Menachot 158

ור' אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר לה כוותיה דאבוה דאמר כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי

and R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon holds the same view as his father, who maintained that what was ready for sprinkling is regarded as sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the moment that the blood had been received in a bowl in readiness for the sprinkling the drink-offerings become hallowed.');">¹</span> The Master stated: 'IF THERE IS ANOTHER ANIMAL-OFFERING, THEY MAY BE OFFERED WITH IT'.

אמר מר אם יש זבח אחר יקרבו עמו והא אמר רב חסדא שמן שהפרישו לשום מנחה זה פסול לשום מנחה אחרת אמר רבי ינאי לב בית דין מתנה עליהם אם הוצרכו הוצרכו ואם לאו יהו לזבח אחר

But has not R'Hisda ruled that oil which had been set apart for one meal-offering is invalid for another meal-offering? - R'Jannai answered, The Beth din make a mental stipulation about [the drink-offerings]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This relates, of course, only to communal offerings. By 'Beth din' is meant here the Temple authorities, the priests.');">²</span> that if they are required, they are required [and utilized for that offering]; but if not, they shall be utilize another offering.

אי הכי שמן נמי שמן גופה דמנחה הוא

If so, this should apply to oil too! - Oil is part of the meal-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the oil is mingled with the flour and becomes one with the meal-offering; hence, even before mingling, the oil is so closely related to the meal-offering that if the latter is for some reason invalid the oil cannot be used for any other offering.');">³</span> Should they not stipulate that they shall be non-holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the event of the drink-offerings not being utilized for the animal-offering they shall be permitted for secular use. Wherefore does our Mishnah state: BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID?');">⁴</span>

וליתנו עליהן דניפקו לחולין גזירה שמא יאמרו מוציאין מכלי שרת לחול

- [No,] for it is to be feared that people will say that one may take out what has already been in a vessel of ministry for secular use.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For people will not be aware of the mental reservation of the Beth din.');">⁵</span> But even now it is to be feared, is it not, that people might think that drink-offerings set apart for one offering may be used for another offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For people will not be aware of the mental reservation of the Beth din.');">⁵</span>

השתא נמי גזירה שמא יאמרו נסכים שהפרישן לשום זבח זה כשרין לשום זבח אחר

- Behold Mattitiah B'Judah taught [that the ruling of our Mishnah applies only] where the other animal-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which these drink-offerings are to be used.');">⁶</span> had been slaughtered at the same time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case people would assume that the drink-offerings had originally been intended for the other animal-offering.');">⁷</span>

התני מתתיה בן יהודה כגון שהיה זבח זבוח באותה שעה

Then what would be the law where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time? They [the drink-offerings] would be left to become invalid by remaining overnight, would they not?

אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה מאי נפסל בלינה אדתני סיפא אם לאו יפסלו בלינה ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים שהיתה זבח זבוח באותה שעה אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה לא

Then instead of teaching the final clause, BUT IF NOT, THEY ARE LEFT TO BECOME INVALID BY REMAINING OVERNIGHT, [the Tanna] could have drawn a distinction in that [first clause] thus: That is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the drink-offerings may be used for another animal-offering.');">⁸</span> only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but not where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time! - That is just what [the Tanna] meant to say, That is so only where the other animal-offering had been slaughtered at the same time, but where the other animal-offering had not been slaughtered at the same time, [the drink-offerings] are invalid for they are regarded as though they had remained overnight.

הכי נמי קא אמר במה דברים אמורים שהיה זבח זבוח באותה שעה אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה נעשה כמי שנפסלו בלינה ופסולין

But does R'Simeon<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it had been said supra that our Mishnah was in agreement with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who adopted his father's view.');">⁹</span> hold that the mental stipulation of the Beth din is effective?

ומי אית ליה לרבי שמעון (בן אלעזר) לב בית דין מתנה עליהן

Behold R'Idi B'Abin stated in the name of R'Amram who cited R'Isaac who cited R'Johanan, The daily offerings which are not required for the community<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were always six lambs which had been examined and found free from blemish in readiness for the daily offerings, for although only two were required daily six were made ready in case of an emergency. Consequently on the last day of every year, i.e., on the twenty-ninth day of Adar, there were always four lambs left which were not required for the community. They could not be used as offerings, for from the first of Nisan lambs from the new stock only would be used. V. supra 49b.');">¹⁰</span> are, according to R'Simeon, not redeemed unblemished;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they must be allowed to pasture until they become blemished when they may be redeemed. The fact that R. Simeon must resort to this measure indicates clearly that he holds that the mental stipulation of the Beth din with regard to the lambs, namely those that are not required shall be non-holy, is of no effect.');">¹¹</span>

והא אמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לציבור לדברי רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימים

but according to the Sages they are redeemed unblemished!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the mental stipulation of the Beth din is effective. V. Shebu. 11b.');">¹²</span> - In that case it is different for there is the remedy of putting them to pasture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until they become blemished when they can be redeemed. Only in such a case does R. Simeon hold that the mental stipulation of the Beth din is of no effect, but not in the case where there is no other remedy, as with the drink-offerings.');">¹³</span>

שאני התם דאית להו תקנתא ברעייה:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE YOUNG OF A THANK-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A man consecrated a pregnant beast as a thank-offering and it later brought forth its young. The young must be offered as the same sacrifice as the mother-beast; v. Tem. III, 2.');">¹⁴</span> ITS SUBSTITUTE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case both the consecrated beast and the substitute are holy. cf. Lev. XXVII, 10; and the latter must be offered as the same sacrifice as the former; v. Tem. l.c.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ולד תודה ותמורתה הפריש תודה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה אינה טעונה לחם שנאמר (ויקרא ז, יב) והקריב על זבח התודה התודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה טעונין לחם:

AND THE ANIMAL WHICH WAS SET APART IN THE PLACE OF THE THANK-OFFERING WHICH WAS SET APART AND WAS LOST,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And which was eventually found. It is immaterial which beast was offered, the other must also be offered as a thank- offering.');">¹⁶</span> DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING; FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND HE SHALL OFFER WITH THE SACRIFICE OF THANK-OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן מהו אומר תודה יקריב (אם על תודה יקריב) מנין למפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזה מהן שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה תלמוד לומר התודה יקריב

THE THANK-OFFERING REQUIRES THE BREAD-OFFERING, BUT ITS YOUNG, WHAT IS BROUGHT IN ITS PLACE, AND ITS SUBSTITUTE, DO NOT REQUIRE THE BREAD-OFFERING. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: Why was It necessary for Scripture to say, He offers [it] for a thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The expression 'he offers it' is entirely superfluous in the construction of this verse.');">¹⁸</span>

יכול שתהא שניה טעונה לחם תלמוד לומר יקריבנו אחד ולא שנים אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט מנין לרבות ולדות וחליפות ותמורות להקרבה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה יכול יהו טעונות לחם תלמוד לאמר והקריב על זבח התודה תודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה טעונין לחם

Whence is it derived that if a man had 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 are standing 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.

שלח רב חנינא משמיה דרבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לאחר כפרה אבל לפני כפרה טעונין לחם

for a thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">¹⁹</span> I might think that the other animal also requires the bread-offering; therefore the text says, He offers it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">¹⁹</span>

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>