Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring not to the replacement for an obligatory thanks offering, but to the replacement for a voluntary thanks offering. This too is difficult, because whether the initial thanks offering was found before the owner achieved atonement with the replacement or after he achieved atonement, both offerings require loaves, as the owner is considered one who increases thanks offerings. That is, since he was not required to bring a replacement for the offering, if he brings another offering it is considered an additional voluntary offering, and a voluntary thanks offering requires loaves.

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to the offspring of a voluntary thanks offering. This too is difficult, because whether the offspring was sacrificed before the owner achieved atonement with its mother or after he achieved atonement, offspring do not require loaves, as this is considered a leftover of the thanks offering, which does not require loaves. Rather, perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that if the offspring was sacrificed before the owner achieved atonement, it requires loaves, but if it was sacrificed after he achieved atonement, it does not require loaves.

The Gemara asks: According to this explanation, what is Rav Ḥanina teaching us by sending this letter? He teaches us that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, even though it is not the initial consecrated property. If one sacrifices the offspring of an obligatory thanks-offering before the thanks-offering itself, he achieves atonement with the offspring, even though it is an enhancement of the consecrated thanks-offering. Accordingly, if he offers it before its mother, it requires loaves. The Gemara notes: Abaye also discusses the letter sent by Rav Ḥanina in this way and reaches conclusions similar to those of Rav Amram.

With regard to the conclusions of Rav Amram and Abaye, it was also stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one achieves atonement with the replacement for a voluntary thanks offering, whether the thanks offering was found before he achieved atonement or after he achieved atonement, the replacement requires loaves, as the owner is considered one who increases thanks offerings. The offspring of a voluntary thanks offering, whether it was sacrificed before he achieved atonement or after he achieved atonement, does not require loaves, as offspring is considered a leftover of the thanks offering. And with regard to the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering, if it was sacrificed before he achieved atonement, it requires loaves, but if it was sacrificed after he achieved atonement, it does not require loaves.

§ The Gemara cites additional halakhot with regard to the loaves of a thanks offering that was lost and another animal was taken as its replacement: Shmuel says: In any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in isolation for it to die, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it does not require loaves. And in any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in the field to graze until it develops a blemish, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it requires loaves.

Rav Amram raises an objection from the baraita cited on 79b: What is it that the verse teaches when it states: He sacrifices for a thanks offering? From where is it derived that 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: He sacrifices for a thanks offering. One might have thought that the second animal also requires loaves to be brought with it. The verse states: “He sacrifices it,” indicating that only one thanks offering requires loaves, but not two.

Rav Amram continues: Whereas with regard to a sin offering in a case like this, the Rabbis hold that the animal is placed in the field to graze, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 22b): If one separated his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its stead, and the first sin offering was found, and both animals stand fit for sacrifice, then he achieves atonement with one of them and the second animal shall be left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is left to die only if it was found after its owner achieved atonement. It may be inferred from the opinion of the Rabbis that if it is found before the owner achieved atonement, it is placed in the field to graze.

The Gemara responds: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: An animal separated as a sin offering that was lost at the time of the separation of its replacement, even if it was found before the replacement was sacrificed, is left to die. The principle stated by Shmuel is therefore correct, since in every situation in which a sin offering is left to die, a thanks offering does not require loaves.

The Gemara asks: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that even in such a case the second sin offering is left to die, how can you find a case where the sin offering is placed in the field to graze according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara responds: It can be found in a case like that of Rabbi Oshaya, as Rabbi Oshaya says: If one separated two sin offerings, one to achieve atonement for his sin and the other as a guarantee in case the first one is lost, he may achieve atonement with whichever of them he wishes, and the second shall be placed in the field to graze.

The Gemara challenges: But in a case like this involving a thanks offering, the animal does not require loaves. Therefore, if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in such a case the sin offering is placed in the field to graze, then Shmuel cannot hold in accordance with his opinion, since according to Shmuel, in circumstances where a sin offering would be left to graze, a thanks offering in the same circumstances would require loaves. Rather, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There are five sin offerings that are left to die; one is a sin offering that was lost and found before its replacement was sacrificed, and another is the case where a sin offering was separated as a guarantee.

The Gemara challenges: But it cannot be that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, since Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there are any circumstances in which a sin offering is placed in the field to graze. Accordingly, if Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, how can he say: And in any situation in which a sin offering would be placed in the field to graze until it develops a blemish, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it requires loaves?

The Gemara responds: In fact, Shmuel also stated only one principle: In any situation in which a sin offering is placed in isolation for it to die, if that same situation occurs with a thanks offering, it does not require loaves. He did not state the second principle. The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel teaching us? The Gemara responds: Shmuel teaches us his statement to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: A person achieves atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the offspring of an obligatory thanks offering requires loaves if it is sacrificed before its mother. Shmuel teaches us that one does not achieve atonement with the enhancement of consecrated property, and the offspring of a thanks offering does not require loaves, which corresponds to the fact that the offspring of a sin offering is left to die.

§ With regard to the loaves of a thanks offering, Rabbi Abba says: If one volunteered to bring a thanks offering, and said: This animal is a thanks offering and this flour is designated for its loaves, then if the loaves were lost, he brings other loaves. If the thanks offering was lost, he does not bring another thanks offering, and the loaves are not sacrificed. What is the reason for this? The loaves are brought on account of the thanks offering; therefore, if there is no thanks offering, there are no loaves. But the thanks offering is not brought on account of the loaves; consequently, if the loaves were lost, the thanks offering is still sacrificed, and one brings different loaves.

§ And with regard to the distinctions between a thanks offering and its accompanying loaves, Rava says: In the case of one who separated money for his thanks offering