Menachot 80b — the Talmud in English

And if there remained

some of the money, because he purchased a thanksgiving-offering only with part of it, he

brings with it—

with the money that remained—

bread.

But if he set aside money

for the breads of a thanksgiving-offering and some remained, he does not bring with it

with the money that remained, after he brought bread with part of it—

a thanksgiving-offering.

The Gemara raises an objection:

What is the reason

that he may bring bread from money that was set aside for a thanksgiving-offering, but he may not bring a thanksgiving-offering from money that was set aside for bread—since:

If you say it is because of Rav Kahana, for Rav Kahana said: From where [do we know] that the breads of a thanksgiving-offering are

also

called “thanksgiving-offering”?

As it is stated: “

And he shall present upon the sacrifice of the thanksgiving-offering unleavened loaves,”

and since they are called “thanksgiving-offering,” he may bring them from money that was set aside for a thanksgiving-offering—

But

if so—

since for this reason he may bring a thanksgiving-offering from money that was set aside for the breads of a thanksgiving-offering—

the reverse as well:

even conversely it should be said that, since he set aside money for the breads of a thanksgiving-offering—which are “thanksgiving-offering”—he may bring a thanksgiving-offering from them!?

And we explain:

Bread is called “

thanksgiving-offering,”

but

a thanksgiving-offering is not called “

bread,”

and he did, after all, set aside the money for “the breads of a thanksgiving-offering,” and the thanksgiving-offering itself is not included.

And

further

Rabba said:

We learned in the beraita above, on page 79b: From where [do we know] that if one set aside his thanksgiving-offering and it was lost, and he set aside another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are standing, from where [do we know] that whichever one he wishes he may sacrifice first, together with its bread? The verse states: “He shall sacrifice the thanksgiving-offering.” One might have thought that the second [for sacrifice] should require bread; the verse states: “He shall sacrifice it”: one and not two. And the general principle in this matter is: Any thanksgiving-offering that comes in place of another, whether the first thanksgiving-offering was sacrificed or whether its replacement was sacrificed, the other one is exempt [from bread].

If he set aside his thanksgiving-offering

of obligation

and it was lost, and he again set aside another in its place, and it too was lost,

also it,

and he again set aside another in its place, and

again

the first ones were found, and all three of them are standing:

If

he achieved atonement

first

with the first

that he set aside and it was lost, then the

second,

which is the replacement of the first,

does not require bread,

for the thanksgiving-offering in whose place this one came has already been sacrificed, and this one is “the surplus of a thanksgiving-offering,” which does not require bread. But if he comes to sacrifice the third after the first, it requires bread, because the third is not the replacement of the first; rather, it is the replacement of the second, and the second has not yet been sacrificed, and therefore it requires bread.

And if

he achieved atonement

first

with the third, then the

second

does not require bread, because its replacement was sacrificed; but the

both—both the first, of which the middle one is the replacement, and the third, which is the replacement of the middle one—

first—

if he comes to sacrifice it before the second—

requires bread, because its replacement has not yet been sacrificed.

поскольку её замена ещё не была принесена.

And if he achieved atonement first

with the middle one, then

both of them—

both

the first, of which the middle one is the replacement, and the third, which is the replacement of the middle one—

do not require bread; the first, because its replacement was sacrificed, and the third, because the one in whose place it came was sacrificed.

both—those that have not yet been sacrificed—

Abaye said: Even if he achieved atonement with one of them,

that is, with whichever one he achieved atonement first, then

both—

those that have not yet been sacrificed—

do not require bread.

And because

all of them are replacements of one another

[they are all replacements of one another, since all of them were set aside by virtue of the first, and once one was sacrificed, the others were exempted from bread].

Rabbi Zeira said: And so

the same law applies

with regard to sin-offerings.

How so?

If he set aside his sin-offering and it was lost, and he set aside another in its place, and it too was lost,

also it,

and he set aside another in its place, and

again

the first ones were found, and all three of them are standing:

if

he achieved atonement with the first, then the

attained atonement with the middle one, both must die, because the middle one is the replacement of the first, and its owner attained atonement through it; and the third came in place of the middle one, through which its owner had already attained atonement.

second,

which is the replacement of the first,

shall die, because its owner achieved atonement through the sin-offering whose replacement this is; but the

that remained

third—

with whose replacement its owner did not achieve atonement, since the third is the replacement of the second and not of the first—

shall graze

until it develops a blemish and is redeemed.

And if

he achieved atonement with the third, then the

вторая

second shall die,

since its owner achieved atonement through the third, which is its replacement,

and

if the

first—

whose replacement the third is not—then it

shall graze.

And if

he achieved atonement with the middle one, both shall die,

for the middle one is the replacement of the first, and its owner achieved atonement through it, while the third came in place of the middle one, and its owner already achieved atonement through it.

Abaye said: Even if he achieved atonement with one of them,

that is, it makes no difference with which one he achieved atonement, and in every case

both

that remained

shall die,

because

all of them are replacements of one another.

And we raise an objection:

What is the meaning of

“and so”?

That is, why is it necessary to teach us that this is also the law with regard to a sin-offering, when it is obvious that this is so!?

And we answer:

It might have been said

that I could distinguish between a thanksgiving-offering and a sin-offering, and say:

There,

with regard to a thanksgiving-offering,

it is possible to say

that the third is not the replacement of the first, but

he is increasing thanksgiving-offerings,

for a thanksgiving-offering can be brought as a freewill-offering;

but here,

with regard to a sin-offering,

it is not possible to say

about the third that

he is increasing sin-offerings,

for a sin-offering cannot be brought as a freewill-offering;

say that it does not

graze, but dies.

It teaches us this!

Rabbi Hiyya taught

a beraita: A

thanksgiving-offering

that requires bread

which became mixed with its substitute,

which does not require bread, and it is not known which is the thanksgiving-offering and which is the substitute,

and one of them died, then its

[and stipulate]:

companion,

the one that remains,

has no remedy

to sacrifice it—

And because

what shall we do

[how shall we act]!?

If

we bring bread with it

[with the one that remains], then

perhaps it is a substitute,

and a substitute does not require bread; and if

we do not bring bread with it, then

perhaps

it is

a thanksgiving-offering, and a thanksgiving-offering requires bread.

shall be

And he cannot bring bread because of the uncertainty, for perhaps it is not a thanksgiving-offering, and it turns out that he is bringing unconsecrated matter into the Temple courtyard, as will be explained later in the discussion.

Nor can he bring an additional animal and make a stipulation concerning it, saying: “If the one that remains is a substitute, then this one is a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread; and if the one that remains is a thanksgiving-offering, the bread shall be for it, while the other animal shall be a peace-offering, which does not require bread.” This is because one may not bring an animal that is possibly a peace-offering and possibly a thanksgiving-offering: peace-offerings are eaten for two days and one night, whereas a thanksgiving-offering is eaten only for one day and one night, and he causes the peace-offering not to be eaten, because of the uncertainty, beyond one day and one night, thereby bringing sacred offerings to a state of disqualification, as will be explained later in the discussion.

Nevertheless, the Gemara raises the objection that there is a remedy for this uncertain thanksgiving-offering, since he can, in several ways, bring an additional animal together with bread and stipulate: “If the one that remains is a substitute, then this animal shall be a thanksgiving-offering and this is its bread; and if the one that remains is a thanksgiving-offering, the bread shall be for it, while this one that I brought shall be a thanksgiving-offering that does not require bread,” as several ways of doing so will be explained in the Gemara. And we object:

And if

the beraita is dealing with a case in which he said,

“I have upon me”

a

thanksgiving-offering,” and this one that became mixed with a substitute was set aside to fulfill his vow, then

жертва благодарения», и эта жертва, смешавшаяся с обменной, была выделена для исполнения его обета, то

is it not sufficient that he bring another animal and bread,

that is, he is obligated to sacrifice a thanksgiving-offering, and he may set aside another thanksgiving-offering for responsibility; if so, he should bring another thanksgiving-offering together with bread, and

say

[and stipulate]:

If this one that stands is a substitute,

if the one that remains is a substitute, then

this one—

the other thanksgiving-offering that I brought—shall be

a thanksgiving-offering, and this is its bread.

And

if this one that stands is a thanksgiving-offering

[if the one that remains is the thanksgiving-offering],

this is its bread,

the bread that I bring shall be for it,

and this one—

the other thanksgiving-offering that I brought—

shall be

for

responsibility,

so that if the first is lost, this one shall be in its place—

And he sacrifices both of them, and the bread automatically belongs to the thanksgiving-offering; and the other is sacrificed without bread, because if it is a substitute, it does not require bread, and if it is for responsibility, it too is sacrificed without bread. And we answer:

It is necessary [only] when he said,

“This is

a thanksgiving-offering,” for he is not obligated to provide responsibility for it, and he can no longer bring another thanksgiving-offering except as a freewill-offering, and it requires bread in its own right.

Mnemonic

for the questions below on this beraita:

Learnings; Marat

[this is Bar Marta];

Ala

[the reference is to Rav Ila, who became ill];

Shish

[namely, Rav Shisha];

Shakhen

[an acronym for Rav Ashi and Rav Kahana];

Rai

[an acronym: Ravina arrived];

Dadma

[Rav Dimi of Nehardea].

Another mnemonic for the questions themselves:

Weak

[an acronym: unconsecrated matter, peace-offerings];

surplus; substitute; outside; Hezekiah; set aside a sin-offering; for responsibility.

They said

they raised an objection

before Rabbi,

[he is Levi, and he raised this objection in the presence of the other students]:

And why does it have no remedy,

“and let him bring bread, and say” [

let him bring bread and stipulate]:

“If this one standing before us is a thanksgiving offering, this is its bread” [

if this one standing before us is a thanksgiving offering, behold, this bread is for it]

And

“if not”,

but it is a substitution, which does not require bread, then

“let

the bread

go out to unconsecrated status;”

and he will eat it according to the law of thanksgiving-offering bread, in doubt?!

He said

he answered

them

Rabbi:

“Do they bring [

a doubt of]

unconsecrated status into the Temple courtyard,”

and the bread must indeed enter the Temple courtyard for the waving, as will be explained later in the sugya.

The “students before Rabbi” added another difficulty: he can remedy the one that remains by bringing another animal, whose obligation of bread is dependent upon the remaining animal:

“And let him bring an animal and bread, and say” [

let him bring an animal and bread and stipulate]:

“If this one standing is a substitution, this

the animal that I brought

shall be a thanksgiving offering, and this is its bread.”

And

“if this one standing is a thanksgiving offering

—this is its bread, and”

if

“this”

the animal that I brought

“shall be a peace-offering,”

which does not require bread.

He said

he answered

them

Rabbi:

“Because he thereby diminishes the eating of the peace-offering,”

since the time for eating a peace-offering is two days and one night, whereas the thanksgiving offering may be eaten only for one day and one night, and it becomes notar after this time and is burned; thus, if he brings an animal that is doubtfully a peace-offering and doubtfully a thanksgiving offering, he is found to be bringing consecrated meat to a condition of disqualification, for if it is not eaten for one day and one night, he will be compelled to burn it, even though it is possible that it is a peace-offering and the time of its eating has not ended.

He said

he objected

Levi to Rabbi,

to remedy the one that remains by bringing another animal with a stipulation in a different manner:

“And let him bring an animal and bread, and say” [

let him bring an animal and bread and stipulate]:

“If this one standing is a substitution, this is a thanksgiving offering and this is its bread.

And if this one standing is a thanksgiving offering

—this is its bread, and”

if

“this shall be” a

“surplus of a thanksgiving offering” [

a thanksgiving offering that was lost and for which he achieved atonement through another, or the offspring of a thanksgiving offering], which is offered as a thanksgiving offering and eaten only for one day and one night, and does not require bread?!

He said to him

Rabbi to Levi:

“It seems to me that he has no” [

Levi

“brains in his skull”—