Menachot 80a — the Talmud in English

Rather

should you say

the substitutes of a voluntary thanksgiving-offering:

Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction does not concern the substitutes of an obligatory thanksgiving-offering, with which the beraita is dealing, but rather the substitutes of a voluntary thanksgiving-offering—that is, one was not obligated to bring a thanksgiving-offering, but said concerning an animal, “This is a thanksgiving-offering,” so that he is not responsible for it, and it was lost, and he designated another in its place even though he was not obligated to do so; and Rabbi Yohanan came to say that even in this case there is a distinction between before atonement and after atonement;

Even so, it is impossible to say this, for the law is not so, but rather

both before atonement and after atonement they require bread,

and because

he is increasing thanksgiving-offerings—

That is, the thanksgiving-offering which he designated in place of the one that was lost is not the substitute of the first thanksgiving-offering, such that we exempt it from bringing bread once the first one was found and he sacrificed bread with it; for this is merely an additional thanksgiving-offering which he voluntarily offered, and the two thanksgiving-offerings are found to be complete thanksgiving-offerings, which require bread.

Rather

should you say that Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction is to be explained as concerning

the offspring

of

a voluntary thanksgiving-offering,

and Rabbi Yohanan came to say that if he sacrificed the offspring before he attained atonement through the thanksgiving-offering itself, it requires bread, and the beraita exempted the offspring from bread only when he sacrificed the offspring after he had attained atonement through the thanksgiving-offering itself;

Even so, it is impossible to say this, for the law is not so, but rather:

whether

he sacrificed the offspring

before atonement

through the thanksgiving-offering itself,

or whether

he sacrificed it

after atonement, they do not require bread,

because the offspring is not a “thanksgiving-offering,” but rather

the surplus of a thanksgiving-offering [

an addition that grew upon the thanksgiving-offering

it is],

and the addition is not obligated in bread.

Rather,

the Gemara explains Rabbi Yohanan’s distinction as concerning

the offspring

of

an obligatory thanksgiving-offering;

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

before atonement,

then the offspring

requires bread,

as it proceeds to explain the reason.

But if he sacrificed the offspring

after atonement, he does not

himself

require bread.

And the Gemara explains:

What does he come to teach us? That Rabbi Yohanan is of the opinion: a person attains atonement through the enhancement

through which the

consecrated property

was enhanced, namely, the offspring. That is, he can attain atonement and discharge his obligation of his thanksgiving-offering through the offspring of the thanksgiving-offering, even though the offspring became consecrated without his vow and he did not designate it for his vow; and since he discharges his obligation through the offspring of the consecrated property, the offspring too is called a “thanksgiving-offering” and it requires bread; and it is exempt from bread only when he sacrifices it after he has already attained atonement, for the offspring is not a thanksgiving-offering, since he has already discharged his vow.

The Gemara adds:

Abaye too was perplexed by it in this manner,

Abaye too found difficulty with Rabbi Yohanan’s statement, just as Rav Amram found difficulty with it, and he too explained his words as Rav Amram 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:

The substitutes of a voluntary thanksgiving-offering: both before atonement and after atonement they require bread,

because

he is increasing thanksgiving-offerings.

The offspring of a voluntary thanksgiving-offering: both before atonement and after atonement it does not require bread,

because

it is the surplus of a thanksgiving-offering.

The offspring of an obligatory thanksgiving-offering, and the substitutes of an obligatory thanksgiving-offering [

that is, both the one which he brought in place of the one that was lost, and the one that was lost]:

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

as was 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.

Samuel said: Whatever in a sin-offering is destined to die, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread.

Every offering in which some circumstance occurred such that, had this offering been a sin-offering, the sin-offering would have gone to death because of that circumstance—in the case of a thanksgiving-offering, he sacrifices it, but he does not bring bread with it.

And

whatever in a sin-offering,

if this circumstance would cause the sin-offering to be

pastured

in the flock until a defect occurs in it, then if this circumstance occurred

in a thanksgiving-offering,

he sacrifices it, and it also

requires

bread,

it

as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rav Amram raises an objection

from the conclusion of the beraita already brought above, on page 79b:

What does the verse say: “

He shall sacrifice the thanksgiving-offering”?

From where is it derived that one who designated his thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, and designated another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are standing—from where is it derived that whichever of them he wishes he may sacrifice

first

with its bread?

The verse states: “

He shall sacrifice the thanksgiving-offering.”

One might have thought that the second

for sacrifice

requires bread; the verse states: “

He shall sacrifice it,”

one and not two.

And from the conclusion, which exempts the second from bread, there is a difficulty against Samuel, for:

But with regard to a sin-offering, in a case like this—

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

is pastured

according to the Sages and does not die, as will be explained in the Mishna which the Gemara brings; and according to Samuel, we should say that the thanksgiving-offering should require bread!?

For we learned

in tractate Temura 22b:

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

He

attains atonement through one of them, and the second shall die, the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say:

If the first was found before he attained atonement through the second, neither of them shall die, for

a sin-offering dies only when it was found after the owners had attained atonement

through the other one which he designated—

And it follows according to the Sages:

this—

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 pastured.

And corresponding to it, in the case of a thanksgiving-offering, we should say that it requires bread!?

And we answer:

Samuel,

who stated the general rule, “Whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread”—

is of the opinion like Rabbi, who says

that a sin-offering which was

lost at the time of designation,

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

dies.

According to Rabbi’s method, this general rule is indeed true. And we object:

But for Rabbi, where do you find a sin-offering that is pastured

?

It is necessarily the case that

you find

a sin-offering that is pastured according to Rabbi only

in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: If one designated two sin-offerings for responsibility,

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

attains atonement

through whichever of them he wishes, and the second shall be pastured.

И теперь возникает трудность:

And now there is a difficulty:

But with regard to a thanksgiving-offering, in a case like this—

where he designated two for responsibility—

the one which he sacrificed second

does not

require bread;

whereas Samuel said, “Whatever in a sin-offering is pastured, in a thanksgiving-offering requires bread”!

Rather,

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

Samuel is of the opinion like Rabbi Shimon—

for according to him, every sin-offering whose owners attained atonement has its second one die and not be pastured—

for

he

indeed said: Five sin-offerings die:

a sin-offering whose owners attained atonement, including both the case in which Rabbi and the Sages disagreed and the case of which Rabbi Oshaya spoke—the law is that the second dies and is not pastured; and Samuel’s words are thereby resolved, that he established the rule, “Whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread.”

And we object:

But “

a sin-offering is pastured”

does Rabbi Shimon have no such concept at all!?

That is, how did Samuel say, “Whatever in a sin-offering is pastured, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread,” when since he is of the opinion like Rabbi Shimon, according to his method there is no sin-offering that is pastured at all!?

And we answer:

Samuel too stated only one thing [

Samuel too said only one matter]:

Whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread.

But the second part stated in his name, “Whatever in a sin-offering is pastured, in a thanksgiving-offering requires bread,” Samuel did not say.

The Gemara asks:

What does he come to teach us

through this rule of Samuel? And the Gemara explains: Samuel, who said, “Whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a thanksgiving-offering does not require bread”—this follows automatically, and it means that the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering that was lost does not require bread, for the offspring of a sin-offering is one of the five sin-offerings that die—

to exclude Rabbi Yohanan, who said

above: The offspring of an obligatory thanksgiving-offering before atonement requires bread, because

a person attains atonement through the enhancement of consecrated property.

He

comes to teach us

Samuel

that he does not

attain atonement through the enhancement of consecrated property, and since the offspring of a thanksgiving-offering goes to death in the case of a sin-offering, it does not require bread even if he sacrificed it before he attained atonement through the thanksgiving-offering itself.

Rabba said:

One who made a voluntary offering and said, “

This is a thanksgiving-offering, and this is its bread”:

If

the bread was lost

that he had set aside, this is

he brings other bread,

for since he volunteered to offer it as a todah, it obligates him to bring bread, and the loss of the bread that he had set aside does not diminish his obligation.

But if

the todah was lost, he does not bring another todah,

that is, he is not obligated to bring another todah at all, since he became obligated to bring a todah only because he volunteered this one for a todah, and it was lost. And although the bread remains, he is not thereby obligated to bring another todah; and even if he wishes to bring another todah, he cannot bring it with the bread that he had set aside for the lost todah, for the bread was fixed for the lost todah and he cannot change it for another todah. Rather, the bread is redeemed and becomes unconsecrated.

[and see note 12]. The Gemara asks:

What is the reason,

what is the reason for the distinction between the todah and the bread?

And the Gemara explains: Because

the bread is on account of the todah [

the bread comes because of the todah ],

but the todah is not on account of the bread.

And

further

Rabba:

If he set aside money for his todah

that he vowed to bring,