Comentário sobre Menachot 2:3

התודה מפגלת את הלחם – that the bread (i.e., loaves) comes for the thanksgiving offering and it is of secondary import to it, but the thanksgiving offering is not of secondary import to the bead. And similarly, the two lambs of Atzeret/Shavuot, the two loaves that come with them are of secondary import to the lambs but the lambs are not of secondary import to the bread, but the principal [item(s)] make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal but that of secondary import do not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if it was necessary for the Tanna/teacher to teach this law regarding the thanksgiving offering but it was not necessary [to teach this law with regard] to the lams of Atzeret/Shavuot, I would think that it is there that the when the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, the thanksgiving-offering does not make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal because it was not dependent upon the waving with the loaves, but the lambs [for Atzeret/Shavuot] which were dependent upon the waving with the loaves, as it is written (Leviticus 23:20): “The priest shall elevate these – the two lambs- together with the bread [of first fruits as an elevation offering before the LORD],”I would say that the bread makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal to also make the lambs rejectable through improper mental disposal. But if the Tanna/teacher taught [only] the lambs, I would state there that when the lambs make the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it makes the bread rejectable through improper mental disposal because they were dependent upon each other in waving, but the thanksgiving-offering which were not dependent, I would state that when the thanksgiving offering makes the sacrifice rejectable through improper mental disposal, it does not make the loaves rejectable through improper mental disposal, hence, they are both necessary.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with cases where a priest has a disqualifying intention with regard to one part of a multi-part sacrifice and whether this renders the entire sacrifice piggul and the one who eats it liable for karet.

The todah can render the bread piggul but the bread does not render the todah piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the todah intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the todah is not piggul. When one brings a todah (thanksgiving) offering, he brings with it unleavened cakes of bread (see Leviticus 7:12). If the priest intends to eat the todah after its time has expired, the bread is also rendered piggul. This is because the todah is the main part and the loaves are ancillary to it. However, if he intends to eat the loaves after their time has expired, then the loaves alone are piggul and the todah is not. The rule is that the main part can render that which is ancillary to it piggul, but the ancillary part cannot render the main part of the sacrifice piggul.

The lambs can render the bread piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is piggul but the lambs are not. This is the same rule as above but applied to the lambs that are sacrificed on Shavuot and the loaves that accompany them (see yesterday’s mishnah). The lambs are the main part and the bread is ancillary.