[א] מהו 'תודה יקריב'? מנין אתה אומר המפריש תודתו ואבדה, והפריש אחרת תחתיה, ולא הספיק להקריב עד שנמצאה הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות – מנין שיביא איזו מהן שירצה ויביא עמה לחם, שְנִיה יביא בלא לחם? תלמוד לומר 'תודה יקריב'. יכול יהיו שתיהן טעונות לחם? תלמוד לומר "יקריבנו" – אחת טעונה לחם ואין שתיהם טעונות לחם.
1) (Vayikra 7:11) ("And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which one shall offer to the L–rd. (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil.") What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:11) "which one shall offer" (and (Vayikra 7:12) "he shall offer it")? (It could simply have been written "If for thanksgiving, then he shall offer, etc.") (They are written for the following purpose:) Whence do we derive that if one set aside his thank-offering and it was lost, and he set aside a different one in its place, after which the first was found, so that now both are standing before him — whence do we derive that he may offer up whichever he wishes, and its loaves along with it? From (a thank-offering) "which one shall offer." I might think that both required loaves. It is, therefore, written "he shall offer it" — one requires loaves and not both.
[א] מהו 'תודה יקריב'? מנין אתה אומר המפריש תודתו ואבדה, והפריש אחרת תחתיה, ולא הספיק להקריב עד שנמצאה הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות – מנין שיביא איזו מהן שירצה ויביא עמה לחם, שְנִיה יביא בלא לחם? תלמוד לומר 'תודה יקריב'. יכול יהיו שתיהן טעונות לחם? תלמוד לומר "יקריבנו" – אחת טעונה לחם ואין שתיהם טעונות לחם.
1) (Vayikra 7:11) ("And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which one shall offer to the L–rd. (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil.") What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:11) "which one shall offer" (and (Vayikra 7:12) "he shall offer it")? (It could simply have been written "If for thanksgiving, then he shall offer, etc.") (They are written for the following purpose:) Whence do we derive that if one set aside his thank-offering and it was lost, and he set aside a different one in its place, after which the first was found, so that now both are standing before him — whence do we derive that he may offer up whichever he wishes, and its loaves along with it? From (a thank-offering) "which one shall offer." I might think that both required loaves. It is, therefore, written "he shall offer it" — one requires loaves and not both.