וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לָהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ, דַּאֲמַר: כָּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

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.

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

§ 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 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.

אִי הָכִי, שֶׁמֶן נַמִי! שֶׁמֶן גּוּפָהּ דְּמִנְחָה הוּא.

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.

וְלִיתְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶן דְּנִיפְקוּ לְחוּלִּין! גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: מוֹצִיאִין מִכְּלִי שָׁרֵת לַחוֹל.

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.

הָשְׁתָּא נַמִי, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: נְסָכִים שֶׁהִפְרִישָׁן לְשׁוּם זֶבַח זֶה – כְּשֵׁרִין לְשׁוּם זֶבַח אַחֵר!

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.

הֲתָנִי מַתִּתְיָה בֶּן יְהוּדָה: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.

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.

אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, מַאי? נִפְסָל בְּלִינָה, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם לָאו – יִפָּסְלוּ בְּלִינָה, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁהָיְתָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה – לָא!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִית לְהוּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּרְעִיָּיה.

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׳ 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.

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׳ 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״.

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.

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.

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.

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

§ 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.

הָוֵי בָּהּ רַב עַמְרָם, אַהַיָּיא? אִילֵימָא אַחֲלִיפֵי תּוֹדַת חוֹבָה, אִי לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – תָּנֵינָא! אִי לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה – תָּנֵינָא!

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.