Parallel
מנחות 81
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
May one at the very outset set apart [an animal] to be the surplus [of an offering]? R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha was sitting in the presence of R. Nahman, and while sitting there he said, 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 the substitute [of the thank-offering]’! — He replied. Tell me, Sir; forty stripes on his shoulders, and [yet you] permit him [to do so]! R. ‘Ulla was once ill, and Abaye and the other Rabbis came to visit him. While sitting there they said, If [the law] is in accordance with R. Johanan who ruled that [the bread] is hallowed even though it was outside the wall of the Sanctuary. then let him bring the bread-offering and put it down outside the wall of the Sanctuary and let him declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, then here is its bread-offering; and if not, let it be treated as unconsecrated [bread]’! — [This is no remedy] for there are four cakes which must be waved, and what should one do? Should he [the priest] wave them outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written Before the Lord. Should he wave them inside? He is then bringing unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary. It is thus impossible to do so. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred saying, If [the law] is in accordance with Hezekiah who ruled that forty out of the eighty cakes are hallowed, let him bring another animal and with it eighty cakes and let him declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering. let this [animal] also be a thank-offering and here are eighty cakes for both [thank-offerings]; and if the surviving [animal] is the substitute, then let this [animal] be a thank-offering and this the bread-offering for it, and let forty out of the eighty cakes be hallowed!’ — [This is no remedy] for there would then be a curtailment of the eating of the forty cakes. R. Ashi said to R. Kahana, If [the law] is in accordance with R. Johanan who ruled that where a man set apart a pregnant beast as a sin-offering and it then gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he so desires, with the mother-beast itself or, if he prefers. with her young, let him bring here a pregnant beast and wait until it gives birth and let him also bring eighty cakes and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the substitute, let it [the mother-beast] and its young be thank-offerings, and here are the eighty cakes for both of them; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, let it [the mother-beast] also be a thank-offering, and here are eighty cakes for both, and this [the young] shall be the surplus of the thank-offering’! — He replied, Who can tell us [for certain] that the reason for R. Johanan's ruling is that he is of the opinion that if a man were to reserve it [the young] it is accounted a reservation? Perhaps [he holds] it is not accounted a reservation, and this is the reason for R. Johanan's ruling, namely that he is of the opinion that a man may obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated things. Rabina once happened to be in Damharia and R. Dimi son of R. Huna of Damharia suggested the following to Rabina, Let him bring [another] animal and say. ‘Behold I take upon myself [to offer a thank-offering]’ , and let him also bring a [third] animal and with it eighty cakes and declare, ‘If the surviving [animal] is the substitute, let these two animals be thank-offerings and here are eighty cakes for both; and if the surviving [animal] is the thank-offering, then let that animal in respect of which I said, "I take upon myself [to offer a thank-offering]" also be a thank-offering, and here are the eighty cakes for those two [thank-offerings], and let the third animal be as security!’ — He replied. The Torah says, Better it is that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay, and you say that he should proceed to vow in the first instance? MISHNAH. IF A MAN SAID. ‘BEHOLD I TAKE UPON MYSELF [TO BRING] A THANK-OFFERING’, HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED.18
—
[IF HE SAID.] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM [SECOND] TITHE [MONEY]’. HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED. [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO. [IF HE SAID,] ‘BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO; BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY. GEMARA. R. Huna said, If a man said, ‘Behold I take upon myself [to bring] the bread of a thank-offering’, he must bring a thank-offering and its bread. For what reason? Since this man knows full well that bread alone cannot be offered he obviously meant a thank-offering together with its bread, and when he said, ‘The bread of a thank-offering’ he merely stated the final words [of the vow]. We have learnt: [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM SECOND TITHE AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED’, HE SHALL BRING IT SO. Now why is this so? Surely since he said, ‘Its bread from what is unconsecrated’, he ought to bring both it [the thank-offering] and its bread from what is unconsecrated! — There it is quite different, for since he had already said, ‘The thank-offering from Second Tithe’, [when he next said, ‘Bread from what is unconsecrated’] it is to be taken as though he had said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to bring the bread for So-and-so's thank-offering’. If that is so, then in the first clause too which reads, [IF HE SAID,] ‘THE THANK-OFFERING FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY, HE MUST BRING BOTH IT AND ITS BREAD FROM WHAT IS UNCONSECRATED, it should also be taken as though he had said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to bring the thank-offering for So-and-so's bread’. — How can you compare [the two]? Bread might very well be brought for another's thank-offering; but is a thank-offering ever brought for another's bread? Come and hear: If a man said, ‘Behold I take upon myself to offer a thank-offering without the bread’, or ‘an animal-offering without the drink-offerings’, they compel him to bring the thank-offering with the bread or the animal-offering with the drink-offerings. Now this is so only where he said, ‘a thank-offering’, but where he did not say ‘a thank-offering’, he would not ‘[have to bring anything at all!] — [No.] it is just the same even though he did not say ‘a thank-offering’, but since the Tanna wished to state the case of an animal-offering without the drink-offerings, when he could not have stated [the reverse, viz..] drink-offerings without an animal-offering, he also stated the case of the thank-offering. Why is it so? Surely this is a vow that carries with it its annulment! — The authority for this [view of our Mishnah], said Hezekiah, is Beth Shammai who maintain that one must always regard the first words [of a man's statement as binding]. For we have learnt: If a man said, ‘I will be a Nazirite [and abstain] from dried figs and pressed figs’, Beth Shammai say. He becomes a Nazirite; but Beth Hillel say, He does not become a Nazirite. R. Johanan said, You may even say that this is in accordance with Beth Hillel, [only we must suppose that the man] said, ‘Had I but known that one cannot vow in this manner I should not have vowed in this manner but in that’. What [then means], ‘They compel him’? -That is if he wishes to change his mind now. Come and hear: If a man said, ‘I take upon myself to bring a thank-offering without bread’, or ‘an animal-offering without the drink-offerings’, and when they said to him, ‘You must bring a thank-offering with the bread’ or ‘an animal-offering with the drink-offerings’. he replied, ‘Had I but known this I would not have vowed at all’, they compel him none the less and say to him, ‘Observe and hear’. Now this is well according to Hezekiah, but it surely presents a difficulty to R. Johanan! — R. Johanan will reply, That [Baraitha] undoubtedly represents Beth Shammai's view. What is meant by ‘Observe and hear’?-Abaye said, ‘Observe’: bring the thank-offering, ‘and hear:’ bring its bread-offering. Raba said. ‘Observe’: bring the thank-offering with its bread-offering. ‘and hear’: be not in the habit of doing so. [IF HE SAID.] ‘BOTH THE THANK-OFFERING AND ITS BREAD FROM SECOND TITHE’. HE SHALL BRING IT SO. ‘HE SHALL BRING IT SO!’ Is he then bound to bring it so? — R. Nahman and R. Hisda explained, If he wishes he brings it [as he vowed]. and if not he need not bring it [as he vowed]. BUT HE MAY NOT BRING IT FROM SECOND TITHE WHEAT BUT ONLY FROM SECOND TITHE MONEY. R. Nahman and R. Hisda both said, They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat, but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money. R. Jeremiah was sitting before R. Zera and recited as follows: They taught this only of Second Tithe wheat, but he may bring it from wheat bought with Second Tithe money. [R. Zera] said to him, Master, you say so; but I say that even from wheat bought with Second Tithe money he may not bring it. And I will state my reason and I will state your reason. I will state your reason: Whence do you know this of the thank-offering? From peace-offerings.33
—