Menachot

May one at the very outset set apart [an animal] to be the surplus [of an offering]? 1 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]!2 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.3 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,4 and what should one do? Should he [the priest] wave them outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written Before the Lord.5 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,6 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!’7 — [This is no remedy] for there would then be a curtailment of the eating of the forty cakes.8 R. Ashi said to R. Kahana, If [the law] is in accordance with R. Johanan who ruled9 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’!10 — He replied, Who can tell us [for certain] that the reason for R. Johanan's ruling11 is that he is of the opinion that if a man were to reserve it [the young] it is accounted a reservation?12 Perhaps [he holds] it is not accounted a reservation,13 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.14 Rabina once happened to be in Damharia15 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]’ ,16 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,17 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 penalty of stripes. Surely then it would not be suggested as a remedy in our case to make this substitution in the first instance! the breast and thigh of the thank-offering. other forty being regarded as having been brought as security only. V. supra 78b. According to Rashi MS. the whole of the eighty cakes are to be brought into the Sanctuary, and there can be no objection to this on the ground that unconsecrated food is being brought into the Sanctuary for the additional forty cakes are deemed a security for the others and are of service to the hallowed cakes. be here two thank-offerings; but the priest, thinking that he is not entitled to more than four of them, for there may be here only one thank-offering, would only eat four and leave four; the owners, on the other hand, would not eat the remaining four cakes, and they would therefore be destroyed unnecessarily. Another interpretation: Clearly eight cakes are given to the priests, but it is possible that only four of them are holy; now if it happens that the priests are unable to consume all the eight cakes that same day. it may be that the remaining cakes, which have to be burnt, are the hallowed cakes, so that by giving the priests non-hallowed cakes to eat it may result in bringing hallowed cakes to destruction. the surplus of an offering?’ cannot be raised here, for at the time that the animal was set apart the surplus. i.e., the young, was not yet brought into the world. or offering, for it is not considered as one entity with the mother-beast; consequently in the case of the sin-offering either animal may be offered for the atonement; likewise in a thank-offering, each animal when offered requires the bread-offering. offered as a thank-offering the young becomes the surplus thereof and does not require the bread-offering. animal, be it the mother-beast or the young. the other animal is regarded as the surplus thereof, and as such does not require the bread-offering when offered as a thank-offering. died or was lost; thus it is usual in such a case to bring another animal with it as security. reprehensible to do so (cf. infra 109b). for a vow, i.e., when the expression ‘I take upon myself’ is used, may become most difficult of fulfilment, and so bring about sin.