Menachos 80 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A shiur on Menachot addresses the Mishnah of ולד תודה, תמורה, and a lost תודה that is replaced and then found, and it establishes that the primary קרבן תודה requires forty loaves while its ולד, חליפין, and תמורה do not. A baraita derives from the pesukim in Parashat Tzav that when two תודה animals stand before a person after loss and replacement, either may be offered with bread but only one set of bread is brought. Rabbi Yochanan distinguishes cases of ולד תודת חובה and teaches that a person can fulfill atonement through שבח הקדש, while Shmuel rejects that approach and ties the תודה bread requirement to the categories of חטאת that die. Rava, Abaye, and Rav Zeira extend these rules to multi-replacement scenarios, and a final baraita rules that when a תודה and its תמורה become mixed and one dies, the remaining animal has no remedy in a נדר case of “זו.”
- A person who designates a pregnant animal as a קרבן תודה produces a ולד that can also be brought as a תודה but under different conditions. A person who makes תמורה violates “לא ימירנו,” yet if he substitutes, “והיה הוא ותמורתו יהיה קדש,” and both animals become קדש. A person who designates a תודה, loses it, and designates another, and then finds the first, has two animals standing though only one satisfies the obligation of תודה. A verse teaches that the תודה itself is טעונה לחם, while ולא ולדה ולא חילופה ולא תמורתה, and these cases do not require the forty loaves.
- A baraita learns from “אם על תודה יקריב” that when a תודה is lost, another is designated, and the first is found, either animal may be brought as the תודה and bread comes with it. A derivation from “תודה יקריב” allows whichever one he wants to offer as the required תודה. The phrase “יקריבנו” limits the obligation so that only one offering requires bread and not both. The word “על” in “אם על תודה” includes ולדות, חליפות, and תמורות for הקרבה, even though they lack the full status of תודה regarding bread.
- A comparison is made to the discussion in Yoma about a lost קרבן פסח that was replaced and then found, where רבי יוסי and חכמים dispute whether the first must be used. The Chacham Tzvi explains that by תודה everyone agrees either may be brought because the unused animal is not treated as “ירעה עד שיסתאב” leading to death, and instead both will be brought with a distinction of with-bread versus without-bread. The lack of criticality in choosing which animal becomes the bread-bearing offering explains why the Torah need not require prioritizing the first.
- Rabbi Yochanan rules that the case where the second תודה has no bread applies only לאחר כפרה, but לפני כפרה it is טעון לחם. The sugya explores what רבי יוחנן addresses and analyzes what is meant by תודת חובה, including an approach that it depends on wording such as *harei alai* versus *harei zu*. Another approach ties תודת חובה to the four חייבים להודות in Berachot: יורדי הים, הולכי מדברות, מי שהיה חולה ונתרפא, ומי שהיה חבוש בבית האסורים ויצא. The Gemara rejects applying Rabbi Yochanan’s point to חליפי תודת חובה as redundant with existing teachings and moves to other frameworks.
- The Gemara considers חליפי תודת נדבה and concludes that designating a second animal there is “מרבה בתודות הוא,” so bread applies regardless of timing. The Gemara then considers ולד תודת נדבה and concludes it is מותר תודה, so it never requires bread. The Gemara identifies רבי יוחנן’s rule as applying to ולד תודת חובה, where before kapparah the offspring can serve as the primary תודה and therefore requires bread, while after kapparah it becomes מותר תודה and does not require bread.
- Abaye challenges what Rabbi Yochanan adds and answers that the novelty is Rabbi Yochanan’s view that אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש, allowing the ולד to function as the primary offering. Rav Aharon Kotler explains that by חטאת the designation participates in the atonement process for עבירה, so one might have thought a תודה would be similar. The Gemara teaches that because תודה is not for עבירה and serves to express thanks to Hashem, the identity of the animal is less central and the offspring can fulfill the obligation before the mother is offered. A parallel statement records that חלופי תודה נדבה always require bread, ולד תודת נדבה never requires bread, and ולד תודת חובה requires bread only לפני כפרה.
- The sugya cites the well-known law of חמש חטאות המתות, including ולד חטאת, תמורת חטאת, חטאת שמתו בעליה, חטאת שאבדה ונתכפרו בעליה באחרת, וחטאת שעברה שנתה, and it states they are placed to die. It distinguishes a standard ולד חטאת born after sanctification from a case where an animal was sanctified while pregnant, which resembles מפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות. Shmuel states that anything that in חטאת is “מתה” yields in תודה “אין טעונה לחם,” and anything that in חטאת is “רועה” yields in תודה “טעונה לחם.” Rav Amram challenges Shmuel from the baraita of lost-and-found תודה versus the mishnah in Temurah about lost-and-found חטאת, where חכמים make it רועה before kapparah but תודה still produces a no-bread outcome for the extra animal.
- The Gemara answers that Shmuel follows רבי, and it locates “רועה” for רבי in Rav Hoshaya’s case of הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות, where one is used and the other grazes. Tosafot asks how two חטאות can be designated given that חטאת cannot be brought as a נדבה and invokes the principle that what cannot be done sequentially cannot be done simultaneously, and Tosafot answers by a case where he says he will bring both. The Keren Orah explains that as long as he has not yet brought the חטאת, he remains obligated and can still designate a second animal. The Gemara ultimately reframes Shmuel as holding like רבי שמעון, who treats the relevant cases as מיתה and has no concept of רועה, so Shmuel is understood as teaching only “כל שבחטאת מיתה בתודה אין טעון לחם.” The Gemara states that Shmuel’s point comes to exclude Rabbi Yochanan’s position of אדם מתכפר בולד הקדש, and Shmuel holds that the ולד cannot serve as the primary obligation and therefore never generates a bread requirement.
- Rava rules that if one says “זו תודה וזו לחמה” in a *harei zu* formulation and the bread is lost, he brings replacement bread, while if the תודה is lost he does not bring another תודה. Rava gives the reason that לחם לגבי תודה and אין תודה לגבי לחם. The Chozeh reports in the name of R’ Shmelka of Nikolsburg that לחם represents gashmiyut that must be geared toward תודה, and that gratitude and avodah should not be made dependent on bread.
- Rava states that leftover money from funds set aside for a תודה may be used to bring the bread. Rava states that leftover money from funds set aside for לחמי תודה may not be used to bring a תודה. The Gemara rejects making this depend on Rav Kahana’s teaching that לחמי תודה are called תודה from “והקריב על זבח התודה חלות מצות,” because that would imply the reverse as well. The Gemara answers that לחם איקרי תודה but תודה לא איקרי לחם, preserving the asymmetry that bread is included under תודה but not vice versa.
- Rava rules that if a person repeatedly loses a designated תודה and replaces it until three animals are found and stand before him, then which animal he uses for kapparah determines which of the remaining animals require bread and which do not. Rava holds that if he is מתכפר בראשונה then the שנייה has no bread and the שלישית does, if he is מתכפר בשלישית then the שנייה has no bread and the ראשונה does, and if he is מתכפר באמצעית then both others have no bread. Abaye rules that regardless of which one is used, the other two do not require bread because כולהו חליפי דהדדי נינהו.
- Rav Zeira applies the same structure to חטאת in the three-animal scenario and specifies outcomes of תמות versus תרעה depending on which one is used, and Abaye again rules that whichever is used, the other two die because they are all חליפין. The Gemara asks why Rav Zeira needs to say “וכן לענין חטאת” and answers that one might have thought תודה differs because מרבה בתודות הוא, while there is no concept of מרבה בחטאות. The Gemara teaches that even so, according to Rava the same structural idea extends to חטאת as well.
- Rav Chiya teaches that if a תודה becomes mixed with its תמורה and one of the two dies, the remaining animal has no remedy because offering it with bread may be wrong if it is תמורה, and offering it without bread may be wrong if it is תודה. The Gemara says that if the case were *harei alai* he could bring another animal and bread and stipulate outcomes, assigning the bread to whichever is truly the תודה and treating the other as the extra animal without bread. The Gemara concludes the case is where he said “זו,” creating no obligation of אחריות, so he cannot introduce a new animal and resolve the ספק, and the surviving animal remains without a workable path to הקרבה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions