Menachot 161

וכי מפרישין תחלה למותרות

May one at the very outset set apart [an animal] to be the surplus [of an offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">¹</span> R'Isaac B'Samuel B'Martha was sitting in the presence of R'Nahman, and while sitting there he said, 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 the [original] thank-offering.

יתיב רבי יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא קמיה דרב נחמן ויתיב וקאמר ולייתי בהמה ולחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה והא תהוי תמורה

let this be the bread-offering for it and this [animal] be the substitute [of the thank-offering - He replied. Tell me, Sir; forty stripes on his shoulders, and [yet you] permit him [to do so]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To designate an animal as a substitute for a consecrated one is a transgression of Lev. XXVII, 10 and involves the penalty of stripes. Surely then it would not be suggested as a remedy in our case to make this substitution in the first instance!');">²</span>

אמר ליה עני מרי ארבעין בכתפיה וכשר

R''Ulla was once ill, and Abaye and the other Rabbis came to visit him. While sitting there they said, If [the law] is in accordance with R'Johanan who ruled that [the bread] is hallowed even though it was outside the wall of the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of the slaughtering of the thank-offering. V. supra 78b.');">³</span>

רב עילא חלש על לגביה אביי ורבנן ויתבי וקא אמרי אם איתא לדר' יוחנן דאמר חוץ לחומת העזרה קדוש לייתי לחם ולותבה חוץ לחומת העזרה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה ואי לא ליפוק לחולין

then let him bring the bread-offering and put it down outside the wall of the Sanctuary and let him declare, 'If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, then here is its bread-offering; and if not, let it be treated as unconsecrated [bread]'! - [This is no remedy] for there are fou cakes which must be waved,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was the priest's portion from the bread-offering, one cake from each sort, which had to be waved together with the breast and thigh of the thank-offering.');">⁴</span> and what should one do?

משום דאיכא ארבע להניף היכי ליעביד לנפינהו אבראי (ויקרא ז, ל) לפני ה' כתיב גוואי קא מעייל חולין לעזרה הלכך לא אפשר

Should he [the priest] wave them outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written Before the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 30. Although this is stated of the peace-offering it applies also to the thank-offering.');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אם איתא לדחזקיה דאמר קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים לייתי בהמה ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא נמי תיהוי תודה והא שמונים דתרוייהו אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה וליקדשו להו ארבעים מתוך שמונים

Should he wave them inside? He is then bringing unconsecrated food into the Sanctuary.

משום דקא ממעט באכילה דארבעים

It is thus impossible to do so. R'Shisha son of R'Idi demurred saying, If [the law] is in accordance with Hezekiah who ruled that forty out of the eighty cakes are hallowed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a man brought eighty cakes with his thank- offering, Hezekiah maintained that forty of them are hallowed, the other forty being regarded as having been brought as security only. V. supra 78b.');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא אם איתא לדרבי יוחנן דאמר הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה בה מתכפר רצה בוולדה מתכפר לייתי בהמה מעוברת וימתין לה עד שתלד ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא וולדה תודה היא והא שמונים דתרווייהו ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא נמי תודה היא והא שמונים דתרווייהו הוא והאי ליהוי מותר דתודה

let him bring another animal and with it eighty cakes and let him declare, 'If the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering. let this [animal] also be a thank-offering and here are eighty cakes for both [thank-offerings]; and if the surviving [animal] is the substitute, then let this [animal] be a thank-offering and this the bread-offering for it, and let forty out of the eighty cakes be hallowed!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cakes should be left outside the Sanctuary and only eight be brought within; so R. Gershom and Rashi. According to Rashi MS. the whole of the eighty cakes are to be brought into the Sanctuary, and there can be no objection to this on the ground that unconsecrated food is being brought into the Sanctuary for the additional forty cakes are deemed a security for the others and are of service to the hallowed cakes.');">⁷</span>

אמר ליה מאן לימא לן דאמר רבי יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר דלמא אם שיירו אינו משוייר והיינו טעמא דרבי יוחנן דאמר אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש

- [This is no remedy] for there would then be a curtailment of the eating of the forty cakes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to another reading: of the four cakes. It is obviously necessary to give the priest eight cakes for there may be here two thank-offerings; but the priest, thinking that he is not entitled to more than four of them, for there may be here only one thank-offering, would only eat four and leave four; the owners, on the other hand, would not eat the remaining four cakes, and they would therefore be destroyed unnecessarily. Another interpretation: Clearly eight cakes are given to the priests, but it is possible that only four of them are holy; now if it happens that the priests are unable to consume all the eight cakes that same day. it may be that the remaining cakes, which have to be burnt, are the hallowed cakes, so that by giving the priests non-hallowed cakes to eat it may result in bringing hallowed cakes to destruction.');">⁸</span> R'Ashi said to R'Kahana, If [the law] is in accordance with R'Johanan who ruled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 78a, Tem. 25a.');">⁹</span>

רבינא איקלע לדמהוריא אמר ליה רב דימי בריה דרב הונא מדמהוריא לרבינא ולייתי בהמה ולימא הרי עלי ולייתי בהמה אחריתי ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הני תרתי תודות והא שמונים דתרוייהו ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא והא דאמרי עלי נמי ליהוי תודה והא שמונים דתרוייהו ואידך תהוי לאחריות

that where a man set apart a pregnant beast as a sin-offering and it then gave birth, his atonement may be made, if he so desires, with the mother-beast itself or, if he prefers. with her young, let him bring here a pregnant beast and wait until it gives birth and let him also bring eighty cakes and declare, 'If the surviving [animal] is the substitu let it [the mother-beast] and its young be thank-offerings, and here are the eighty cakes for both of them; and if the surviving [animal] is the [original] thank-offering, let it [the mother-beast] also be a thank-offering, here are eighty cakes for both, and this [the young] shall be the surplus of the thank-offering'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which no bread-offering is required. The objection, stated supra, 'May one at the outset set apart an animal to be the surplus of an offering?' cannot be raised here, for at the time that the animal was set apart the surplus. i.e., the young, was not yet brought into the world.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה התורה אמרה (קהלת ה, ד) טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם ואת אמרת ליקום ולינדור בתחילה:

- He replied, Who can tell us [for certain] that the reason for R'Johanan's ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the atonement may be effected either by the mother-beast or by the young.');">¹¹</span> is that he is of the opinion tha if a man were to reserve it [the young] it is accounted a reservation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of an animal that was consecrated pregnant can be reserved and appointed by the owner for any purpose or offering, for it is not considered as one entity with the mother-beast; consequently in the case of the sin-offering either animal may be offered for the atonement; likewise in a thank-offering, each animal when offered requires the bread-offering.');">¹²</span>

<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>