Menachot 159

אלא אחליפי תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה טעונות לחם מרבה בתודות הוא

Shall I then say [it refers] to the case of what was brought in the place of a freewill thank-offering? But sure whether [it is offered] before the atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. before the sacrifice of the original thank-offering.');">¹</span> or after the atonement it certainly requires the bread-offering, for it is an additional thank-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he is offering many thank-offerings'. Since the original is a freewill thank-offering there is no obligation to replace it if lost, accordingly what is brought in replacement is in fact another thank-offering, and as such certainly requires the bread-offering.');">²</span>

אלא אולד תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה אין טעונין לחם מותר דתודה היא אלא אולד תודה חובה לפני כפרה טעון לחם לאחר כפרה אין טעון לחם

Shall I then say [it refers] to the case of the young of a freewill thank-offering? But surely whether [it is offered] before the atonement or after the atonement it certainly does not require the bread-offering, for it is the surplus of the thank-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any accretion to the original thank-offering is accounted as surplus and, like the surplus of money that was assigned for the purchase of a thank-offering, does not require the bread-offering.');">³</span> - I must say [it refers] to the case of the young of an obligatory thank-offering; thus if [the young is offered] before the atonement it requires the bread-offering, but if after the atonement it does not require the bread-offering.

מאי קמ"ל דקסבר ר' יוחנן אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש הוי בה נמי אביי כי האי גוונא

What does he teach us? - That R'Johanan is of the opinion that a man may obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated things.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the young may be used for the atonement it is deemed to be a thank-offering just as the mother-beast and therefore requires the bread-offering.');">⁴</span> Abaye also pondered over it in like manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And arrived at the same conclusion as R. Amram.');">⁵</span> It has also been [expressly] stated: R'Isaac B'Joseph said in the name of R'Johanan, The animal that was brought in the place of a freewill thank-offering, whether [it is offered] before or after the atonement, requires the bread-offering, for it is an additional thank-offering.

איתמר נמי אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן חילופי תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה טעונה לחם מרבה בתודות הוא ולד תודה נדבה בין לפני כפרה בין לאחר כפרה אין טעון לחם מותר דתודה הוא וולד תודה חובה לפני כפרה טעונין לחם לאחר כפרה אין טעונין לחם

The young of a freewill thank-offering, whether [it is offered] before or after the atonement, does not require the bread-offering, for it is only the surplus of the thank-offering. The young of an obligatory thank-offering and what was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MSM. and other MSS., and Sh. Mek. The words 'and what was brought in the place of an obligatory thank-offering' are omitted in cur. edd., evidently wrongfully since the verb 'require' is governed by a plural subject.');">⁶</span> if offered before the atonement, require the bread-offering; but if after the atonement, do not require the bread-offering.

אמר שמואל כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעונה לחם כל שבחטאת רועה בתודה טעונה לחם

Samuel said, Whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the ruling in the following five cases: (i) The young of a sin-offering; (ii) the substitute of a sin-offering; (iii) a sin-offering whose owner died; (iv) a sin-offering which was lost and its owner had obtained atonement with another; and (v) a sin-offering more than a year old. The animal in these cases was locked up and starved to death.');">⁷</span> in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the young of the thank-offering (or any of the other cases enumerated in the prec. n., with the exception of (v) , for a thank-offering may be more than a year old) is offered as a thank-offering but does not require the bread-offering.');">⁸</span> and whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until it becomes blemished and is then redeemed. For the circumstance v. GEMARA:');">⁹</span>

מתיב רב עמרם מהו אומר (ויקרא ז, יב) התודה יקריב מנין למפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזו מהן שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה תלמוד לאמר התודה יקריב יכול תהא שניה טעונה לחם תלמוד לאמר יקריבנו אחד ולא שנים

in the case of a thank-offering requires the bread- offering. R'Amram raised the following objection: [It was taught]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 479 and notes.');">¹⁰</span> Why was it necessary for the text to say: 'He offers [it] for a thank-offering'?

ואילו גבי חטאת כי האי גונא רועה דתנן הפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מתכפר באחת מהן ושניה תמות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת לאחר שנתכפרו בעלים הא קודם שנתכפרו בעלים רועה

Whence is it derived that if a man set apart a beast for a thank-offering and was lost and he set apart another in its place, and then the first was found so that now both beasts stand 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. for a thank-offering'.

שמואל כרבי סבירא ליה דאמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

I might think that the othe animal also requires the bread-offering; therefore the text states, 'He offers it', implying one only but not two. Now a sin-offering in such a case would certainly be left to pasture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the view of the Sages infra. Nevertheless it is stated that in the case of a thank-offering no bread-offering is required, thus in conflict with the second part of Samuel's rule.');">¹¹</span> for we have learnt: If a man set apart an animal as his sin-offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its stead, and then the first w found so that now both stand [before us].

אלא רועה לרבי היכי משכחת לה כדרבי אושעיא דאמר רבי אושעיא הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות מתכפר באיזה מהן שירצה והשניה תרעה

one must be used for his atonement while the other must be left to die. So Rabbi. But the Sages say.

והא גבי תודה כי האי גוונא אין טעונה לחם אלא שמואל כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה דאמר חמש חטאות מתות

No sin-offering may be left to die save only that which is found after its owner had obtained atonement [by another offering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 22b, Pes. 97a.');">¹²</span> It follows, however, that [if it is found] before its owner had [otherwise] obtained atonement it must be left to pasture! - Samuel agrees with Rabbi who maintains that the animal which was lost at the time that a second was set apart must be left to die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though it was found again before the second animal was offered it must none the less be left to die, for it had been rejected as a sin-offering. Likewise a thank-offering in such circumstances would not require the bread-offering, thus in accordance with Samuel's rule.');">¹³</span> Then in what circumstances does it ever arise that the animal, according to Rabbi, must be left to pasture?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Samuel ruled that whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture etc.');">¹⁴</span>

והא רועה לרבי שמעון לית ליה כלל

-In the case stated by R'Oshaia. For R'Oshaia said, If a man set apart two sin-offerings as security.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case one is lost the other should be available for use.');">¹⁵</span> he obtains atonement by whichever animal he pleases [to offer], while the second must be left to pasture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is admitted by Rabbi, for only where the animal had been rejected as a sin-offering. on being lost, does Rabbi rule that it must be left to die, but not where both animals were from the outset available for the offering.');">¹⁶</span>

שמואל נמי חדא קאמר כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעונה לחם מאי קמ"ל לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן דאמר אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש קמשמע לן דלא

But surely a thank-offering in such a case would not require the bread-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For one merely stands to replace the other, and we have learnt that what was brought in the place of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering. Accordingly Samuel's rule does not hold good.');">¹⁷</span> - Rather Samuel agrees with R'Simeon who maintains that the five sin-offerings must be left to die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 482, n. 2. The fourth case would, according to R. Simeon, include the case where two sin-offerings were brought as security, so that the animal which had not been used must be left to die. A thank-offering in such a case would certainly not require the bread-offering, thus in conformity with Samuel's rule.');">¹⁸</span> But R'Simeon holds that under no circumstances [is a sin-offering] to be left to pasture!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can Samuel say, 'Whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture'?');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ר' אבא זו תודה וזו לחמה אבד הלחם מביא לחם אחר אבדה תודה אינו מביא תודה אחרת מאי טעמא לחם לגלל תודה ואין תודה לגלל לחם

- Samuel too stated one rule [only]: Whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to die in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering. Then what does he teach us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all the cases implied in Samuel's rule have been expressly taught that they do not require the bread-offering.');">²⁰</span> - [His purpose is] to reject R'Johanan's view; for [R'Johanan] ruled that a man may obtain atonement from the increase of consecrated things;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, according to R. Johanan, the young of a thank-offering, if offered before atonement has been made by the mother-beast, would require the bread-offering.');">²¹</span>

ואמר רבא הפריש מעות לתודתו

and [Samuel] teaches us that it is not so. Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi and Sh. Mek., and so also in the parallel passage in Pes. 13b. In cur. edd. 'R. Abba'. According to Sh. Mek. the two statements which follow are also by Rabbah.');">²²</span> said, [Where a man said,] 'This [animal] shall be a thank-offering and these its loaves'. if the loaves were lost he may bring other loaves [for this thank-offering]; but if the thank-offering was lost he may not bring another thank-offering [for these loaves]. What is the reason? - The loaves are appurtenant to the thank-offering but the thank-offering is not appurtenant to the loaves. Raba said, If a man set apart money [to purchase an animal] for a thank-offering