Menachot 80

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

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring not to the replacement for an obligatory thanks offering, but to the replacement for a voluntary thanks offering. This too is difficult, because whether the initial thanks offering was found before the owner achieved atonement with the replacement or after he achieved atonement, both offerings require loaves, as the owner is considered one who increases thanks offerings. That is, since he was not required to bring a replacement for the offering, if he brings another offering it is considered an additional voluntary offering, and a voluntary thanks offering requires loaves.

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

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to the offspring of a voluntary thanks offering. This too is difficult, because whether the offspring was sacrificed before the owner achieved atonement with its mother or after he achieved atonement, offspring do not require loaves, as this is considered a leftover of the thanks offering, which does not require loaves. Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that if the offspring was sacrificed before the owner achieved atonement, it requires loaves, but if it was sacrificed after he achieved atonement, it does not require loaves.

מאי קא משמע לן דקסבר רבי יוחנן אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש הוי בה נמי אביי כי האי גוונא

The Gemara asks: According to this explanation, what is Rav Ḥanina teaching us by sending this letter? He teaches us that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, even though it is not the initial consecrated property. If one sacrifices the offspring of an obligatory thanks-offering before the thanks-offering itself, he achieves atonement with the offspring, even though it is an enhancement of the consecrated thanks-offering. Accordingly, if he offers it before its mother, it requires loaves. The Gemara notes: Abaye also discusses the letter sent by Rav Ḥanina in this way and reaches conclusions similar to those of Rav Amram.

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

With regard to the conclusions of Rav Amram and Abaye, it was also stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one achieves atonement with the replacement for a voluntary thanks offering, whether the thanks offering was found before he achieved atonement or after he achieved atonement, the replacement requires loaves, as the owner is considered one who increases thanks offerings. The offspring of a voluntary thanks offering, whether it was sacrificed before he achieved atonement or after he achieved atonement, does not require loaves, as offspring is considered a leftover of the thanks offering. And with regard to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering, if it was sacrificed before he achieved atonement, it requires loaves, but if it was sacrificed after he achieved atonement, it does not require loaves.

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

§ The Gemara cites additional halakhot with regard to the loaves of a thanks offering that was lost and another animal was taken as its replacement: Shmuel says: In any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in isolation for it to die, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it does not require loaves. And in any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in the field to graze until it develops a blemish, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it requires loaves.

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

Rav Amram raises an objection from the baraita cited on 79b: What is it that the verse teaches when it states: He sacrifices for a thanks offering? From where is it derived that one who separated an animal as his thanks offering and it was lost and he separated another in its stead, and the first animal was then found, and now they both stand fit to be sacrificed, from where is it derived that he may sacrifice whichever one of them he wishes, and its loaves are brought along with it? The verse states: He sacrifices for a thanks offering. One might have thought that the second animal also requires loaves to be brought with it. The verse states: “He sacrifices it,” indicating that only one thanks offering requires loaves, but not two.

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

Rav Amram continues: Whereas with regard to a sin offering in a case like this, the Rabbis hold that the animal is placed in the field to graze, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 22b): If one separated his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its stead, and the first sin offering was found, and both animals stand fit for sacrifice, then he achieves atonement with one of them and the second animal shall be left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is left to die only if it was found after its owner achieved atonement. It may be inferred from the opinion of the Rabbis that if it is found before the owner achieved atonement, it is placed in the field to graze.

שמואל כרבי סבירא ליה דאמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

The Gemara responds: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: An animal separated as a sin offering that was lost at the time of the separation of its replacement, even if it was found before the replacement was sacrificed, is left to die. The principle stated by Shmuel is therefore correct, since in every situation in which a sin offering is left to die, a thanks offering does not require loaves.

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

The Gemara asks: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even in such a case the second sin offering is left to die, how can you find a case where the sin offering is placed in the field to graze according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara responds: It can be found in a case like that of Rabbi Oshaya, as Rabbi Oshaya says: If one separated two sin offerings, one to achieve atonement for his sin and the other as a guarantee in case the first one is lost, he may achieve atonement with whichever of them he wishes, and the second shall be placed in the field to graze.

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

The Gemara challenges: But in a case like this involving a thanks offering, the animal does not require loaves. Therefore, if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in such a case the sin offering is placed in the field to graze, then Shmuel cannot hold in accordance with his opinion, since according to Shmuel, in circumstances where a sin offering would be left to graze, a thanks offering in the same circumstances would require loaves. Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There are five sin offerings that are left to die; one is a sin offering that was lost and found before its replacement was sacrificed, and another is the case where a sin offering was separated as a guarantee.

והא רועה לרבי שמעון לית ליה כלל

The Gemara challenges: But it cannot be that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there are any circumstances in which a sin offering is placed in the field to graze. Accordingly, if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, how can he say: And in any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in the field to graze until it develops a blemish, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it requires loaves?

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

The Gemara responds: In fact, Shmuel also stated only one principle: In any situation in which a sin offering is placed in isolation for it to die, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it does not require loaves. He did not state the second principle. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel teaching us? The Gemara responds: Shmuel teaches us his statement to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering requires loaves if it is sacrificed before its mother. Shmuel teaches us that one does not achieve atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, and the offspring of a thanks offering does not require loaves, which corresponds to the fact that the offspring of a sin offering is left to die.

אמר רבי 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

§ With regard to the loaves of a thanks offering, Rabbi Abba says: If one volunteered to bring a thanks offering, and said: This animal is a thanks offering and this flour is designated for its loaves, then if the loaves were lost, he brings other loaves. If the thanks offering was lost, he does not bring another thanks offering, and the loaves are not sacrificed. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought on account of the thanks offering; therefore, if there is no thanks offering, there are no loaves. But the thanks offering is not brought on account of the loaves; consequently, if the loaves were lost, the thanks offering is still sacrificed, and one brings different loaves.

ואמר רבא הפריש מעות לתודתו

§ And with regard to the distinctions between a thanks offering and its accompanying loaves, Rava says: In the case of one who separated money for his thanks offering

ונתותרו מביא בהן לחם ללחמי תודה ונתותרו אין מביא בהן תודה

and some of the money remained after he purchased the offering, he brings, i.e., purchases, with the remaining money loaves to accompany the thanks offering. If he separated money for the loaves of the thanks offering and some of the money remained after he purchased the loaves, he may not bring a thanks offering with the remaining money.

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

The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If we say that it is due to the statement of Rav Kahana, that is difficult. As Rav Kahana said: From where is it derived that the loaves of a thanks offering are themselves called a thanks offering? It is derived from that which is stated in the verse: “Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves” (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words “thanks offering” and “loaves” indicates that the loaves are themselves called a thanks offering. Therefore, one who separated money for a thanks offering may use that money for the loaves as well. The Gemara explains the difficulty: If that is so, the opposite should also be the halakha, i.e., the thanks offering is called loaves, and it should therefore be permitted to use the money remaining from the loaves for the thanks offering. The Gemara rejects this: The loaves are called a thanks offering, but the thanks offering is not called loaves.

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

§ And Rava says: If one separated an animal as his thanks offering and it was lost, and he again separated another in its stead, and it too was lost, and he again separated another in its stead, and the first two animals were then found, and the three of them stand fit to be sacrificed, the halakha is as follows: If he achieved atonement with the first animal, the second does not require loaves, as it is the replacement for the first, and the first was sacrificed with its loaves. But the third requires loaves, because it is the replacement for the second, which does not require loaves.

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 achieved atonement with the third, then the second does not require loaves, because its replacement, i.e., the third, was sacrificed with loaves, but the first requires loaves, because its replacement, i.e., the second, will be sacrificed without loaves. If he achieved atonement with the middle, i.e., the second animal, both of them, i.e., the first and the third, do not require loaves, because the replacement for the first, i.e., the second, was sacrificed with loaves, and the third is the replacement for the second, which was sacrificed with loaves. Abaye says: Even if he achieved atonement with any one of them, the other two do not require loaves, as they are all replacements for one another.

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

Rabbi Zeira says: And so is the halakha for the matter of sin offerings: If one separated an animal as his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its stead, and it too was lost, and he separated another in its stead, and the first two animals were then found, and the three of them stand fit to be sacrificed, the halakha is as follows: If he achieved atonement with the first, the second is left to die, as is the halakha with regard to a sin offering whose owner has already achieved atonement, and the third is placed in the field to graze until it develops a blemish and can be redeemed, since it is the replacement for a sin offering that was not sacrificed.

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

If he achieved atonement with the third, the second is left to die, because its replacement, i.e., the third, was already sacrificed, and the first is placed in the field to graze, because its replacement, i.e., the second, will not be sacrificed. If he achieved atonement with the middle, both of them, i.e., the first and the third, are left to die, because the second was sacrificed as a replacement for the first, and the third would have been the replacement of the second. Abaye says: Even if he achieved atonement with any one of them, the other two are left to die, as they are all replacements for one another.

מאי וכן מהו דתימא התם הוא דאיכא למימר מרבה בתודות הוא אבל הכא דליכא למימר מרבה בחטאות הוא אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Zeira mean by: And so is the halakha for the matter of sin offerings? Why is it necessary for Rabbi Zeira to teach this seemingly identical halakha with regard to three sin offerings? The Gemara responds: It is necessary to teach that these halakhot apply with regard to sin offerings as well, lest you say that there, in the case of the thanks offerings, if one achieved atonement with the first animal then the third requires loaves, since it can be said that the owner is one who increases thanks offerings; but here, in the case of the sin offerings, since it cannot be said that the owner is one who increases sin offerings, as one cannot volunteer a sin offering, I would say that the same halakhot do not apply, and if one achieved atonement with the first sin offering, the third is left to die. Rabbi Zeira therefore teaches us that the third sin offering is considered the replacement for the second and is therefore left to graze.

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

§ The mishna teaches that the substitute of a thanks offering does not require loaves. Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: In the case of an animal separated as a thanks offering that was intermingled with its substitute, and it is not known which is the thanks offering and which is the substitute, and one of them died, the other has no remedy. What should we do? If we bring loaves with it, this may be improper, because perhaps it is a substitute, which does not require loaves. If we do not bring loaves with it, this may be improper, because perhaps it is the actual thanks offering, which requires loaves.

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

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is a case where the owner said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering, in which case he is required to replace the thanks offering in the event of its loss, then why is there no remedy? Is it not sufficient if he does not bring another animal and loaves, and says: If the one remaining from the intermingled group is the substitute, then let this additional animal be the thanks offering and these its loaves; and if the one remaining is the thanks offering, then let it be the thanks offering and these its loaves, and let this additional animal be its guarantee, which does not require loaves?

לא צריכא דאמר הרי זו

The Gemara responds: No, the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya is necessary in a case in which one said: This animal is a thanks offering. Since he consecrated a specific animal as a thanks offering, he is not required to provide a guarantee in the event of its loss, and the above remedy is not applicable.

(סימן למודים מידת עלה שיש שכן דדמה דאי חלש מותר תמורה בחוץ חזקיה הפריש חטאת לאחר יותר)

§ The Gemara raises a series of challenges with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya that if a thanks offering was intermingled with its substitute and one of them died, there is no remedy for the other. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for remembering the names of the Sages that raise these challenges: Lemudim, i.e., Levi, who was known as Lemedin before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; middat, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta; ala, i.e., Ulla bar Abba; shish, i.e., Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi; sheken, an acronym for Rav Ashi and Rav Kahana; dedamah, i.e., Rav Dimi, son of Rav Huna of Dimhorya; de’i, i.e., Ravina of Ikla. An additional mnemonic is provided for recalling the topics of these questions: Ḥalash, a contraction of ḥullin, i.e., non-sacred items, and shelamim, peace offerings; leftover; substitute; outside; Ḥizkiyya; separated a sin offering; for a guarantee.

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

Lemedin, i.e., Levi, said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But why is there no remedy in this case? Let him bring loaves for the thanks offering and let him say: If this animal that is extant from the intermingled pair is the thanks offering, then these are its loaves, and they will be consumed as the loaves of the thanks offering. And if not, i.e., if the extant animal is the substitute, which is sacrificed without loaves, then let these loaves go out to be consumed as non-sacred loaves. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: But the loaves of a thanks offering must be waved in the Temple courtyard, and do we intentionally bring non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard?

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

Levi challenges: And let him bring another animal with loaves and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this additional animal be the thanks offering and these its loaves. If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves, and this additional animal should be a peace offering, which does not require loaves. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This cannot be done, because he thereby reduces the time period permitted for consuming the peace offering, which is generally two days and one night. A thanks offering may be consumed only on the day it is sacrificed and the following night.

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

Levi said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: And let him bring another animal with loaves and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this be the thanks offering and these its loaves. And if that animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves and this will be the leftover of the thanks offering, which does not require loaves. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: It seems to me that he has no brain in his skull.