QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which states that if four loaves were prepared for the Shtei ha'Lechem instead of two loaves, two are taken in order to perform the Tenufah (waving the loaves together with the Kevasim, when the Kevasim are alive and after they are slaughtered), and two are "redeemed" and eaten by the Kohanim. The Gemara suggests that the Beraisa may be consistent even with the view of Rebbi, who maintains that it is the Shechitah of the Kevasim which sanctifies the Shtei ha'Lechem.

The Gemara asks that the Beraisa does not seem to follow the view of Rebbi. If, as Rebbi maintains, the loaves become Kadosh with Kedushas ha'Guf at the time of the Shechitah of the Kevasim, then how can the extra two loaves be redeemed? The Beraisa cannot mean that they may be redeemed outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash, because it is forbidden to bring them outside ("Yotzei") since they are Kadosh. On the other hand, the Beraisa cannot mean that they may be redeemed inside the Beis ha'Mikdash, because they would then become Chulin in the Azarah, and one may not bring Chulin into the Azarah. The Gemara answers that Rebbi maintains there is no prohibition against redeeming an object of Kedushah which is already inside the Azarah and making it Chulin. The prohibition applies only to bringing a Chulin object into the Azarah.

TOSFOS (DH l'Olam) points that the baking of the loaves in the oven does not give the loaves their Kedushas ha'Guf. Only the Shechitah of the Kevasim makes them Kadosh. This is because all four loaves are not fit to be brought as the Shtei ha'Lechem; only two loaves are fit. In a normal situation, however, when only two loaves are baked, they become Kadosh when they are baked (see Me'ilah 9a).

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH (on the Rambam, printed in the end of SEFER HAR HA'MORIYAH) questions Tosfos. Why does Tosfos assume that the baking of the Shtei ha'Lechem should make them Kadosh any more than the Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres makes them Kadosh? Rebbi maintains that the Shechitah makes them Kadosh, and that the Kedushah which they attain at that time is a more specific Kedushah than the Kedushah they attain when they are baked, and yet he still rules that the loaves may be redeemed. What, then, is Tosfos' concern about the Kedushah which they attain when they are baked?

(a) The CHOK NASAN explains that Tosfos is justified in suspecting that the Kedushah attained at the time of baking is more than the Kedushah attained at the time of Shechitah. The baking gives the loaves Kedushah because they are baked inside of the oven which itself is Kadosh, and the Torah says with regard to the Klei Shares, "Kol ha'Noge'a Bahem Yikdash" -- "whatever touches them becomes Kadosh" (Shemos 30:29). The Shechitah of the Kevasim, in contrast, does not make the loaves Kadosh through "touching." Accordingly, there is a doubt about whether the fact that the Shechitah (in the case of the Gemara) does not give Kedushah to the loaves proves that the oven does not give Kedushah to the loaves.

This explanation is consistent with Tosfos' explanation of the Gemara in Me'ilah (9a). The Mishnah there states that once the "face of the loaf becomes baked" ("Karmu Paneha," the exact definition of which is subject to discussion among the Rishonim), the loaves are able to become Pasul by being touched by a person who is a Tevul Yom. If the loaves become Kadosh by being inside the oven, then why does the Mishnah say that they reach this degree of Kedushah when they become partially baked? Merely being placed in the oven should suffice to give them Kedushah! Tosfos there (8a, DH Karmu) explains that the reason why the oven is not Mekadesh the loaves right away is that a Kli Shares is Mekadesh only what is placed into it when it performs the function to the Korban for which it is designated. Since the purpose of the oven is to bake the loaves, the oven does not give them Kedushah until they are partially baked.

(b) The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH suggests that Tosfos is asking an entirely different question. The Gemara's question is based on the fact that Rebbi maintains that the Shechitah of the Kivsei Atzeres is Mekadesh the Shtei ha'Lechem. Tosfos does not understand why this question should be based on Rebbi's opinion. According to everyone, the loaves become Kadosh when they are in the oven! The Kedushah they attain from the oven should suffice to make them subject to becoming Pasul if they are taken outside the Beis ha'Mikdash to be redeemed, and it should be cause for a problem of Chulin in the Azarah if they are redeemed inside the Azarah.

(c) The Birkas ha'Zevach suggests another explanation. Tosfos asks his question according to Rav Chisda, who says that the Beraisa may be following the view of Rebbi. Since Rebbi himself says that the oven is Mekadesh its contents (see 72b), why does a Beraisa -- which follows the view of Rebbi -- make the Kedushah contingent on the Shechitah? It should say simply that if all four loaves were baked for the Shtei ha'Lechem, then two should be used for the Tenufah and two should be redeemed, because they have Kedushah from the time they are partially baked (and not just from when the Kevasim are slaughtered).

The Chok Nasan rejects both answers of the Birkas ha'Zevach for one reason. He explains that Tosfos himself says earlier (46a, DH v'Eizo) that the Kedushah of the oven does not cause the loaves to become Pasul if they are subsequently taken out of the Azarah. Only the Shechitah can make the loaves become Pasul because of "Yotzei." It therefore is not logical to say that Tosfos is suggesting that the Beraisa should have expressed the Halachah differently. (Y. MONTROSE)

OPINIONS: The Gemara cites Rav Yitzchak who says that Kivsei Atzeres that are slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" are Pasul, and they must be left overnight and then taken to be burned. What is the meaning of Kivsei Atzeres slaughtered "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan"?

(a) RASHI (DH Ki Asa) in his first explanation explains that this means that the Kivsei Atzeres are slaughtered with intent that they are a different Korban.

TOSFOS (DH Kivsei Atzeres) has difficulty with this explanation. The Mishnah in Zevachim (2a) teaches that all Korbanos are valid even if they are done with intent that they are a different Korban, with the except of a Korban Pesach and Korban Chatas, which are Pasul if done with the wrong intention. If Kivsei Atzeres are also Pasul when slaughtered with the wrong intent, then why does the Mishnah there not include them with Pesach and Chatas in the list of exemptions?

1. Tosfos answers for Rashi that although the Tana of the Mishnah in Zevachim agrees that Kivsei Atzeres slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah are Pasul like Pesach and Chatas, the Tana did not want to mention Kivsei Atzeres because "it was not certain to him to exclude Shelamim." What does Tosfos mean?

The TZON KODASHIM explains that Tosfos understands that the Tana there omitted Kivsei Atzeres out of concern that one might mistakenly think that all other Shelamim are also Pasul when slaughtered she'Lo Lishmah.

The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH explains that Tosfos means that the Tana in Zevachim lists only general Korbanos which are exceptions, and not specific Korbanos. He mentions Pesach and Chatas, because those are general types of Korbanos which include all types of Pesach and Chatas. He does not include Kivsei Atzeres, because that is a specific form of Shelamim.

2. Alternatively, Tosfos suggests that the Tana in Zevachim lists only Korbanos that are important in their own right, and not Korbanos that are brought only because of another Korban (such as the Kivsei Atzeres which are brought only because of the Shtei ha'Lechem).

However, Tosfos rejects Rashi's explanation because of the Beraisa cited earlier (48a). The Beraisa explicitly states that in a case in which the Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered with intent that they are a different Korban, the Zerikah still should be performed and the meat should be eaten. Why does the Gemara not ask how Rav Yitzchak, an Amora, can say that the Korban is Pasul, when the Beraisa earlier contradicts his statement?

(b) Rashi quotes another explanation of "she'Lo k'Mitzvasan" in the name of "HA'MOREH" and the GE'ONIM. They explain that this means that the Kevasim that were slaughtered were two years old instead of one year old.

Rashi comments that this explanation is not consistent with the words of Rav Yitzchak. Rav Yitzchak says that the problem is that the Kevasim were "slaughtered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan. If the problem is that they were too old, then Rav Yitzchak should say that they were "offered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan, since the problem is related to their intrinsic state and not to something that occurred during the Shechitah.

Tosfos answers Rashi's question and explains that the reason why Rav Yitzchak does not say that the Kevasim were "offered" she'Lo k'Mitzvasan is that he wants to imply not only a case of an animal that was too old, but also a case of an animal that was too young (less than one year old).

Tosfos' answer is not clear. The fact that the animal is Pasul because it is too young or too old still has nothing to do with the Shechitah of the animal! How does this answer Rashi's question?

The YAD BINYAMIN explains that Tosfos is giving a reason for why Rav Yitzchak does not use the word "offered" instead of "slaughtered." Since an animal that is too young may be offered as a Korban when it is older, one cannot say that the animal is "Pasul" from being offered. This is why Rav Yitzchak chooses to say "slaughtered" instead.

The Tzon Kodashim has difficulty with Tosfos for the same reason that Tosfos has difficulty with Rashi. The Beraisa earlier (48a) discusses a case in which the Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered before or after their time, and the Beraisa says that they are valid b'Di'eved. Rav Yitzchak, however, says that they are Pasul in such a case. Why does the Gemara not question his statement from the Beraisa? (See KEREN ORAH.) (Y. MONTROSE)