## Menachot Daf 80b

###### Menachot 80b:1
[Menachot 80b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:1)

וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – מֵבִיא בָּהֶן לֶחֶם. לְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה וְנִתּוֹתְרוּ – אֵין מֵבִיא בָּהֶן תּוֹדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 80b:2
[Menachot 80b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:2)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 80b:3
[Menachot 80b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Menachot 80b:4
[Menachot 80b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 80b:5
[Menachot 80b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 80b:6
[Menachot 80b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:6)

נִתְכַּפֵּר בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית – שְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, וְרִאשׁוֹנָה תִּרְעֶה. נִתְכַּפֵּר בָּאֶמְצָעִית – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן יָמוּתוּ, כּוּלְּהוּ חֲלִיפִין דַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 80b:7
[Menachot 80b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:7)

מַאי ״וְכֵן״? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּתוֹדוֹת הוּא״, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר ״מַרְבֶּה בְּחַטָּאוֹת הוּא״, אֵימָא לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 80b:8
[Menachot 80b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Menachot 80b:9
[Menachot 80b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:9)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Menachot 80b:10
[Menachot 80b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:10)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי זוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 80b:11
[Menachot 80b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:11)

(סִימָן: לְמוּדִים, מִידַּת, עִלָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ, שֶׁכֵּן, דְּדָמָהּ, דְּאִי, חֲלַשׁ, מוֹתַר, תְּמוּרָה, בַּחוּץ, חִזְקִיָּה, הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, לְאַחַר יוֹתֵר).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Menachot 80b:12
[Menachot 80b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:12)

אָמְרוּ לְמֵדִין לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: וְלַיְתֵי לֶחֶם, וְלֵימָא: אִי הָךְ דְּקָיְימָא תּוֹדָה הִיא – הָא לַחְמָהּ, אִי לָא – לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: וְכִי מַכְנִיסִין חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
***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?**


###### Menachot 80b:13
[Menachot 80b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 80b:14
[Menachot 80b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/80b:14)

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,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**