Menachos Daf 78 - Kidush of Lachmei Todah
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Menachot 78, starting from the last line of 77b at *amar mar*, and it explains how the flour measurements for the forty loaves of *lachmei todah* are derived, why the ten *chametz* loaves and the thirty *matzah* loaves use the same total of ten *esronim*, and how this avoids the restriction of *davar halamed beheikesh eino chozer umelamed beheikesh* in *kodashim*. It then presents a *mishnah* that links the *minchot* of the *milu’im* and the bread of a *nazir* to the *matzah* forms of *todah*, derives which types appear and why, and addresses how many *esronim* a new Kohen Gadol brings on his first day depending on his prior service. The next *mishnah* returns to *todah* and rules that *shechitah* does not sanctify the loaves if they are outside the required wall or if they have not yet crusted in the oven, leading to a dispute between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about which wall is required and a comparison to the law of *Erev Pesach* regarding *al chametz*. The *Gemara* then defines the threshold of “crusting” and presents a dispute about attempting to sanctify eighty loaves instead of forty, offering four frameworks for understanding the dispute.
- Today’s *shiur* is sponsored by Dr. David Landman and his wife and children לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום, with a wish that the נשמה שתהיה לה עלייה. The learning begins at דף ע״ז עמוד ב׳, last line, at אמר מר, and proceeds through the *mishnayot* and *gemara* themes laid out for the *daf*.
- A *baraita* rejects learning that the ten *chametz* loaves of *lachmei todah* require only two *esronim* total, and instead derives one *isaron* per loaf by analogy to *shtei halechem*, yielding ten *esronim*. The word תהיינה is read as indicating ten through an extra י, and the explanation ties this to a *gematria* of ten, while Tosafot challenges whether the י is truly “extra” *al pi dikduk* and the later authorities analyze whose grammar is correct. Rava answers the challenge “maybe ten *kefizi*” by stating בעשרונות דיבר הכתוב, since *shtei halechem* is explicitly measured in *esronim*. The same ten *esronim* is applied to the thirty *matzah* loaves through the phrase על חלות לחם חמץ, deriving that the *matzah* corresponds in flour amount to the *chametz*.
- The *Gemara* asks how the *matzah* can be derived from the *chametz* via *heikesh* when the *chametz* measure itself was learned from *shtei halechem*, invoking the rule that in *kodashim* *davar halamed beheikesh eino chozer umelamed beheikesh*. The answer states that the derivation is *himenu v’davar acher*, because the number of loaves is learned *minah ubei* from the *parashah* of *todah* via the requirement to take one out of ten as *terumah*, while only the per-loaf *isaron* comes from *shtei halechem*. The *Gemara* notes the dispute in Zevachim 57 between רבי עקיבא and רבי ישמעאל about whether *himenu v’davar acher* is considered a *heikesh*, and for the view that it is a *heikesh* it answers that the *isaron* measure comes from תביאו as a *ribuy* rather than *heikesh*, allowing it to teach forward by *heikesh*.
- The *mishnah* states that the *milu’im* *minchot* come like the *matzah* of *todah*, meaning חלות, רקיקין, ורבוכה. The *mishnah* also states that *nazirut* brings two “hands” like the *matzah* of *todah*, specifically חלות ורקיקין, ואין בה רבוכה, and it computes the flour as עשרה קבין ירושלמיות, equaling ששה עשרונות ועודין. The *Gemara* first derives the three *milu’im* types from the verse ומסל המצות אשר לפני ה' לקח חלת מצה אחת וחלת לחם שמן אחת ורקיק אחד, identifying חלות and רקיקין directly and proposing that שמן implies רבוכה because of its greater oil content. רב אויא challenges that שמן might mean אנטא דמשחא, and the *Gemara* instead derives רבוכה through the linkage of the Kohen Gadol’s *chavitin* to priestly inauguration via זה קרבן אהרן ובניו אשר יקריבו לה' ביום המשח אותו, establishing that just as the Kohen Gadol’s offering is רבוכה, so too the *chinuch* of a Kohen Hedyot is רבוכה.
- Rav Chisda says a Kohen Gadol beginning service needs שתי עשרונות האיפה, one for the daily *chavitin* associated with המשחו and one for his *chinuch*. מר בר רב אשי says he needs three *esronim*, and the *Gemara* reconciles the statements by distinguishing whether he previously served as a Kohen Hedyot. The case of three applies where he never did עבודה as a Kohen Hedyot, requiring a *chinuch* as Hedyot, a *chinuch* as Kohen Gadol, and the daily *chavitin*.
- A *baraita* learns from על זבח תודת שלמיו that the laws of *todah* bread extend to שלמי נזיר, yielding flour of ten Yerushalmi *kabin* and oil of a רביעית, since the *nazir* has only חלות and רקיקין and not רבוכה. The *Gemara* rejects extending “everything” from *todah* to *nazir* by using the word מצות as a limiting term, with Rav Pappa excluding רבוכה because it is not labeled מצות in the Torah’s phrasing. The school of רבי ישמעאל derives the same exclusion via כלל ופרט from וסל מצות סולת חלות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משוחים בשמן, concluding אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט.
- The *mishnah* rules that if the תודה is slaughtered inside while its bread is חוץ לחומה, the bread is not sanctified, and if it is slaughtered before the loaves קרמו פניה בתנור, the bread is not sanctified, even if all but one loaf crusted. רבי יוחנן defines חוץ לחומה as outside חומת בית פאגי, while ריש לקיש defines it as outside חומת העזרה, grounding his view in reading על as בסמוך from על זבח תודת שלמיו. Rabbi Yochanan does not require על as בסמוך, and Rashi explains that being outside Jerusalem is a מקום not ראוי לאכילה, creating a פסול of יוצא that prevents sanctification, while being outside the *azarah* does not, since the bread is eaten throughout Jerusalem. A *baraita* supports רבי יוחנן by specifying חוץ לחומת בית פאגי.
- The *Gemara* connects the wall dispute to the dispute in Pesachim about השוחט את הפסח על החמץ, where ריש לקיש requires the *chametz* to be עמו בעזרה and רבי יוחנן does not. The *Gemara* says צריכא to teach both contexts because רבי יוחנן’s stringency by *chametz* could be due to דכל היכא דאיתיה באיסורא קאי, while he might still agree to require proximity for sanctifying *todah* bread, and ריש לקיש’s proximity requirement for sanctification could have been thought irrelevant to *chametz* since its איסור is uniform everywhere. The *shiur* cites the קרן אורה’s uncertainty whether רבי יוחנן might still require the *chametz* to be in Jerusalem and רבי עקיבא איגר’s response in מהדורא קמא סימן קעו that it is a דבר פשוט that רבי יוחנן treats *chametz* anywhere as violating לא תשחט על חמץ דם זבחי.
- A *baraita* derives from על חלות לחם חמץ that the bread sanctifies only if it has קרמו פניה בתנור, from יקריב קרבנו על זבח that sanctification occurs at שחיטת הזבח, and from זבח תודת that שחיטה שלא לשמה does not sanctify the bread. Another *baraita* states that one may be יוצא with מצה נא and מצה made in an אילפס, and שמואל defines מצה נא as bread that when broken does not produce strings of dough. Rava applies the same threshold to *lachmei todah*, and the *Gemara* explains the novelty as rejecting the thought that because the Torah requires taking one whole loaf, insufficient baking might be treated as inherently “broken.”
- A dispute arises where a תודה is slaughtered on eighty loaves: חזקיה says forty of the eighty are sanctified, and רבי יוחנן says forty of the eighty are not sanctified, meaning none are sanctified. רבי זירא explains that all agree explicit intent governs, so if one says ליקדשו ארבעים מתוך שמונים then sanctification occurs, and if one says אל יקדשו ארבעים אלא אם כן יקדשו שמונים then none sanctify, and the dispute is in סתמא whether the person intends לאחריות or intends a קרבן גדול. Abaye explains the dispute as whether a כלי שרת can sanctify what is fit for it שלא מדעת הבעלים, with חזקיה allowing sanctification of the fit forty and רבי יוחנן requiring the owner’s intent. Rav Pappa offers one version where all agree כלי שרת מקדש שלא מדעת and the dispute is whether a סכין is מקדש as a כלי שרת given that it lacks a תוך, and another version where all agree כלי שרת is not מקדש אלא מדעת and the dispute is whether a סכין is stronger than a כלי שרת and can sanctify even without דעת despite lacking a תוך. Tosafot raises the issue of *bererah* with רבי יוחנן’s view and answers that it is not *bererah* because no selection of forty ever occurs and all eighty must be treated with קדושה.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions