחם קדוש אלא בשחיטת הזבח. ״זבח תודת״ – מלמד שאם שחט שלא לשמן לא קדש הלחם.

תנו רבנן: יוצאין במצה נא, ובמצה העשויה באילפס. מאי מצה נא? אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל: כל שפורסה ואין חוטין נמשכין הימנה.

§ On a similar note, the Sages taught: One fulfills the obligation to eat matza on Passover with half-done, i.e., not fully baked, matza, and with matza made in a stewpot [ilpas] rather than baked in an oven. The Gemara asks: What constitutes half-done matza? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is any matza that is sufficiently baked such that if one breaks it, threads of dough are not drawn from it.

אמר רבא: וכן לענין לחמי תודה, פשיטא! הכא ״לחם״ כתיב, והכא ״לחם״ כתיב.

Rava said: And so this is the halakha with regard to the matter of the loaves of the thanks offering, i.e., if the loaves were already half-done at the time of the slaughter of the thanks offering, they are consecrated. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for Rava to state this? Isn’t it obvious? Here, with regard to matza, the term “bread” is written (Deuteronomy 16:3), and here, with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering, the term “bread” is written.

מהו דתימא: ״אחד״ אמר רחמנא – שלא יטול פרוס, והא כמאן דפריסא דמיא, קמשמע לן.

The Gemara responds: Lest you say that since the Merciful One states with regard to the loaves of the thanks offering: “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift unto the Lord” (Leviticus 7:14), this indicates that one may not take sliced bread for the thanks offering, and this half-done bread is considered like one that is sliced, as it will break apart upon being lifted, and it should consequently be disqualified for the bread of the thanks offering, therefore Rava teaches us that once it is baked to that point, it is considered as one loaf and it is valid for the thanks offering.

איתמר, תודה ששחטה על שמונים חלות: חזקיה אמר: קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים, ורבי יוחנן אמר: לא קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים.

§ It was stated that there is a dispute among the amora’im with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. Ḥizkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.

אמר רבי זירא: הכל מודים, היכא דאמר ״ליקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים״ – קדשו, ״אל יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן יקדשו שמונים״ – לא קדשו.

With regard to this dispute, 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. Likewise, everyone concedes that where he said: Forty should not be consecrated unless eighty will be consecrated, that they were not consecrated. They disagree when one brings eighty loaves without specification. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds: He intends to consecrate only forty of them, but he brought eighty in order to guarantee that there will be sufficient loaves. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds: He intends to bring a large offering of eighty loaves; consequently, none of the loaves are consecrated.

כי פליגי בסתמא, מר סבר: לאחריות קא מיכוין, ומר סבר: לקרבן גדול קא מיכוין.

אביי אמר: דכולי עלמא לאחריות קא מיכוין, ובכלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת קא מיפלגי. מר סבר: כלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת, ומר סבר:

Abaye offered another explanation of the dispute and said: Everyone agrees that he intends to guarantee that there will be sufficient loaves, and they disagree with regard to whether service vessels consecrate the appropriate measure without the intention of the one bringing the offering. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that service vessels consecrate items without intention. Accordingly, the knife that slaughters the thanks offering and consecrates its accompanying loaves consecrates forty of the eighty. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that service vessels do not consecrate items without intention.

כלי שרת אין מקדשין שלא מדעת.

רב פפא אמר: דכולי עלמא כלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת, והכא בסכין קא מיפלגי – מר סבר: סכין מקדשת ככלי שרת, ומר סבר: סכין, כיון דלית ליה תוך,

Rav Pappa offered another explanation of the dispute and said: Everyone agrees that service vessels consecrate items without intention, and here they disagree with regard to whether this is also the halakha with regard to the slaughtering knife. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that the knife consecrates items as a service vessel does. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that since the knife has no inside, it does not consecrate items as a service vessel does.

אינה מקדשת ככלי שרת.

ואיכא דאמרי, רב פפא אמר: דכולי עלמא כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא מדעת, והכא בסכין קא מיפלגי. מר סבר: סכין אלימא מכלי שרת,

And there are those who say that Rav Pappa said: Everyone agrees that service vessels consecrate items only with intention, and here they disagree with regard to the ability of the slaughtering knife to consecrate without intention. One Sage, Ḥizkiyya, holds that the power of the knife to consecrate items is stronger than that of other service vessels, as even though it has no inside it consecrates items, and therefore it also consecrates items without intention. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the power of the knife to consecrate items is not stronger than that of other service vessels, and like all service vessels, it does not consecrate items without intention.

דאף על גב דלית ליה תוך – מיקדשה, ומר סבר: סכין לא אלימא (ליה) מכלי שרת.

מתני׳ שחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה – קדש הלחם, שחטה ונמצאת טריפה – לא קדש הלחם.

MISHNA: If one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, and the offering was rendered piggul or was disqualified, respectively, the loaves were consecrated and either rendered piggul or disqualified. If one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it was an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], the loaves were not consecrated, as the cause of the animal’s disqualification preceded its slaughter.

שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום, רבי אליעזר אומר: קדש, וחכמים אומרים: לא קדש.

If one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it is a blemished animal that may not be sacrificed ab initio but if it ascended the altar it may be sacrificed, Rabbi Eliezer says: He has consecrated the loaves, since if the offering ascends the altar it is sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: He has not consecrated the loaves, since it may not be sacrificed ab initio.

שחטה שלא לשמה, וכן איל המילואים, וכן שני כבשי עצרת ששחטן שלא לשמן – לא קדש הלחם.

If one slaughtered the thanks offering not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered the ram of inauguration not for its sake, and likewise, if one slaughtered the communal peace offering of two sheep that accompany the two loaves on Shavuot not for their sake, the loaves were not consecrated.

גמ׳ – מתניתין מני? רבי מאיר.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the loaves become consecrated. The mishna also teaches that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and it was discovered that it was a tereifa, the loaves were not consecrated, but if it was discovered to have a blemish, Rabbi Eliezer says that the loaves were consecrated, and the Rabbis say that they were not. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

דתניא, זה הכלל: כל שפיסולו קודם שחיטה – לא קדש הלחם; פיסולו אחר שחיטה – קדש הלחם. שחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה – קדש

As it is taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any instance in which the disqualification of the thanks offering preceded its slaughter, the loaves were not consecrated, and any instance in which its disqualification came into existence after its slaughter, the loaves were consecrated. Therefore, if one slaughtered the thanks offering with the intent to partake of it or to burn the sacrificial portions beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the loaves were consecrated, as the offering remained fit until after its slaughter. But if one slaughtered the thanks offering and it was discovered that it was a tereifa, the loaves were not consecrated, as the cause of the animal’s disqualification preceded its slaughter.

הלחם; שחטה ונמצאת טריפה – לא קדש הלחם.