ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סבר לה כוותיה דאבוה דאמר כל העומד לזרוק כזרוק דמי

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.

אמר מר אם יש זבח אחר יקרבו עמו והא אמר רב חסדא שמן שהפרישו לשום מנחה זה פסול לשום מנחה אחרת אמר רבי ינאי לב בית דין מתנה עליהם אם הוצרכו הוצרכו ואם לאו יהו לזבח אחר

§ 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.

אי הכי שמן נמי שמן גופה דמנחה הוא

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.

וליתנו עליהן דניפקו לחולין גזירה שמא יאמרו מוציאין מכלי שרת לחול

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.

השתא נמי גזירה שמא יאמרו נסכים שהפרישן לשום זבח זה כשרין לשום זבח אחר

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.

התני מתתיה בן יהודה כגון שהיה זבח זבוח באותה שעה

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.

אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה מאי נפסל בלינה אדתני סיפא אם לאו יפסלו בלינה ליפלוג וליתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים שהיתה זבח זבוח באותה שעה אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה לא

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.

הכי נמי קא אמר במה דברים אמורים שהיה זבח זבוח באותה שעה אבל אין זבח זבוח באותה שעה נעשה כמי שנפסלו בלינה ופסולין

The Gemara responds: That is also what the tanna of the mishna is say ing: 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.

ומי אית ליה לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר לב בית דין מתנה עליהן

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?

והא אמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם אמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לציבור לדברי רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימים

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.

שאני התם דאית להו תקנתא ברעייה

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.

מתני׳ ולד תודה ותמורתה הפריש תודה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה אינה טעונה לחם שנאמר והקריב על זבח התודה התודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה טעונין לחם

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מהו אומר תודה יקריב אם על תודה יקריב מנין למפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזה מהן שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה תלמוד לומר התודה יקריב

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.

יכול שתהא שניה טעונה לחם תלמוד לומר יקריבנו אחד ולא שנים אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט מנין לרבות ולדות וחליפות ותמורות להקרבה תלמוד לומר אם על תודה יכול יהו טעונות לחם תלמוד לומר והקריב על זבח התודה תודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה טעונין לחם

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.

שלח רב חנינא משמיה דרבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לאחר כפרה אבל לפני כפרה טעונין לחם

§ 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.

הוי בה רב עמרם אהייא אילימא אחליפי תודת חובה אי לפני כפרה תנינא אי לאחר כפרה תנינא

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.