Mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 158:16

הוי בה רב עמרם אהייא אילימא אחליפי תודת חובה אי לפני כפרה תנינא אי לאחר כפרה תנינא

implying one only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only one of these two thank-offerings, either the original animal or what was brought in its place, requires the bread-offering.');">²⁰</span> but not two. Thus the text has qualified it after including it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What was brought in place of the thank-offering is here included that it too must be offered as a thank-offering. but it is qualified in that it does not require a bread-offering. kg');">²¹</span> Whence do I know that the young [of the thank-offering]. what was brought in its place, and its substitute, are also included that they too must be offered [as thank-offerings]? Because the text states, If. for a thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The expression , translated 'for', really signifies 'with', 'in addition to'. I.e., others are also offered as thank-offerings in addition the original animal.');">²²</span> I might think that they also require the bread- offerings; the text therefore says, Then he shall offer with the thank-offering; the thank-offering alone requires the bread-offering, but its young, what was brought in its place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This item is redundant here, since it has already been established by virtue of the expression 'he shall offer it' that what was brought in the place of the thank-offering is exempt from the bread-offering.');">²³</span> and its substitute, do not require the bread-offering. R'Hanina sent the following ruling in the name of R'Johanan, This is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the bread-offering is not required.');">²⁴</span> only [if it is offered] after t atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the young or the substitute or what was brought in the place of the thank-offering is being offered now as a thank-offering after the original animal had been sacrificed and atonement effected thereby.');">²⁵</span> but if before the atonement, it also needs the bread-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if both animals are present, whichever is offered, whether the original thank-offering or its young or its substitute, needs the bread-offering.');">²⁶</span> Now R'Amram pondered over this. To what [does the above ruling refer]? Shall I say to the case of the animal that was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. if one vowed a thank-offering by using the expression 'I take upon myself to offer a thank-offering'. In this case if the animal set apart for the offering was lost another must be brought in its place.');">²⁷</span> But we have already learnt it regarding the case [where it was offered] before the atonement, and also regarding the case [where it was offered] after the atonement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the foregoing Baraitha it is expressly taught that if the original thank-offering has not been sacrificed but both it and the substitute are present, whichever is offered requires the bread-offering; and if the one had already been sacrificed the other, it has also been taught, is exempt from the bread-offering. And this Baraitha deals with an obligatory thank-offering, for were it only a freewill thank-offering it would not be necessary to replace it if it were lost.');">²⁸</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Menachot 158:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.