Menachos 80
Summary
- The שיעור begins מנחות דף פ by returning to a misplaced pause on דף עט עמוד ב and resuming a rule that distinguishes בין לפני כפרה ובין לאחר כפרה לגבי לחמי תודה, then develops a parallel framework from חטאת to תודה and tests where the parallels hold. The גמרא then states two structural differences between זבח תודה and לחמי תודה, expands the lost-and-replaced scenario to three animals and applies it both to תודה and to חטאת with a מחלוקת רבא ואביי, and finally opens an extended סוגיא about a תודה designated with הרי זו that becomes mixed with its תמורה and then one dies, leaving an apparently insoluble predicament as multiple proposed fixes are rejected.
- Today's דף is מנחות דף פ, and the learning resumes from דף עט עמוד ב near the bottom, where the two dots belong earlier because the גמרא states a rule and then immediately seeks its application. Rabbi Chanina states in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the משנה’s rule that a replacement תודה does not require לחם applies only לאחר כפרה, but לפני כפרה the relevant animal is טעון לחם. Rav Amram asks which case in the משנה Rabbi Yochanan targets, rejects חליפי תודת חובה as already explicit both before and after כפרה, rejects חליפי תודת נדבה because such a case is always טעונה לחם since מרבה בתודות הוא, and rejects ולד תודת נדבה because a ולד is מותר דתודה and never requires לחם. Rav Amram establishes that Rabbi Yochanan speaks about ולד תודת חובה, where לפני כפרה the ולד is טעון לחם and לאחר כפרה it is not, and the גמרא frames the חידוש as Rabbi Yochanan’s position that אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש. Abaye runs the same inquiry and arrives at the same identification within Rabbi Yochanan, and the גמרא then reports a direct formulation from Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef in Rabbi Yochanan’s name: חילופי תודת נדבה always require לחם, ולד תודת נדבה never requires לחם, and ולד תודת חובה requires לחם only before כפרה.
- Shmuel states that any case that would yield a חטאת מתה has the parallel rule in תודה of אינה טעונה לחם, and an attempted extension to a category of חטאת רועה becomes contested and refined. Rav Amram challenges from the דרשה on יקריבנו that allows choosing which of two found-and-replaced תודה animals to offer with its לחם while limiting לחם to one, and he notes that in the analogous חטאת case the משנה in תמורה records that the unused animal is רועה according to חכמים if found before כפרה, contradicting Shmuel’s linkage. The גמרא answers that Shmuel holds like Rabbi, who says אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה, and then asks how Shmuel would ever find a case of רועה under Rabbi, proposing Rabbi Oshaya’s case of הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות where the second is רועה. The גמרא rejects this as a workable parallel for תודה and then re-anchors Shmuel’s view as aligned with Rabbi Shimon’s framework of חמש חטאות מתות, concluding that Shmuel only says the first clause, כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אינה טעונה לחם. The גמרא explains Shmuel’s point as rejecting Rabbi Yochanan’s doctrine of אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש, so that a ולד in the תודה framework never becomes the main vehicle of כפרה and therefore never generates לחם requirements on that basis.
- Rabbi Abba rules that if a person says זו תודה וזו לחמה in a נדבה framing and the לחם is lost, he brings other לחם, but if the תודה animal is lost he does not bring another תודה. The גמרא explains that לחם exists because of תודה, while תודה does not exist because of לחם, establishing the זבח as the עיקר and the לחם as the טפל for these liability rules. Rava adds that if one designates money for his תודה and money remains after buying the animal, he uses the surplus for לחם, but if one designates money for לחמי תודה and surplus remains, he does not bring a תודה with it. The גמרא rejects grounding this in Rav Kahana’s teaching that לחמי תודה are called תודה from the verse והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות, and instead distinguishes that לחם is called תודה but תודה is not called לחם, so funds earmarked for “תודה” can extend to bread while funds earmarked for “לחם” cannot extend to the animal.
- Rava rules that if one designated a תודה, lost it, designated a second, lost it, designated a third, and then found the first two so that all three stand, the לחם obligations depend on which animal provides כפרה: if he is מתכפר with the first, the second is not טעונה לחם while the third is טעונה לחם; if he is מתכפר with the third, the second is not טעונה לחם while the first is טעונה לחם; if he is מתכפר with the middle, both the first and third are not טעונות לחם. Abaye disputes and holds that whichever animal he offers, the remaining two are not טעונות לחם because כולהו חליפין דהדדי נינהו. Rabbi Zeira states וכן לעניין חטאת, applying the same structural logic to three חטאות: if he is מתכפר with the first, the second dies and the third grazes; if he is מתכפר with the third, the second dies and the first grazes; if he is מתכפר with the middle, both the first and third die. Abaye again disputes and rules that whichever one provides כפרה the other two die, since all are treated as mutual replacements. The גמרא explains that Rabbi Zeira’s חידוש is needed because one might have thought that the תודה case tolerates an “extra” offering under מרבה בתודות הוא while a חטאת case cannot assume such a model because there is no מרבה בחטאות, and therefore the parallel outcome in חטאת is not automatic without his statement.
- Chiya teaches a case of תודה שנתערבה בתמורתה and then one dies, leaving the survivor without תקנה because bringing it with לחם risks that it is תמורה and bringing it without לחם risks that it is תודה. The גמרא limits the case to one who designated with הרי זו, because if he said עלי he could bring another animal and לחם and stipulate conditions that assign the new animal and bread appropriately as either the actual תודה or an אחריות structure, avoiding the dead end. The גמרא introduces the סימן למודי מידת אלוה שש for the sequence of proposed solutions and begins with a proposal to bring לחם and conditionally declare it either the required לחם or חולין, which Rabbi rejects with the principle וכי מכניסין חולין לעזרה, leaving the predicament unresolved and setting up the continuation with further rejected suggestions.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions