Menachos 2:3 - 2:4

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.

הזבח מפגל את הנכסים – and a person who drinks from them is punished with extirpation.

משקדשו בכלי – after they placed them in the sacred vessels, for the vessel sanctifies them with an eternal holiness, and furthermore they don’t have any redemption.

דברי ר' מאיר – for Rabbi Meir holds that the libations make the sacrifice rejectable, because the blood of the offering is what makes it appropriate and permits them for the altar. And since they have something that makes it permitted, it becomes rejectable through an intention/thought outside of its proper time. But the Sages dispute him in the Tractate Zevakhim in the chapter “The School of Shammai” (Chapter 4, Mishnah 3 – Talmud Zevakhim) [44a] and they (i.e., the Sages] state that the libations do not have that which makes them permissible [for consumption], therefore they do not become rejectable. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.