Parallel
מנחות 79:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds the same view as his father, who maintained that what was ready for sprinkling is regarded as sprinkled. The Master stated: ‘IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT’. But has not R. Hisda ruled that oil which had been set apart for one meal-offering is invalid for another meal-offering? — R. Jannai answered, The Beth din make a mental stipulation about [the drink-offerings] that if they are required, they are required [and utilized for that offering]; but if not, they shall be utilized for another offering. If so, this should apply to oil too! — Oil is part of the meal-offering. Should they not stipulate that they shall be non-holy? — [No,] for it is to be feared that people will say that one may take out what has already been in a vessel of ministry for secular use. But even now it is to be feared, is it not, that people might think that drink-offerings set apart for one offering may be used for another offering? — Behold Mattitiah b. Judah taught [that the ruling of our Mishnah applies only] where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time. Then what would be the law where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time? They [the drink-offerings] would be left to become invalid by remaining overnight, would they not? Then instead of teaching the final clause, BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, [the Tanna] could have drawn a distinction in that [first clause] thus: That is so only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but not where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time! — That is just what [the Tanna] meant to say, That is so only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time, [the drink-offerings] are invalid for they are regarded as though they had remained overnight. But does R. Simeon hold that the mental stipulation of the Beth din is effective? Behold R. Idi b. Abin stated in the name of R. Amram who cited R. Isaac who cited R. Johanan, The daily offerings which are not required for the community are, according to R. Simeon, not redeemed unblemished; but according to the Sages they are redeemed unblemished! — In that case it is different for there is the remedy of putting them to pasture. MISHNAH. THE YOUNG OF A THANK-OFFERING, ITS SUBSTITUTE, AND THE ANIMAL WHICH WAS SET APART IN THE PLACE OF THE THANK-OFFERING WHICH WAS SET APART AND WAS LOST, DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF THANK-OFFERING; THE THANK-OFFERING REQUIRES THE BREAD-OFFERING, BUT ITS YOUNG, WHAT IS BROUGHT IN ITS PLACE, AND ITS SUBSTITUTE, DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Why was It necessary for Scripture to say, He offers [it] for a thank-offering? Whence is it derived that if a man had set apart a beast for a thank-offering and it was lost and he set apart another in its place, and then the first was found so that now both beasts are standing before him — whence [it is asked] is it derived that he may offer whichever of them he pleases and with it the bread-offering? Because the text states, He offers... for a thank-offering. I might think that the other animal also requires the bread-offering; therefore the text says, He offers it, implying one only but not two. Thus the text has qualified it after including it. Whence do I know that the young [of the thank-offering]. what was brought in its place, and its substitute, are also included that they too must be offered [as thank-offerings]? Because the text states, If... for a thank-offering. I might think that they also require the bread- offerings; the text therefore says, Then he shall offer with the thank-offering; the thank-offering alone requires the bread-offering, but its young, what was brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the bread-offering. R. Hanina sent the following ruling in the name of R. Johanan, This is so only [if it is offered] after the atonement; but if before the atonement, it also needs the bread-offering. Now R. Amram pondered over this. To what [does the above ruling refer]? Shall I say to the case of the animal that was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering? But we have already learnt it regarding the case [where it was offered] before the atonement, and also regarding the case [where it was offered] after the atonement!28
—