Parallel
מנחות 80
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Shall I then say [it refers] to the case of what was brought in the place of a freewill thank-offering? But surely whether [it is offered] before the atonement or after the atonement it certainly requires the bread-offering, for it is an additional thank-offering! Shall I then say [it refers] to the case of the young of a freewill thank-offering? But surely whether [it is offered] before the atonement or after the atonement it certainly does not require the bread-offering, for it is the surplus of the thank-offering? — I must say [it refers] to the case of the young of an obligatory thank-offering; thus if [the young is offered] before the atonement it requires the bread-offering, but if after the atonement it does not require the bread-offering. What does he teach us? — That R. Johanan is of the opinion that a man may obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated things. Abaye also pondered over it in like manner. It has also been [expressly] stated: R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan, The animal that was brought in the place of a freewill thank-offering, whether [it is offered] before or after the atonement, requires the bread-offering, for it is an additional thank-offering. The young of a freewill thank-offering, whether [it is offered] before or after the atonement, does not require the bread-offering, for it is only the surplus of the thank-offering. The young of an obligatory thank-offering and what was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering. if offered before the atonement, require the bread-offering; but if after the atonement, do not require the bread-offering. Samuel said, Whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to die in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering. and whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture in the case of a thank-offering requires the bread- offering. R. Amram raised the following objection: [It was taught]: Why was it necessary for the text to say. ‘He offers [it] for a thank-offering’? Whence is it derived that if a man 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 stand 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 states, ‘He offers it’, implying one only but not two. Now a sin-offering in such a case would certainly be left to pasture; for we have learnt: If a man set apart an animal as his sin-offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its stead, and then the first was found so that now both stand [before us]. one must be used for his atonement while the other must be left to die. So Rabbi. But the Sages say. No sin-offering may be left to die save only that which is found after its owner had obtained atonement [by another offering]. It follows, however, that [if it is found] before its owner had [otherwise] obtained atonement it must be left to pasture! — Samuel agrees with Rabbi who maintains that the animal which was lost at the time that a second was set apart must be left to die. Then in what circumstances does it ever arise that the animal, according to Rabbi, must be left to pasture? -In the case stated by R. Oshaia. For R. Oshaia said, If a man set apart two sin-offerings as security. he obtains atonement by whichever animal he pleases [to offer], while the second must be left to pasture. But surely a thank-offering in such a case would not require the bread-offering! — Rather Samuel agrees with R. Simeon who maintains that the five sin-offerings must be left to die. But R. Simeon holds that under no circumstances [is a sin-offering] to be left to pasture! — Samuel too stated one rule [only]: Whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to die in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering. Then what does he teach us? — [His purpose is] to reject R. Johanan's view; for [R. Johanan] ruled that a man may obtain atonement from the increase of consecrated things; and [Samuel] teaches us that it is not so. Rabbah said, [Where a man said,] ‘This [animal] shall be a thank-offering and these its loaves’. if the loaves were lost he may bring other loaves [for this thank-offering]; but if the thank-offering was lost he may not bring another thank-offering [for these loaves]. What is the reason? — The loaves are appurtenant to the thank-offering but the thank-offering is not appurtenant to the loaves. Raba said, If a man set apart money [to purchase an animal] for a thank-offering
—
and some was left over, he may bring with it the loaves. If [he set money apart] for the loaves of a thank-offering and some was left over, he may not bring with it the thank-offering. What is the reason? Shall I say it is R. Kahana's teaching? For R. Kahana said, Whence is it known that the’ loaves of the thank-offering are referred to as ‘the thank-offering’? From the verse, And he shall offer with the thank-offering unleavened cakes. If so, the reverse should also be true, should it not? -[No,] the loaves are referred to as ‘the thank-offering’ but the thank-offering is never referred to as ‘the loaves’. Raba also said, If a man set apart [an animal for] his thank- offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its stead and that too was lost, and he then set apart a third in its stead, and then the first [animals] were found so that now all three animals stand before us. — if he obtained atonement by the first animal, the second does not require the bread-offering but the third does; if he obtained atonement by the third, the second does not require the bread-offering but the first does; if by the second, the other two do not require the bread-offering. Abaye said, Even though he obtained atonement by any one of them the other two do not require the bread-offering. because each was replaced by the other. R. Zera said, And so it is, too, with regard to the sin-offering. Thus if a man set apart [an animal for] his sin-offering and it was lost, and he set apart a second animal in its stead and that too was lost, and then he set apart a third in its stead, and then the first [animals] were found so that now all three animals stand before us, — if he obtained atonement by the first animal, the second must be left to die and the third must be left to pasture; if he obtained atonement by the third animal, the second must be left to die and the first must be left to pasture; if he obtained atonement by the second animal, the other two animals must be left to die. Abaye said, Even though he obtained atonement by any one of them the other two animals must be left to die, because each was replaced by the other. What is the point of saying ‘And so it is too’? [Is it not obvious?] — You might think that it applies only there [in the case of the thank-offering] for one might say that he is offering additional thank-offerings, but not here [in the case of the sin-offering] for one cannot say that he is offering additional sin-offerings; we are therefore taught [that so it is too with the sin-offering]. R. Hiyya taught: If a thank-offering was confused with its substitute and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other. For what is he [the owner] to do? Should he offer the bread-offering with it? perhaps it is the substitute. Should he not offer the bread-offering with it? Perhaps it is the original thank-offering. But if he had said, ‘Behold I take upon myself [to offer a thank-offering]’. he cannot do otherwise than bring it . then let him bring another animal and the bread-offering [of a thank-offering] with it and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the substitute, then let this be a thank-offering and this its bread-offering; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, then let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal] be as security’! — It must be that he had said, ‘Let this be [a thank-offering]’. (Mnemonic: The arguers, Martha, ‘Ulla, Shisha, Ashi, Damharia. — Hul[lin], SH[elamim], Surplus, Substitute, Outside, Hezekiah, Set apart a sin-offering. Security.) The arguers before Rabbi raised this question. Let him bring the bread-offering and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, let this be its bread-offering; but if not, let this be unconsecrated [bread]’! — He replied, May one bring unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary? Then let him bring another animal and the bread-offering and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the substitute, let this [animal] be a thank-offering and this its bread-offering; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal] be a peace-offering!’ — He replied. [This is no remedy] for then the time allowed for the eating of peace-offerings would be curtailed. Levi suggested this to Rabbi, Let him bring another animal and the bread-offering and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the substitute, let this [animal] be a thank-offering and this its bread-offering; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering. then let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal] be the surplus of the thank-offering!’ — He replied. It seems to me that this man has no brains in his skull.
—