Menachot 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

perhaps you will say:

the exchange of a voluntary todah:

Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction does not concern the exchange of an obligatory todah, which is the subject of the beraita. Rather, it concerns the exchange of a voluntary todah—that is, a case in which one was not obligated to bring a todah, but said about an animal, “This is a todah,” in which case he is not responsible for it if it is lost, and it was lost, and he designated another animal in its place, even though he was not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yohanan comes to say that even in this case there is a distinction between before atonement and after atonement;

Even so, this cannot be said, for the law is not so. Rather,

both before atonement and after atonement, they require loaves,

and this is because

he is increasing the number of his todot—

That is, the todah that he designated in place of the one that was lost is not an exchange of the first todah, such that it would be exempt from bringing loaves once the first animal was found and he sacrificed loaves with it. Rather, this is an additional todah that he vowed, and consequently both todot are complete todot that require loaves.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction is to be explained as referring

to the offspring

of

a voluntary todah,

and Rabbi Yohanan comes to say that if he sacrificed the offspring before attaining atonement through the todah itself, it requires loaves, and the beraita exempted the offspring from loaves only when he sacrificed the offspring after attaining atonement through the todah itself;

Even this cannot be said, for the law is not so. Rather:

whether

he sacrificed the offspring

before atonement

through the todah itself,

or whether

he sacrificed it

after atonement, it does not require loaves,

because the offspring is not a “todah”; rather,

it is the surplus of a todah

—an addition that grew upon the todah—

it is,

and the addition does not become obligated in loaves.

Rather,

the Gemara explains Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction as referring

to the offspring

of

an obligatory todah;

and Rabbi Yohanan comes to teach that if he sacrificed the offspring

before atonement,

then the offspring

requires loaves,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain the reason.

But if he sacrificed the offspring

after atonement, it

does not

require loaves.

And the Gemara explains:

What does this come to teach us? That Rabbi Yohanan holds that a person achieves atonement through the enhancement

by which the

consecrated

animal was enhanced—that is, through its offspring. In other words, he can attain atonement and fulfill his obligation to bring a todah through the offspring of the todah, even though the offspring became consecrated without being included in his vow, and he did not designate it for his vow. Since he fulfills his obligation through the offspring of the consecrated animal, the offspring too is called a “todah” and requires loaves; and it is exempt from loaves only when he sacrifices it after he has already attained atonement, for then the offspring is not a todah, since he has already fulfilled his vow. The Gemara adds:

Abaye also encountered this matter in the same way,

just as Rav Amram was perplexed by Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, so too Abaye was perplexed by it, and he likewise explained Rabbi Yohanan’s words as Rav Amram had explained them.

It was also stated

in accordance with all that was explained above regarding Rabbi Yohanan’s view:

Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

With regard to the exchange of a voluntary todah: both before atonement and after atonement, they require loaves,

because

he is increasing the number of his todot.

With regard to the offspring of a voluntary todah: both before atonement and after atonement, it does not require loaves,

because

it is the surplus of a todah.

With regard to the offspring of an obligatory todah and the exchange of an obligatory todah

—that is, both the animal that he brought in place of the one that was lost and the one that was lost—

before atonement they require loaves; after atonement they do not require loaves;

as explained above.

It is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that there are five sin-offerings that are left to die, namely: the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, a sin-offering whose owner attained atonement, and a sin-offering whose second year has passed.

Shmuel said: In every case in which a sin-offering is left to die, a todah does not require loaves.

Any offering in which some circumstance occurred such that, had this offering been a sin-offering, the sin-offering would have been sent to its death because of that circumstance—if it was a todah, he sacrifices it, but he does not bring loaves with it.

And

in every case in which a sin-offering

would, because of this circumstance, be

grazed

in the herd until it develops a blemish, if this circumstance occurred

in the case of a todah,

he sacrifices it, and it

does

require loaves,

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rav Amram raised an objection

from the latter clause of the beraita already cited above, on page 79b:

What does the verse mean when it says, “

He shall sacrifice the todah”?

From where is it derived that one who designated his todah and it was lost, and designated another in its place, and then the first was found, with both of them standing, may sacrifice whichever of them he wishes

first

with its loaves?

The verse states: “

He shall sacrifice the todah.”

One might have thought that the second

animal, which is also fit

to be sacrificed, requires loaves. The verse states: “

He shall sacrifice it,”

one and not two.

From this latter clause, which exempts the second animal from loaves, an objection may be raised against Shmuel, for:

But in the case of a sin-offering, in a similar circumstance

—a sin-offering was lost, another was designated in its place, both were standing, and one of them was sacrificed—the second one is

grazed

according to the opinion of the Sages and is not left to die, as will be explained in the Mishna cited by the Gemara. According to Shmuel, we should therefore say that the todah requires loaves in this case as well!

As we learned

in tractate Temura 22b:

One who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and designated another in its place, and then the first was found, with both of them standing—

he

achieves atonement through one of them, and the other is left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi.

And the Sages say:

if the first was found before he attained atonement through the second, neither of them is left to die, because

a sin-offering is left to die only when it was found after the owners had attained atonement

through the other animal that they had designated.

The implication of the Sages’ opinion is:

but

if the first was found

before the owners attained atonement

through the second, and both were standing, and he attained atonement through one of them, then the second is

grazed.

And with regard to a todah in a corresponding case, we should have to say that it requires loaves!?

And we answer:

Shmuel,

who stated the general principle that in every case in which a sin-offering is left to die, a todah does not require loaves,

holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says

that a sin-offering that was

lost at the time it was designated,

even if it was found before the owners attained atonement through the second, once the second was sacrificed, the first is

left to die.

According to Rabbi’s method, Shmuel’s general principle is indeed correct. And we ask:

But according to Rabbi, when can you find a sin-offering that is grazed?

It follows that a sin-offering that is grazed can be found according to Rabbi only

as in the case of Rabbi Oshaya.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: One who designated two sin-offerings for responsibility,

so that if one were lost he would sacrifice the other,

then he

achieves atonement

through whichever of them he wishes, and the other is grazed.

And now an objection arises:

But in the case of a todah, in a similar circumstance

—when he designated two for responsibility—

the

second animal that he sacrificed

does not require loaves;

whereas Shmuel said that in every case in which a sin-offering is grazed, a todah requires loaves. This is difficult!

Rather,

the Gemara resolves Rav Amram’s objection in another manner:

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

—for in his opinion, every sin-offering whose owners have attained atonement is left to die and is not grazed—

for

he

said: There are five sin-offerings that are left to die; namely, a sin-offering whose owners have attained atonement. This includes both the circumstance disputed by Rabbi and the Sages and the circumstance discussed by Rabbi Oshaya. The law is that the second animal is left to die and is not grazed, and therefore Shmuel’s principle is resolved: “In every case in which a sin-offering is left to die, a todah does not require loaves.”

And we ask:

But the category of “

a sin-offering that is grazed”

does not exist at all according to Rabbi Shimon!

That is, how could Shmuel say, “In every case in which a sin-offering is grazed, a todah requires loaves”? Since he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, according to his view there is no sin-offering that is grazed at all. This is difficult!

And we answer:

Shmuel also stated only one principle

—

Shmuel too stated only one part of the ruling—

in every case in which a sin-offering is left to die, a todah does not require loaves.

But the second part attributed to him, “In every case in which a sin-offering is grazed, a todah requires loaves,” was not stated by Shmuel.

The Gemara asks:

What does Shmuel’s general principle come to teach us?

The Gemara explains: When Shmuel said that in every case in which a sin-offering is left to die, a todah does not require loaves, this implies automatically that the offspring of a lost todah does not require loaves, since the offspring of a sin-offering is one of the five sin-offerings that are left to die.

This serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan, who said

above that the offspring of an obligatory todah requires loaves before atonement, because

a person achieves atonement through the enhancement of a consecrated animal.

This comes to teach us

that, according to

Shmuel, a person

does not

achieve atonement through the enhancement of a consecrated animal. Since the offspring of a todah would be sent to its death in the case of a sin-offering, it does not require loaves even if he sacrificed it before attaining atonement through the todah itself.

Rabba said:

If one made a voluntary offering and said: “

This is a todah, and this is its loaves”:

If

the bread

that he set aside was lost, he

must bring other bread,

because once he vowed to offer it as a thanksgiving-offering, it obligates him to bring bread, and the loss of the bread he set aside does not diminish his obligation.

But if

the thanksgiving-offering was lost, he does not bring another thanksgiving-offering,

that is, he is not obligated to bring another thanksgiving-offering at all, since he was not obligated to bring a thanksgiving-offering; rather, he vowed this one as a thanksgiving-offering, and it was then lost. And although the bread remains, it does not obligate him to bring another thanksgiving-offering on its account. And even if he wishes to bring another thanksgiving-offering, he cannot bring it with the bread that he set aside for the lost thanksgiving-offering, because the bread was designated for the lost thanksgiving-offering and cannot be changed for another thanksgiving-offering. Rather, the bread must be redeemed, and it becomes non-sacred.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason,

what is the reason for the distinction between the thanksgiving-offering and the bread?

And the Gemara explains: Because

the bread is on account of the thanksgiving-offering

the bread comes because of the thanksgiving-offering],

but the thanksgiving-offering is not on account of the bread.

And

further

Rabba said:

If one set aside money for his thanksgiving-offering

that he vowed to bring,