The seventh Mishnah in the third chapter, and we continue to discuss the bread that accompanies the todah offering. Two separate topics come before us in this Mishnah: the first deals with the sanctity invested in the loaves and the question of when it takes effect, and the second with a slaughtering in which a disqualification occurred and how it affects the loaves.
Two levels of sanctity:
Kedushas damim (monetary sanctity) - a sanctity that is not intrinsic but essentially monetary, and therefore it can be transferred elsewhere. With the loaves of the todah it is created through a verbal declaration: a person says, "These loaves shall be the loaves that I bring with my todah," and by doing so he invests sanctity in them. But since this is only kedushas damim, if the bread became tamei its sanctity can be transferred onto money, with which new bread is purchased and upon which the sanctity takes effect, and everything is valid.
Kedushas haguf (intrinsic sanctity) - an intrinsic sanctity that takes effect through the slaughtering of the todah that the loaves accompany. From the moment of slaughtering the loaves are no longer ordinary bread designated to be offered; rather, they themselves have the status of sacrificial food.
The practical difference between the two levels is expressed in several matters:
Tumah: A tevul yom or a mechusar kipurim, whose level is that of a lesser degree of tumah (second or third), do not render an ordinary loaf of bread tamei, since ordinary bread can only receive second-degree tumah. Therefore, as long as the loaves have only kedushas damim, and they are loaves waiting to become sacrificial loaves, they do not become tamei through their touch. But once the todah has been slaughtered and kedushas haguf has taken effect upon them, they receive tumah even from a tevul yom and from a mechusar kipurim.
Yotzei: If one takes the loaves out of Jerusalem before the slaughtering of the todah, there is no disqualification in this. After the slaughtering, taking them out disqualifies them as yotzei, as we have already learned.
Linah: Bread that remained overnight while it has only kedushas damim is not disqualified, whereas once kedushas haguf has taken effect upon it a time limit is set for it, and on the morning after the slaughtering of the todah the loaves are disqualified by linah itself.
The condition of the bread at the time of slaughtering:
The first point of the Mishnah is that at the time of slaughtering the loaves must be ready, meaning baked and not merely dough, the sign of this being that they have formed a crust, and also that they be in a place fit for them. If not, the slaughtering does not sanctify the loaves, the todah itself is offered as a shelamim, while the owner must bring a new animal for a todah with new loaves and start over from the beginning.
The Mishnah says: he slaughtered the todah properly inside, within the Azarah, and its bread was "chutz lachomah" - outside the wall - the loaves did not acquire kedushas haguf, and the todah did not count for him as a todah.
Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan disagree in the Gemara as to which wall is meant:
Reish Lakish: The reference is to the Azarah. Since the verse says that the loaves come and are offered "upon" the todah offering, and the intention is not literally upon it, we learn that they must be near it and in its presence. And if the bread is outside the Azarah, everything is invalid.
Rabbi Yochanan: The reference is to outside Beis Pagi. There are different versions and explanations as to what this refers to: some explained it as the Temple Mount and some explained it as the walls of Jerusalem. Most commentators understand that these are the walls of Jerusalem, and reason supports this, for the bread is eaten within the walls of Jerusalem with the status of kodashim kalim, and when it is taken outside the walls it becomes yotzei and is disqualified; and if it was outside the boundary from the outset, the sanctity never took effect upon it. The Rambam, in contrast, understands that outside Beis Pagi means outside the walls surrounding the Temple Mount, although the reasoning for setting this boundary is not entirely clear.
The Mishnah further says: he slaughtered the todah before the loaves had "karmu" - formed a crust - in the oven, and even if all the loaves were baked and had formed a crust except for one, not a single one of the forty loaves becomes sanctified. Again, this animal was slaughtered for the sake of a todah and is offered as a shelamim, and the owner must bring a new animal for a new todah offering, assuming he obligated himself by a vow to bring a todah.
A disqualification in the slaughtering itself:
The second point of the Mishnah deals with a case where the loaves are in their proper place, but the slaughter itself was invalidated. Since the loaves are subordinate to the animal, to the sacrifice, when the animal becomes invalid the loaves too are liable to become invalid. And since the inherent sanctity of the loaves takes effect with the slaughter, everything depends on the slaughter being performed properly, and that is the decisive moment.
There are two possibilities before us: one, that the animal is fit and only the slaughter was performed improperly; and the second, that the slaughter is almost irrelevant, because the animal was not fit to begin with, such as an animal that was a tereifah or blemished.
"Shechatah chutz lizmanah v'chutz limkomah" - he slaughtered it with disqualifying intentions: outside its time, meaning he intended to offer it or eat it at the wrong time, and this is piggul; or outside its place, meaning he intended to offer it or eat the meat in the wrong place. In such a case the Mishnah says "kidesh halechem" - the loaves became sanctified, and two things happen here: the loaves become sanctified, since the slaughter sanctifies them, and on the other hand everything becomes entirely invalid and the loaves must be burned just like the meat. And with an intention of outside its time, one who eats from the loaf, like one who eats from the meat, is liable to kareis.
The reason for this is that this slaughter carries a certain level of validity, for had he entertained these disqualifying intentions and the todah had already gone up onto the altar, it would be left there. For that reason the slaughter is effective in investing the loaves with inherent sanctity.
"Shechatah v'nimtzeis tereifah" - he slaughtered the todah and it turned out that it had a perforated heart and was destined to die, so the offering is not valid and "lo kidesh halechem" - the loaves were not sanctified. Since the animal was invalid from the outset, the slaughter is irrelevant and the loaves too do not become sanctified.
It emerges that he must bring a new animal for the todah, if he obligated himself by a vow. But if this was a donation, in which he designated this particular animal as a todah, he is entirely exempt. Whereas with a vow, in which he said, "It is incumbent upon me to bring a todah," he must bring a new todah, except that he may use those same old loaves, since they never became sanctified.
"Shechatah v'nimtza ba'al mum" - he slaughtered it and it was discovered after the fact that it was blemished. The Gemara raised the obvious question: most blemished animals are recognizable from a distance as unfit, so what case are we dealing with here? Rather, our Mishnah is dealing with an extremely minor blemish that is not noticed at first, and even one that, had it been on a bird, would not have disqualified it at all. Regarding such a minor blemish, Rabbi Akiva and the Sages disagree in tractate Zevachim, chapter nine, whether after the fact, when he has already brought such an animal up onto the altar, it is left there or taken down. The case is spots in the eye, something like cataracts.
Rabbi Eliezer holds like Rabbi Akiva, that after the fact, had he brought it up onto the altar it would not be taken down, and therefore this slaughter carries a degree of validity and it sanctifies the loaf. The Sages say "lo kidesh" - it was not sanctified: this animal, being blemished, even though the blemish is minor and in the eye, is entirely invalid, and so it was invalid even before the slaughter, and the slaughter is as though it never happened and the loaf is not sanctified. He must start over and bring a new animal, and he may use those same old loaves. The halachah follows the Sages.
"Shechatah shelo lishmah" - he slaughtered the todah and at the time of the slaughter had in mind a different offering, a shelamim or an olah, "lo kidesh halechem" - the loaves were not sanctified. The same law applies to the other animal offerings that come with bread, and the Mishnah lists two: "v'chein eil hamiluim" - the ram of the inauguration, that one time dedication of the seven days of inauguration in the Mishkan in the wilderness, "v'chein shnei kivsei atzeres" - the two lambs brought every Shavuos. The Mishnah did not mention it, but the same applies to the loaves of the nazir.
The underlying principle: with a todah, if he does not slaughter it for its own sake but with the intent of a different offering, the loaves are not sanctified. This is not a compelling logical conclusion but a law derived from the verse, that it must be slaughtered specifically for the sake of its being a todah, and if not, the loaves are not sanctified. And from the todah the law is derived for the other sacrifices that come with bread: the inauguration offering, the lambs of Shavuos and the ram of the nazir. And even though the slaughter takes effect and the animal continues to be offered as a sacrifice, the owner must bring a new offering, since the first one does not count for him for its intended purpose, while the loaves were not sanctified, and those same old loaves may be used for the second attempt, to slaughter the appropriate sacrifice alongside them.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned about the two levels of sanctity in the loaves of the todah: sanctity of monetary value, which takes effect through a verbal declaration, and inherent sanctity, which takes effect with the slaughter of the todah, and about the practical difference between them regarding tumah, leaving the proper area, and being left overnight. We examined the conditions that the loaves must have formed a crust in the oven and be in their proper place, and the dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan as to the definition of "outside the wall." We then learned the laws of invalidation in the slaughter itself: with an intention of outside its time or outside its place the loaves became sanctified and were invalidated; with a tereifah and with a blemished animal, according to the Sages, they were not sanctified; and the same where one slaughters not for its own sake, both with the todah and with the other sacrifices that come with bread.