Menachot — Daf 80a

אלא אחליפי תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה טעונות לחם מרבה בתודות הוא

אלא אולד תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה אין טעונין לחם מותר דתודה היא אלא אולד תודה חובה לפני כפרה טעון לחם לאחר כפרה אין טעון לחם

מאי קמ"ל דקסבר ר' יוחנן אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש הוי בה נמי אביי כי האי גוונא

איתמר נמי אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן חילופי תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה טעונה לחם מרבה בתודות הוא ולד תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה אין טעון לחם מותר דתודה הוא וולד תודה חובה לפני כפרה טעונין לחם לאחר כפרה אין טעונין לחם

אמר שמואל כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעונה לחם כל שבחטאת רועה בתודה טעונה לחם

מתיב רב עמרם מהו אומר (ויקרא ז, יב) התודה יקריב מנין למפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזו מהן שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה תלמוד לאמר התודה יקריב יכול תהא שניה טעונה לחם תלמוד לאמר יקריבנו אחד ולא שנים

ואילו גבי חטאת כי האי גונא רועה דתנן הפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מתכפר באחת מהן ושניה תמות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת לאחר שנתכפרו בעלים הא קודם שנתכפרו בעלים רועה

שמואל כרבי סבירא ליה דאמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

אלא רועה לרבי היכי משכחת לה כדרבי אושעיא דאמר רבי אושעיא הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות מתכפר באיזה מהן שירצה והשניה תרעה

והא גבי תודה כי האי גוונא אין טעונה לחם אלא שמואל כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה דאמר חמש חטאות מתות

והא רועה לרבי שמעון לית ליה כלל

שמואל נמי חדא קאמר כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעונה לחם מאי קמ"ל לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן דאמר אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש קמשמע לן דלא

אמר ר' אבא זו תודה וזו לחמה אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה תודה אינו מביא תודה אחרת מאי טעמא לחם לגלל תודה ואין תודה לגלל לחם

ואמר רבא הפריש מעות לתודתו

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 atonement1 or after the atonement it certainly requires the bread-offering, for it is an additional thank-offering!2 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?3 — 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.4 Abaye also pondered over it in like manner.5 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.6 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 die7 in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering.8 and whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture9 in the case of a thank-offering requires the bread- offering. R. Amram raised the following objection: [It was taught]:10 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;11 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].12 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.13 Then in what circumstances does it ever arise that the animal, according to Rabbi, must be left to pasture?14 -In the case stated by R. Oshaia. For R. Oshaia said, If a man set apart two sin-offerings as security.15 he obtains atonement by whichever animal he pleases [to offer], while the second must be left to pasture.16 But surely a thank-offering in such a case would not require the bread-offering!17 — Rather Samuel agrees with R. Simeon who maintains that the five sin-offerings must be left to die.18 But R. Simeon holds that under no circumstances [is a sin-offering] to be left to pasture!19 — 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?20 — [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;21 and [Samuel] teaches us that it is not so. Rabbah22 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 replace it if lost, accordingly what is brought in replacement is in fact another thank-offering, and as such certainly requires the bread-offering. for the purchase of a thank-offering, does not require the bread-offering. therefore requires the bread-offering. thank-offering’ are omitted in cur. edd., evidently wrongfully since the verb ‘require’ is governed by a plural subject. a sin-offering whose owner died; (iv) a sin-offering which was lost and its owner had obtained atonement with another; and (v) a sin-offering more than a year old. The animal in these cases was locked up and starved to death. for a thank-offering may be more than a year old) is offered as a thank-offering but does not require the bread-offering. bread-offering is required, thus in conflict with the second part of Samuel's rule. been rejected as a sin-offering. Likewise a thank-offering in such circumstances would not require the bread-offering, thus in accordance with Samuel's rule. rule that it must be left to die, but not where both animals were from the outset available for the offering. thank-offering does not require the bread-offering. Accordingly Samuel's rule does not hold good. brought as security, so that the animal which had not been used must be left to die. A thank-offering in such a case would certainly not require the bread-offering, thus in conformity with Samuel's rule. mother-beast, would require the bread-offering. Mek. the two statements which follow are also by Rabbah.