Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 29, 2018 | 讻壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 80

Various situations in which a replacement offering is brought (the animal got lost and another was brought in its place and in the meantime the first animal was found), or the offspring of an animal designated for a toda聽or a tmura, would one bring bread with it or not? Does it depend on whether it was a voluntary or obligatory toda?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诇讗 讗讞诇讬驻讬 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讗讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan was referring to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讬 讘讛 谞诪讬 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗

The Gemara asks: According to this explanation, what is Rav 岣nina teaching us by sending this letter? He teaches us that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣nina in this way and reaches conclusions similar to those of Rav Amram.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讬诇讜驻讬 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗 讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讜讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

With regard to the conclusions of Rav Amram and Abaye, it was also stated: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 专讜注讛 讘转讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘 诪谞讬谉 诇诪驻专讬砖 转讜讚转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讜诇讞诪讛 注诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖谞讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐

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: 鈥淗e sacrifices it,鈥 indicating that only one thanks offering requires loaves, but not two.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 专讜注讛 讚转谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗转 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 专讜注讛

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.

砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诪转讛

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.

讗诇讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转专注讛

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.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 转讜讚讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转

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.

讜讛讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇

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?

砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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 Yo岣nan, who said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜讝讜 诇讞诪讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讘讚讛 转讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 诇讙诇诇 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 诇讙诇诇 诇讞诐

搂 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇转讜讚转讜

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

讜谞转讜转专讜 诪讘讬讗 讘讛谉 诇讞诐 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜谞转讜转专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讛谉 转讜讚讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖谞拽专讗讜 转讜讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 讛转讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 诪爪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讞诐 讗讬拽专讬 转讜讚讛 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 诇讞诐

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: 鈥淭hen he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves鈥 (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words 鈥渢hanks offering鈥 and 鈥渓oaves鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛驻专讬砖 转讜讚转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讜讛专讬 砖诇砖转谉 注讜诪讚讜转 谞转讻驻专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

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.

谞转讻驻专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讘讗诪爪注讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 讻讜诇讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讞讟讗讜转 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讜讛专讬 砖诇砖转谉 注讜诪讚讜转 谞转讻驻专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 砖诇讬砖讬转 转专注讛

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.

谞转讻驻专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讜专讗砖讜谞讛 转专注讛 谞转讻驻专 讘讗诪爪注讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讬诪讜转讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖转讬讛谉 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪专讘讛 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转讜讚讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘转诪讜专转讛 讜诪转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 转拽谞讛 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 谞拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that the substitute of a thanks offering does not require loaves. Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 讗讞专讬讜转

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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜

The Gemara responds: No, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

(住讬诪谉 诇诪讜讚讬诐 诪讬讚转 注诇讛 砖讬砖 砖讻谉 讚讚诪讛 讚讗讬 讞诇砖 诪讜转专 转诪讜专讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讝拽讬讛 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 诇讗讞专 讬讜转专)

搂 The Gemara raises a series of challenges with the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yitz岣k 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鈥檌, i.e., Ravina of Ikla. An additional mnemonic is provided for recalling the topics of these questions: 岣lash, a contraction of 岣llin, i.e., non-sacred items, and shelamim, peace offerings; leftover; substitute; outside; 岣zkiyya; separated a sin offering; for a guarantee.

讗诪专讜 诇诪讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讬转讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 诇讗 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

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?

讜诇讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚砖诇诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讜讬 诇专讘讬 讜诇讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讜讞 讘拽讚拽讚讜

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 80

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 80

讗诇讗 讗讞诇讬驻讬 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讗讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan was referring to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖 讛讜讬 讘讛 谞诪讬 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗

The Gemara asks: According to this explanation, what is Rav 岣nina teaching us by sending this letter? He teaches us that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣nina in this way and reaches conclusions similar to those of Rav Amram.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讬诇讜驻讬 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗 讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 谞讚讘讛 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 诇讞诐 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讜讜诇讚 转讜讚讛 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

With regard to the conclusions of Rav Amram and Abaye, it was also stated: Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 专讜注讛 讘转讜讚讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

搂 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 诪讛讜 讗讜诪专 讛转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘 诪谞讬谉 诇诪驻专讬砖 转讜讚转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讬拽专讬讘 讜诇讞诪讛 注诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛转讜讚讛 讬拽专讬讘 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 砖谞讬讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘谞讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐

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: 鈥淗e sacrifices it,鈥 indicating that only one thanks offering requires loaves, but not two.

讜讗讬诇讜 讙讘讬 讞讟讗转 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 专讜注讛 讚转谞谉 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讗诇讗 砖谞诪爪讗转 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 讛讗 拽讜讚诐 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐 专讜注讛

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.

砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讘讜讚讛 讘砖注转 讛驻专砖讛 诪转讛

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.

讗诇讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛驻专讬砖 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 诇讗讞专讬讜转 诪转讻驻专 讘讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜讛砖谞讬讛 转专注讛

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.

讜讛讗 讙讘讬 转讜讚讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讗诇讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 诪转讜转

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.

讜讛讗 专讜注讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻诇诇

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?

砖诪讜讗诇 谞诪讬 讞讚讗 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘转讜讚讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讗讚诐 诪转讻驻专 讘砖讘讞 讛拽讚砖 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗

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 Yo岣nan, who said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讝讜 转讜讚讛 讜讝讜 诇讞诪讛 讗讘讚 讛诇讞诐 诪讘讬讗 诇讞诐 讗讞专 讗讘讚讛 转讜讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讞诐 诇讙诇诇 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬谉 转讜讚讛 诇讙诇诇 诇讞诐

搂 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇转讜讚转讜

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

讜谞转讜转专讜 诪讘讬讗 讘讛谉 诇讞诐 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 讜谞转讜转专讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讘讛谉 转讜讚讛

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.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪谞讬谉 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 砖谞拽专讗讜 转讜讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛拽专讬讘 注诇 讝讘讞 讛转讜讚讛 讞诇讜转 诪爪讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讞诐 讗讬拽专讬 转讜讚讛 转讜讚讛 诇讗 讗讬拽专讬 诇讞诐

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: 鈥淭hen he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanks offering loaves鈥 (Leviticus 7:12). The juxtaposition of the words 鈥渢hanks offering鈥 and 鈥渓oaves鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讛驻专讬砖 转讜讚转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讜讛专讬 砖诇砖转谉 注讜诪讚讜转 谞转讻驻专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 砖诇讬砖讬转 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐

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.

谞转讻驻专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 砖谞讬讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 诇讞诐 讘讗诪爪注讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖转讬讛谉 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讜转 诇讞诐 讻讜诇讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讞讟讗讜转 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讛专讗砖讜谞讜转 讜讛专讬 砖诇砖转谉 注讜诪讚讜转 谞转讻驻专 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 砖诇讬砖讬转 转专注讛

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.

谞转讻驻专 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 砖谞讬讛 转诪讜转 讜专讗砖讜谞讛 转专注讛 谞转讻驻专 讘讗诪爪注讬转 砖转讬讛谉 讬诪讜转讜 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 谞转讻驻专 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 砖转讬讛谉 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇讛讜 讞诇讬驻讬谉 讚讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜

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.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪专讘讛 讘转讜讚讜转 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪专讘讛 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 转讜讚讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘转诪讜专转讛 讜诪转讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讞讘讬专转讛 讗讬谉 诇讛 转拽谞讛 讛讬讻讬 谞注讘讬讚 谞拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 诇讗 谞拽专讬讘 诇讞诐 讘讛讚讛 讚诇诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗

搂 The mishna teaches that the substitute of a thanks offering does not require loaves. Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 注诇讬 诇讗 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 讗讞专讬讜转

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?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 讝讜

The Gemara responds: No, the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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.

(住讬诪谉 诇诪讜讚讬诐 诪讬讚转 注诇讛 砖讬砖 砖讻谉 讚讚诪讛 讚讗讬 讞诇砖 诪讜转专 转诪讜专讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讝拽讬讛 讛驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转 诇讗讞专 讬讜转专)

搂 The Gemara raises a series of challenges with the statement of Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yitz岣k 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鈥檌, i.e., Ravina of Ikla. An additional mnemonic is provided for recalling the topics of these questions: 岣lash, a contraction of 岣llin, i.e., non-sacred items, and shelamim, peace offerings; leftover; substitute; outside; 岣zkiyya; separated a sin offering; for a guarantee.

讗诪专讜 诇诪讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讜诇讬转讬 诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 诇讗 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讻讬 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

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?

讜诇讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 砖诇诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讚砖诇诪讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讜讬 诇专讘讬 讜诇讬转讬 讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞诐 讜诇讬诪讗 讗讬 讛讱 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转诪讜专讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 转讜讚讛 讜讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬 讛讗讬 讚拽讬讬诪讗 转讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讛讗 诇讞诪讛 讜讛讗 转讬讛讜讬 诪讜转专 讚转讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诪讚讜诪讛 讗谞讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 诪讜讞 讘拽讚拽讚讜

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.

Scroll To Top