Talmud - Menachot 80b מנחות פ׳ ב׳

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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?

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.

§ 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.

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?

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.

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.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Menachot 80b examines using leftover funds for thanks-offering loaves versus the animal itself, then explores lost and replaced offerings requiring bread.