Menachot 160

ונתותרו מביא בהן לחם ללחמי תודה ונתותרו אין מביא בהן תודה

and some was left over, he may bring with it the loaves. If [he set money apart] for the loaves of a thank-offering and some was left over, he may not bring with it the thank-offering. What is the reason?

מאי טעמא אילימא משום דרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא מנין ללחמי תודה שנקראו תודה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, יב) והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות אי הכי איפכא נמי לחם איקרי תודה תודה לא איקרי לחם

Shall I say it is R'Kahana's teaching? For R'Kahana said, Whence is it known that the' loaves of the thank-offering are referred to as 'the thank-offering'? From the verse, And he shall offer with the thank-offering unleavened cakes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">¹</span>

ואמר רבא הפריש תודתו ואבדה וחזר והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואבדה וחזר והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאו הראשונות והרי שלשתן עומדות נתכפר בראשונה שניה אינה טעונה לחם שלישית טעונה לחם

If so, the reverse should also be true, should it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the surplus of money assigned for the loaves should be used for the thank-offering.');">²</span> -[No,] the loaves are referred to as 'the thank-offering' but the thank-offering is never referred to as 'the loaves'. Raba also said, If a man set apart [an animal for] his thank- offering and it was lost, and he set apart another in its stead and that too was lost, and he then set apart a third in its stead, and then the first [anim were found so that now all three animals stand before us.

נתכפר בשלישית שניה אינה טעונה לחם ראשונה טעונה לחם באמצעית שתיהן אין טעונות לחם אביי אמר אפילו נתכפר באחת מהן שתיהן אין טעונות לחם כולהו חליפין דהדדי נינהו

- if he obtained atonement by the first animal, the second does not require the bread-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the second animal which was brought to replace the first (which eventually was offered as a thank-offering) is regarded as the surplus of the thank-offering and therefore does not require the bread-offering.');">³</span> but the third does;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third was brought to replace the second, but as the second was not offered the third cannot be regarded as the surplus of the thank-offering, but rather as an additional thank-offering which requires the bread-offering.');">⁴</span> if he obtained atonement by the third, the second does not require the bread-offering but the first does;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third animal (which was offered) replaced the second, hence the latter is now the surplus of the thank-offering; the first animal, however, was not at any time replaced directly by the third.');">⁵</span>

אמר רבי זירא וכן לענין חטאות הפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאו הראשונות והרי שלשתן עומדות נתכפר בראשונה שניה תמות שלישית תרעה

if by the second, the other two do not require the bread-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both the first and the third are directly connected with the second, and are now the surplus of that which was actually offered.');">⁶</span> Abaye said, Even though he obtained atonement by any one of them the other two do not require the bread-offering. because each was replaced by the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that even the third, which only indirectly replaced the first, is also exempt from the bread-offering.');">⁷</span>

נתכפר בשלישית שניה תמות וראשונה תרעה נתכפר באמצעית שתיהן ימותו אביי אמר אפילו נתכפר באחת מהן שתיהן ימותו כולהו חליפין דהדדי נינהו

R'Zera said, And so it is, too, with regard to the sin-offering. Thus if a man set apart [an animal for] hi sin-offering and it was lost, and he set apart a second animal in its stead and that too was lost, and then he set apart a third in its stead, and then the first [animals] were found so that now all three animals stand before us, - if he obtained atonement by the first animal, the second must be left to die<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the owner of this sin-offering has obtained atonement by another animal, accordingly this animal which is the surplus of the sin-offering must be left to die.');">⁸</span> and the third must be left to pasture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not directly connected with the first animal.');">⁹</span>

מאי וכן מהו דתימא התם הוא דאיכא למימר מרבה בתודות הוא אבל הכא דליכא למימר מרבה בחטאות הוא אימא לא קמ"ל

if he obtained atonement by the third animal, the second must be left to die and the first must be left to pasture; if he obtained atonement by the second animal, the other two animals must be left to die. Abaye said, Even though he obtained atonement by any one of them the other two animals must be left to die, because each was replaced by the other. What is the point of saying 'And so it is too'?

תני רבי חייא תודה שנתערבה בתמורתה ומתה אחת מהן חבירתה אין לה תקנה היכי נעביד נקריב לחם בהדה דלמא תמורה היא לא נקריב לחם בהדה דלמא תודה היא

[Is it not obvious? ] - You might think that it applies only there [in the case of the thank-offering] for one might say that he is offering additional thank-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a man may offer as many thank-offerings as he pleases and at any time.');">¹⁰</span> but not here [in the case of the sin-offering] for one cannot say that he is offering additional sin-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering cannot be brought at any time as a freewill-offering; accordingly even in the first case where the atonement was made by the first animal the third animal should also be left to die.');">¹¹</span> we are therefore taught [that so it is too with the sin-offering].

היכי דמי אי דאמר עלי לא סגיא דלא מייתי ליה בהמה אחרינא ולחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה והא תיהוי אחריות

R'Hiyya taught: If a thank-offering was confused with its substitute and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it must be left to die.');">¹²</span> For what is he [the owner] to do? Should he offer the bread-offering with it?

לא צריכא דאמר הרי זו

perhaps it is the substitute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the bread-offering was not to be brought with the substitute. V. Mishnah, supra p 479.');">¹³</span> Should he not offer the bread-offering with it? Perhaps it is the original thank-offering.

סימן למודי"ם מיד"ת על"ה שי"ש שכ"ן דדמ"ה דא"י חל"ש מות"ר תמור"ה בחו"ץ חזקי"ה הפרי"ש חטא"ת לאח"ר יות"ר

But if he had said, 'Behold I take upon myself [to offer a thank-offering]'. he cannot do otherwise than bring it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The third was brought to replace the second, but as the second was not offered the third cannot be regarded as the surplus of the thank-offering, but rather as an additional thank-offering which requires the bread-offering.');">⁴</span> then let him bring another animal and the bread-offering [of a thank-offering] with it and declare, 'If th surviving [animal] is the substitute, then let this be a thank-offering and this its bread-offering; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, then let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal be as security'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And where an animal is brought together with the thank-offering as security against its loss it does not require the bread-offering.');">¹⁵</span>

אמרו למדין לפני רבי וליתי לחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה אי לא ליפוק לחולין אמר להו וכי מכניסין חולין לעזרה

- It must be that he had said, 'Let this be [a thank-offering]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of this expression does not involve a personal obligation; hence it cannot be said that another animal is brought as security.');">¹⁶</span> <br>(Mnemonic: The arguers, Martha, 'Ulla, Shisha, Ashi, Damharia. - Hul[lin], SH[elamim], Surplus, Substitute, Outside, Hezekiah, Set apart a sin-offering.

וליתי בהמה ולחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה והא תיהוי שלמים אמר להו משום דקא ממעט באכילה דשלמים

Security).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It will be observed that from here until the next Mishnah eight suggestions are put forward which are introduced by different scholars. The mnemonic therefore consists of two parts; first the names of the various scholars and secondly a list of the subjects of the arguments. The text, however, is in a bad state; v. Sh. Mek. and Rabbinowicz D.S. a. l. n. 6. 'The arguers' (that is, Levi, v. next n.) put the first three questions akj ihkuj ohnka 'Damharia' is not the name of a person but of the place where R. Dimi lived (v. p. 490. n. 2) . is an abbreviation of and , meaning unconsecrated animals and peace-offerings respectively.');">¹⁷</span> The arguers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Levi. When taking part in discussions in the College Levi was known by this appellation; v. San. 17b. When he discussed a matter privately with Rabbi he was simply spoken of as Levi (Rashi MS.) .');">¹⁸</span> before Rabbi raised this question.

אמר לוי לרבי וליתי בהמה ולחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה ואי האי דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה והא תיהוי מותר דתודה אמר ליה כמדומה אני שאין לו מוח בקדקדו

Let him bring the bread-offering and declare, 'If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, let this be its bread-offering; but if not, let this be unconsecrated [bread]'! - He replied, Ma one bring unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. Hence the remedy suggested is unsatisfactory.');">¹⁹</span> Then 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 [original] thank-offering, let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal] be a peace-offering!' - He replied. [This is no remedy] for then the time allowed for the eating of peace-offerings would be curtailed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this additional animal is in a state of doubt whether it is a thank-offering or a peace-offering. its flesh would only be eaten the same day until midnight like a thank-offering. and what is left over would be burnt; yet if it were a peace-offering it would not have to be burnt then, since it may be eaten during two days and one night. rnt');">²⁰</span> Levi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 486, n. 8; v. however Tosaf s.v. .');">²¹</span> suggested this to Rabbi, 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 surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering. then let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal be the surplus of the thank-offering!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is offered without the bread-offering.');">²²</span> - He replied. It seems to me that this man has no brains in his skull.