Menachot 81aמנחות פ״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 81a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
81aפ״א א

וכי מפרישין תחלה למותרות

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explains why: And does one separate an animal as a leftover ab initio?

יתיב רבי יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא קמיה דרב נחמן ויתיב וקאמר ולייתי בהמה ולחם ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה והא תהוי תמורה

The Gemara suggests another solution: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta was sitting before Rav Naḥman, and he was sitting and saying: 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 this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves and this will be a substitute, as the substitute of a thanks offering is not sacrificed with loaves, and it may be consumed for the same duration as the thanks offering itself.

אמר ליה עני מרי ארבעין בכתפיה וכשר

Rav Naḥman said to him: Answer me, my Master: The halakha is that one who separates a substitute is liable to receive forty lashes on his shoulders, and yet you say it is fit to separate a substitute ab initio?

רב עילא חלש על לגביה אביי ורבנן ויתבי וקא אמרי אם איתא לדר' יוחנן דאמר חוץ לחומת העזרה קדוש לייתי לחם ולותבה חוץ לחומת העזרה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא לחמה ואי לא ליפוק לחולין

The Gemara relates that Rav Ila took ill, and Abaye and the Sages went to visit him, and they were sitting and saying: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: If the loaves of the thanks offering were within Jerusalem, i.e., the area of consumption of a thanks offering and its loaves, even if they were outside the wall of the Temple courtyard when the thanks offering was slaughtered they are consecrated, then let the owner bring loaves and set them outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and let him say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then let these be its loaves, and if it is not, let them go out and be consumed as non-sacred loaves.

משום דאיכא ארבע להניף היכי ליעביד לנפינהו אבראי (ויקרא ז, ל) לפני ה' כתיב גוואי קא מעייל חולין לעזרה הלכך לא אפשר

The Gemara responds: This too is not a valid remedy, because there are four loaves of the forty that one must wave. How would he perform the mitzva of waving them? Shall he wave them outside the Temple courtyard? He may not, since “waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30) is written in the verse, and waving performed outside the Temple courtyard is not considered “before the Lord.” Shall he wave them inside the Temple courtyard? He will have brought non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, it is not possible.

מתקיף לה רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אם איתא לדחזקיה דאמר קדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים לייתי בהמה ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא נמי תיהוי תודה והא שמונים דתרוייהו אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא תודה והא לחמה וליקדשו להו ארבעים מתוך שמונים

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this: If one accepts the ruling of Ḥizkiyya, who said with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, then let the owner bring an animal and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this additional animal should also be a thanks offering and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the substitute, then let this additional animal be a thanks offering and these shall be its loaves, and let forty of the eighty be consecrated for it.

משום דקא ממעט באכילה דארבעים

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a valid remedy, because it reduces the consumption of the forty additional loaves, as the priests may not be able to consume the four loaves given from the additional forty, and the owner cannot consume them because they may be the portion of the priest.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא אם איתא לדרבי יוחנן דאמר הפריש חטאת מעוברת וילדה רצה בה מתכפר רצה בוולדה מתכפר לייתי בהמה מעוברת וימתין לה עד שתלד ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הא וולדה תודה היא והא שמונים דתרווייהו ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא הא נמי תודה היא והא שמונים דתרווייהו הוא והאי ליהוי מותר דתודה

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If one accepts the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: If one separated a pregnant animal as a sin offering and it gave birth, if he wants he can achieve atonement with it, and if he wants he can achieve atonement with its offspring; then let the owner bring a pregnant animal and wait until it gives birth, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then this and its offspring are thanks offerings, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this mother should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves should be for both of them, and let this offspring be the leftover of the thanks offering.

אמר ליה מאן לימא לן דאמר רבי יוחנן אם שיירו משוייר דלמא אם שיירו אינו משוייר והיינו טעמא דרבי יוחנן דאמר אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש

Rav Kahana said to him: Who shall say to us that the reasoning of Rabbi Yoḥanan is that he said that the offspring is considered the property of the one who dedicated the pregnant mother, such that if he reserved it for a specific consecration it is considered reserved for that consecration? Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that if he reserved it, it is not considered reserved, and this is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that one can achieve atonement with the offspring of a pregnant animal separated as a sin offering, as he said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, such as the offspring of an animal that was consecrated when pregnant.

רבינא איקלע לדמהוריא אמר ליה רב דימי בריה דרב הונא מדמהוריא לרבינא ולייתי בהמה ולימא הרי עלי ולייתי בהמה אחריתי ולייתי שמונים בהדה ולימא אי הך דקיימא תמורה היא הני תרתי תודות והא שמונים דתרוייהו ואי הך דקיימא תודה היא והא דאמרי עלי נמי ליהוי תודה והא שמונים דתרוייהו ואידך תהוי לאחריות

Ravina happened to come to Dimhorya. Rav Dimi, son of Rav Huna from Dimhorya, said to Ravina: And let the owner bring an animal and say: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal for a thanks offering, and let him separate this animal in fulfillment of his vow, and then let him bring another animal, and let him bring eighty loaves with it and say: If this animal that is extant is the substitute, then these two additional animals are thanks offerings and these eighty loaves should be for both of them. And if this animal that is extant is the thanks offering, then this one for which I said: It is incumbent upon me, should also be a thanks offering, and these eighty loaves are for both of them, and let the other animal be for a guarantee, to be sacrificed if my thanks offering gets lost, and it does not require loaves.

אמר ליה התורה אמרה (קהלת ה, ד) טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם ואת אמרת ליקום ולינדור בתחילה:

Ravina said to him: The Torah said: “Better is it that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:4), and you say: Let him rise up and vow ab initio? Taking a vow to bring an offering is not encouraged. As all possible remedies have been rejected, the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, that there is no remedy in a case where a thanks offering and its substitute were intermingled and one of them died, stands.

מתני׳ האומר הרי עלי תודה יביא היא ולחמה מן החולין

MISHNA: One who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering, must bring it and its loaves from non-sacred money in his possession and not second-tithe money. Since he said: It is incumbent upon me, bringing the offering is an obligation, and one may not fulfill an obligation with second-tithe money.