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-offeringᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛ