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 or a tmura, would one bring bread with it or not? Does it depend on whether it was a voluntary or obligatory toda?
Menachot 80
10.29.2018 | כ׳ בחשון תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 80
אֶלָּא אַחֲלִיפֵי תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם – מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא!
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.
אֶלָּא, אַוְּלַד תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה – בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם, מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה הִיא! אֶלָּא, אַוְּלַד תּוֹדָה חוֹבָה – לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה טָעוּן לֶחֶם, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם.
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.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּקָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָוֵי בַּהּ נָמֵי אַבָּיֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חִילּוּפֵי תוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא. וְלַד תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם, מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה הוּא. וְולַד תּוֹדָה חוֹבָה, לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה – טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה – בְּתוֹדָה אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת רוֹעָה – בַּתּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר ״הַתּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״? מִנַּיִן לְמַפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב וְלַחְמָהּ עִמָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַתּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״. יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁנִיָּה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם.
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.
וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא רוֹעָה, דִּתְנַן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וּשְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַטָּאת מֵתָה אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים, הָא קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים – רוֹעָה.
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.
שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – מֵתָה.
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.
אֶלָּא רוֹעָה, לְרַבִּי הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה.
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.
וְהָא גַּבֵּי תוֹדָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, אֶלָּא שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת.
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.
וְהָא רוֹעָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל.
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?
שְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי חֲדָא קָאָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה – בְּתוֹדָה אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְזוֹ לַחְמָהּ, אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם – מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר, אָבְדָה תּוֹדָה – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא? לֶחֶם לִגְלַל תּוֹדָה, וְאֵין תּוֹדָה לִגְלַל לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ
§ 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
וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – אֵין מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ ״תּוֹדָה״? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת״. אִי הָכִי, אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי! לֶחֶם אִיקְּרִי ״תּוֹדָה״, תּוֹדָה לָא אִיקְּרַי ״לֶחֶם״.
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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְחָזַר וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאָבְדָה, וְחָזַר וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וַהֲרֵי שְׁלׇשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, שְׁלִישִׁית טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, רִאשׁוֹנָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם; בָּאֶמְצָעִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם; אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם, כּוּלְּהוּ חֲלִיפִין דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן חַטָּאוֹת, הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וַהֲרֵי שְׁלׇשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – שְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, שְׁלִישִׁית תִּרְעֶה.
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.
נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – שְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, וְרִאשׁוֹנָה תִּרְעֶה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ, כּוּלְּהוּ חֲלִיפִין דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.
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.
מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא״, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּחַטָּאוֹת הוּא״, אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן – חֲבֶירְתָּהּ אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה. הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נַקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – דִּלְמָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא, לָא נַקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – דִּלְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא.
§ 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ בְּהֵמָה אַחֲרִינָא וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תֶּיהְוֵי אַחְרָיוּת!
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?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.
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.
(סִימָן: לְמוּדִים, מִידַּת, עִלָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ, שֶׁכֵּן, דְּדָמָהּ, דְּאִי, חֲלַשׁ, מוֹתַר, תְּמוּרָה, בַּחוּץ, חִזְקִיָּה, הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, לְאַחַר יוֹתֵר).
§ 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.
אָמְרוּ לְמֵדִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: וְלַיְתֵי לֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי לָא – לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי מַכְנִיסִין חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה?
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?
וְלַיְתֵי בְּהֵמָה וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תִּיהְוֵי שְׁלָמִים! אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְמַעֵט בַּאֲכִילָה דִּשְׁלָמִים.
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.
אָמַר לֵוִי לְרַבִּי: וְלַיְתֵי בְּהֵמָה וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, וְאִי הַאי דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תֶּיהְוֵי מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקׇדְקֳדוֹ,
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.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Menachot 80
אֶלָּא אַחֲלִיפֵי תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם – מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא!
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.
אֶלָּא, אַוְּלַד תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה – בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם, מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה הִיא! אֶלָּא, אַוְּלַד תּוֹדָה חוֹבָה – לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה טָעוּן לֶחֶם, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם.
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.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּקָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ. הָוֵי בַּהּ נָמֵי אַבָּיֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חִילּוּפֵי תוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא. וְלַד תּוֹדָה נְדָבָה, בֵּין לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה בֵּין לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם, מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה הוּא. וְולַד תּוֹדָה חוֹבָה, לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה – טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם, לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – אֵין טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
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.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה – בְּתוֹדָה אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת רוֹעָה – בַּתּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר ״הַתּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״? מִנַּיִן לְמַפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב וְלַחְמָהּ עִמָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַתּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״. יָכוֹל תְּהֵא שְׁנִיָּה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם.
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.
וְאִילּוּ גַּבֵּי חַטָּאת כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא רוֹעָה, דִּתְנַן: הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וּשְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַטָּאת מֵתָה אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים, הָא קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים – רוֹעָה.
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.
שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – מֵתָה.
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.
אֶלָּא רוֹעָה, לְרַבִּי הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה.
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.
וְהָא גַּבֵּי תוֹדָה כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, אֶלָּא שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת.
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.
וְהָא רוֹעָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵית לֵיהּ כְּלָל.
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?
שְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי חֲדָא קָאָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה – בְּתוֹדָה אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: זוֹ תּוֹדָה וְזוֹ לַחְמָהּ, אָבַד הַלֶּחֶם – מֵבִיא לֶחֶם אַחֵר, אָבְדָה תּוֹדָה – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה אַחֶרֶת. מַאי טַעְמָא? לֶחֶם לִגְלַל תּוֹדָה, וְאֵין תּוֹדָה לִגְלַל לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְתוֹדָתוֹ
§ 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
וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – אֵין מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִנַּיִן לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ ״תּוֹדָה״? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה חַלּוֹת מַצּוֹת״. אִי הָכִי, אִיפְּכָא נָמֵי! לֶחֶם אִיקְּרִי ״תּוֹדָה״, תּוֹדָה לָא אִיקְּרַי ״לֶחֶם״.
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.
וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְחָזַר וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאָבְדָה, וְחָזַר וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וַהֲרֵי שְׁלׇשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, שְׁלִישִׁית טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.
§ 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.
נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – שְׁנִיָּה אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, רִאשׁוֹנָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם; בָּאֶמְצָעִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם; אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֵין טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם, כּוּלְּהוּ חֲלִיפִין דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן חַטָּאוֹת, הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, וַהֲרֵי שְׁלׇשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדוֹת. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – שְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, שְׁלִישִׁית תִּרְעֶה.
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.
נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – שְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, וְרִאשׁוֹנָה תִּרְעֶה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ, כּוּלְּהוּ חֲלִיפִין דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.
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.
מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא״, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּחַטָּאוֹת הוּא״, אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: תּוֹדָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בִּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וּמֵתָה אַחַת מֵהֶן – חֲבֶירְתָּהּ אֵין לָהּ תַּקָּנָה. הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נַקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – דִּלְמָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא, לָא נַקְרֵיב לֶחֶם בַּהֲדַהּ – דִּלְמָא תּוֹדָה הִיא.
§ 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.
הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״, לָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ בְּהֵמָה אַחֲרִינָא וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תֶּיהְוֵי אַחְרָיוּת!
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?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.
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.
(סִימָן: לְמוּדִים, מִידַּת, עִלָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ, שֶׁכֵּן, דְּדָמָהּ, דְּאִי, חֲלַשׁ, מוֹתַר, תְּמוּרָה, בַּחוּץ, חִזְקִיָּה, הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, לְאַחַר יוֹתֵר).
§ 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.
אָמְרוּ לְמֵדִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: וְלַיְתֵי לֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי לָא – לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי מַכְנִיסִין חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה?
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?
וְלַיְתֵי בְּהֵמָה וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תִּיהְוֵי שְׁלָמִים! אֲמַר לְהוּ: מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מְמַעֵט בַּאֲכִילָה דִּשְׁלָמִים.
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.
אָמַר לֵוִי לְרַבִּי: וְלַיְתֵי בְּהֵמָה וְלֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תְּמוּרָה הִיא – הָא תּוֹדָה וְהָא לַחְמָהּ, וְאִי הַאי דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ וְהָא תֶּיהְוֵי מוֹתַר דְּתוֹדָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מוֹחַ בְּקׇדְקֳדוֹ,
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.
Follow
