Commentary for Menachot 161:12

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר הרי עלי תודה יביא היא ולחמה מן החולין

Perhaps [he holds] it is not accounted a reservation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the young may not be used for any offering but it is one with the mother-beast, and when the latter is offered as a thank-offering the young becomes the surplus thereof and does not require the bread-offering.');">¹³</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan only ruled that either animal may be used for atonement, but after atonement has been effected with one 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.');">¹⁴</span> Rabina once happened to be in Damharia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in the neighbourhood of Sura.');">¹⁵</span> 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]' ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By using this expression he assumes a personal obligation to bring the offering and must replace it by another if it died or was lost; thus it is usual in such a case to bring another animal with it as security.');">¹⁶</span> 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 t 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 tho shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eccl. V, 4. From this verse it is established that the best course is not to vow at all (cf. Hul. 2a) . and indeed it is 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.');">¹⁷</span> and you say that he should proceed to vow in the first instance? <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For everything that is obligatory must be brought from what is unconsecrated; v. infra 82a.');">¹⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Menachot 161:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.