Menachot

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.