## Menachot Daf 79b

###### Menachot 79b:1
[Menachot 79b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:1)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with** the opinion of **his father** in this matter, **as** Rabbi Shimon **said: Any** blood of an offering **that stands** fit **to be sprinkled** upon the altar **is considered as** if it were already **sprinkled.** Accordingly, although the blood was spilled after it was collected in the cup and was not actually sprinkled, it is nevertheless considered as if it were sprinkled.


###### Menachot 79b:2
[Menachot 79b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:2)

אָמַר מָר: אִם יֵשׁ זֶבַח אַחֵר יִקְרְבוּ עִמּוֹ, וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוֹ לְשׁוּם מִנְחָה זוֹ – פָּסוּל לְשׁוּם מִנְחָה אַחֶרֶת! אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶם, אִם הוּצְרְכוּ – הוּצְרְכוּ, וְאִם לָאו – יְהוּ לְזֶבַח אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Master said** in the mishna: **If there is another offering** that was slaughtered and requires libations, the libations **should be sacrificed with** that offering. The Gemara asks: **But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say** that **oil that** one **separated for the sake of this** one **meal offering** is **unfit** to be brought **for the sake of another meal offering?** Likewise, shouldn’t libations separated for one offering be unfit for sacrifice with another offering? **Rabbi Yannai says: The court tacitly stipulates concerning** the libations that **if they were required** for the offering for which they were separated, **they were required** and are brought with that offering. **But if not,** e.g., where the offering was disqualified, **they should be** brought with **another offering.**


###### Menachot 79b:3
[Menachot 79b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:3)

אִי הָכִי, שֶׁמֶן נָמֵי? שֶׁמֶן גּוּפַהּ דְּמִנְחָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then shouldn’t it be that the court tacitly stipulates concerning **the oil as well?** The Gemara responds: **The oil is** part **of the meal offering itself** and cannot be brought for the sake of another meal offering, whereas the libations merely accompany the offering and are not an integral part of it.


###### Menachot 79b:4
[Menachot 79b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:4)

וְלַיתְנוֹ עֲלֵיהֶן דְּנִיפְּקוּ לְחוּלִּין? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: מוֹצִיאִין מִכְּלֵי שָׁרֵת לַחוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: If it is so that the court tacitly stipulates concerning the libations, then **let** the court tacitly **stipulate concerning them that** if the offering they are meant to accompany is disqualified, **they shall emerge to non-sacred** status altogether. The Gemara responds: It is a rabbinic **decree** that the court does not tacitly make this stipulation, **lest** people who are unaware of such a stipulation see that an item that was previously sanctified has become non-sacred, and **they will** mistakenly **say: One may remove** sanctified items **from service vessels to** become **non-sacred.**


###### Menachot 79b:5
[Menachot 79b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:5)

הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: נְסָכִים שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁן לְשׁוּם זֶבַח זֶה – כְּשֵׁרִין לְשׁוּם זֶבַח אַחֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: If the Sages did not tacitly make such a stipulation because they were concerned that people might mistakenly conclude that items that were already consecrated in service vessels can become non-sacred, then **now as well,** where the court tacitly stipulates that the libations should be sacrificed with another offering, let there be a rabbinic **decree** against such a stipulation, **lest** people **say: Libations that one separated for the sake of one offering are fit for the sake of a different offering** *ab initio*.


###### Menachot 79b:6
[Menachot 79b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:6)

הָתָנֵי מַתִּתְיָה בֶּן יְהוּדָה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Mattitya ben Yehuda teaches** that the mishna is referring specifically to a case **where there was** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time.** In such a case, there is no concern that people will reach this mistaken conclusion, as one who sees that the libations are sacrificed immediately with the other offering will simply assume that they were separated for the sake of that offering from the outset.


###### Menachot 79b:7
[Menachot 79b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:7)

אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, מַאי? נִפְסָל בְּלִינָה? אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם לָאו יִפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects to this: According to the explanation of Mattitya ben Yehuda, it can be inferred from the mishna that if there is another offering that was slaughtered at the same time, then the libations are sacrificed with that offering; **but** if **there is not** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time,** then **what** should be done with the libations? They should be **disqualified by** being **left overnight.** If so, **rather than teaching** in **the latter clause** of the mishna: **And if** there is **not** another offering that requires libations, **they should be disqualified by** being **left overnight; let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach** the distinction **within the** case **itself** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where there was** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time. But if there is not** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time,** the libations are **not** sacrificed with another offering.


###### Menachot 79b:8
[Menachot 79b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:8)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָא אָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה – נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּפְסְלוּ בְּלִינָה, וּפְסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **That is also what** the *tanna* of the mishna **is saying: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said in a case **where there was** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time. But if there is not** another **offering** that was **slaughtered at the same time,** the libations **are** immediately **considered as if they were disqualified by** being **left overnight, and** they are **disqualified.**


###### Menachot 79b:9
[Menachot 79b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:9)

וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explained above that the mishna is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and that he holds in accordance with the opinion of his father that any blood that stands fit to be sprinkled is considered as if it has been sprinkled. The Gemara also explained that the mishna allows for the sacrifice of the libations with another offering because the court tacitly stipulates that the libations should be brought with another offering if the first offering becomes disqualified. In light of this, the Gemara asks: **But does Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** i.e., the father of Rabbi Elazar, **accept** the principle that **the court tacitly stipulates concerning** the libations?


###### Menachot 79b:10
[Menachot 79b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:10)

וְהָא אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין, אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּיבּוּר – לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵין נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים נִפְדִּין תְּמִימִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But didn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say** that **Rav Amram said** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** With regard to animals that were designated as **daily offerings** but **that** in the end **were not needed for** use by **the public,** and have inherent sanctity, how shall they be redeemed? **According to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, they may not be redeemed** as long as they are **unblemished,** since they retain the status of offerings. But **according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed** even when they are **unblemished,** as the court initially stipulates that if they are not needed they will not assume the status of an offering. Since Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the Rabbis, it may be inferred that according to Rabbi Shimon, one does not say that the court tacitly stipulates concerning the offerings.


###### Menachot 79b:11
[Menachot 79b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:11)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּרְעִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: In general, Rabbi Shimon holds that the court stipulates concerning them. And **it is different there,** in the case of the daily offerings, **because they have** an alternative **arrangement through** which their total loss may be avoided, as they may be left in the field to **graze** until they develop a blemish, at which point they may be sold. Since there is no arrangement for the libations save for sacrificing them with another offering, even Rabbi Shimon holds that the court stipulates concerning them.


###### Menachot 79b:12
[Menachot 79b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, הִפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָה וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ – אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה״ – הַתּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, וְלֹא וְלָדָהּ וְלֹא חִילּוּפָהּ וְלֹא תְּמוּרָתָהּ טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **the offspring** of an animal designated as **a thanks offering, or** an animal that is **its substitute;** or in a case where **one separated** an animal as **a thanks offering and it was lost and he separated another in its stead,** and the first animal was then found, in all three cases, the second animal, i.e., the offspring, the substitute, or the replacement, is sacrificed, but it **does not require** the bringing of accompanying **loaves.** This is **as it is stated:** “If he sacrifices it for a thanks offering, **then he shall sacrifice with the thanks offering** unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour poached” (Leviticus 7:12). The verse indicates that **the** initial **thanks offering requires loaves, but neither its offspring, nor its replacement, nor its substitute requires loaves.**


###### Menachot 79b:13
[Menachot 79b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:13)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַהוּ אוֹמֵר ״תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״? ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״ – מִנַּיִן לְמַפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְנִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת – מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יַקְרִיב וְלַחְמָהּ עִמָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַתּוֹדָה יַקְרִיב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **What is it** that the verse teaches when it **states: He sacrifices for a thanks offering?** The verse states: **If he sacrifices for a thanks offering. From where** is it derived that **with regard to 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** that **he shall sacrifice the thanks offering,** i.e., as long as he sacrifices some thanks offering.


###### Menachot 79b:14
[Menachot 79b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:14)

יָכוֹל שֶׁתְּהֵא שְׁנִיָּה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״ – אֶחָד וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם. אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת וְלָדוֹת וַחֲלִיפוֹת וּתְמוּרוֹת לְהַקְרָבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה״. יָכוֹל יְהוּ טְעוּנוֹת לֶחֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל זֶבַח הַתּוֹדָה״ – תּוֹדָה טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם, וְלֹא וְלָדָהּ וְלֹא חִילּוּפָהּ וְלֹא תְּמוּרָתָהּ טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that the second** animal also **requires loaves** to be brought with it. Therefore, **the verse states: “He sacrifices it,”** indicating that only **one** thanks offering requires loaves, **but not two. Since the verse included** the second animal as fit for sacrifice **and excluded** it from the requirement to bring loaves with it, **from where** is it derived that the verse also **includes** a thanks offering’s **offspring, replacements, and substitutes** as fit **for sacrifice?** From the fact that **the verse states: “If for a thanks offering,”** one **might** have thought that **they would require loaves** to be brought with them. Therefore, **the verse states: “Then he shall sacrifice with the thanks offering,”** indicating that the initial **thanks offering** itself **requires loaves, but neither its offspring, nor its replacement, nor its substitute requires loaves.**


###### Menachot 79b:15
[Menachot 79b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:15)

שְׁלַח רַב חֲנִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, אֲבָל לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה – טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the offspring, substitute, and replacement of a thanks offering, the Gemara relates: **Rav Ḥanina sent** a letter from Eretz Yisrael to the Sages in Babylonia containing the following statement **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** The mishna **taught** that the offspring, replacement, and substitute do not require loaves **only** in a case where they were sacrificed **after** the owner achieved **atonement,** i.e., where the initial thanks offering was already sacrificed with its loaves; **but** if they were sacrificed **before** he achieved **atonement, they require loaves.**


###### Menachot 79b:16
[Menachot 79b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/79b:16)

הָוֵי בַּהּ רַב עַמְרָם: אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַחֲלִיפֵי תּוֹדַת חוֹבָה – אִי לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה, תְּנֵינָא! אִי לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, תְּנֵינָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Amram discussed this** *halakha* sent in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan and asked: **To which** *halakha* in the mishna is this referring? **If we say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring **to the replacement for an obligatory thanks offering,** then there is no novelty in his statement. **If** his intention is to teach that where the thanks offering was found **before** the owner achieved **atonement** with its replacement, the replacement requires loaves, **we** already **learned** this in the *baraita*, as it states: He may sacrifice whichever one of them he wishes, and its loaves are brought along with it. And **if** his intention is to teach that where the thanks offering was found **after** the owner achieved **atonement** with the replacement, the thanks offering does not require loaves, this too **we** already **learned** in the *baraita*, as it teaches that only the first offering requires loaves.