Menachot

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.1 If so, the reverse should also be true, should it not?2 -[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-offering3 but the third does;4 if he obtained atonement by the third, the second does not require the bread-offering but the first does;5 if by the second, the other two do not require the bread-offering.6 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.7 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 die8 and the third must be left to pasture;9 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,10 but not here [in the case of the sin-offering] for one cannot say that he is offering additional sin-offerings;11 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.12 For what is he [the owner] to do? Should he offer the bread-offering with it? perhaps it is the substitute.13 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 .14 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’!15 — It must be that he had said, ‘Let this be [a thank-offering]’.16 (Mnemonic: The arguers, Martha, ‘Ulla, Shisha, Ashi, Damharia. — Hul[lin], SH[elamim], Surplus, Substitute, Outside, Hezekiah, Set apart a sin-offering. Security.)17 The arguers18 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? 19 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.20 Levi21 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!’22 — He replied. It seems to me that this man has no brains in his skull. regarded as the surplus of the thank-offering and therefore does not require the bread-offering. surplus of the thank-offering, but rather as an additional thank-offering which requires the bread-offering. the first animal, however, was not at any time replaced directly by the third. actually offered. surplus of the sin-offering must be left to die. atonement was made by the first animal the third animal should also be left to die. bring the promised offering. bread-offering. brought as security. different scholars. The mnemonic therefore consists of two parts; first the names of the various scholars and secondly a list of the subjects of the arguments. The text, however, is in a bad state; v. Sh. Mek. and Rabbinowicz D.S. a. l. n. 6. ‘The arguers’ (that is, Levi, v. next n.) put the first three questions ‘Damharia’ is not the name of a person but of the place where R. Dimi lived (v. p. 490. n. 2). akj is an abbreviation of ihkuj and ohnka , meaning unconsecrated animals and peace-offerings respectively. discussed a matter privately with Rabbi he was simply spoken of as Levi (Rashi MS.). be eaten the same day until midnight like a thank-offering. and what is left over would be burnt; yet if it were a peace-offering it would not have to be burnt then, since it may be eaten during two days and one night.