Menachos 80
Summary
- שלום to all today’s דף יומי is דף פ, beginning on עט עמוד ב with שלח רב חנינא משמיה דרבי יוחנן, and the learning is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה. The משנה defines ולד תודה, תמורת תודה, and חליפת תודה, and the גמרא analyzes when these variants of תודה are brought with לחם and when they are not. רבי יוחנן is presented as holding that before כפרה certain cases require לחם, while after כפרה they do not, and the sugya tests which case this statement addresses and ties it to the principle אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש. שמואל is framed as rejecting רבי יוחנן’s principle, and later רבא, אביי, ור’ זירא extend the rules to complex replacement scenarios and to חטאת, and the sugya ends with an unresolved case of a תודה mixed with its תמורה where one animal dies and the other remains without an apparent תקנה, alongside several rejected proposals made before רבי.
- שלום to all today’s דף יומי is דף פ and the start point is עט עמוד ב about three lines up from the bottom at שלח רב חנינא משמיה דרבי יוחנן. The דף is sponsored לעילוי נשמת מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה and her נשמה should have an עליה.
- The משנה lists three animals that have a status connected to תודה: ולד תודה as the child born to a female תודה, תמורת תודה as the animal created when קדושה is attempted to be transferred to another animal and both animals retain קדושה, and חליפת תודה as the case where the original תודה is lost, a new one is designated, and then the original is found.
- The גמרא brings a ברייתא stating that when a תודה is lost, a new one is designated, and then the original is found, either one may be brought, but only one set of לחם is brought. The ברייתא derives that ולד תודה, חליפת תודה, and תמורת תודה are brought as a תודה but without לחם.
- Rav Ḥanina says in the name of רבי יוחנן that the rule of lacking לחם applies only after כפרה, but before כפרה it is טעונה לחם. The גמרא clarifies that this statement needs identification of which specific category it addresses.
- Rav Amram asks what רבי יוחנן refers to and first proposes חליפת תודת חובה, but the גמרא rejects this because the ברייתא already teaches the distinctions of לפני כפרה and לאחר כפרה for a case that is clearly תודת חובה due to the presence of replacement obligation. The גמרא then proposes חליפת תודת נדבה and rejects it because whether before or after כפרה it would still require לחם since מריב בתודות הוא and the second animal is treated as a new תודה rather than a true replacement.
- The גמרא proposes ולד תודת נדבה and rejects it because whether before or after כפרה it is אינה טעונה לחם since it is מותר תודה. Rav Amram then establishes that רבי יוחנן refers to ולד תודת חובה, where לפני כפרה טעונה לחם and לאחר כפרה אינה טעונה לחם, because the ולד can function as a replacement due to the owner’s אחריות in a חובה case and thus can attain the elevated status of a regular תודה when used before the mother’s כפרה.
- The g’mara explains that the חידוש is that רבי יוחנן holds אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש, meaning a person can receive כפרה through the increase or benefit to הקדש such as a ולד of a consecrated animal. Abaye is described as having asked and answered the question in the same way, and the sugya adds an explicit statement: אמר יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן that חלופי תודה ונדבה always require לחם because מרבה תודה הוא, that ולד תודה נדבה never requires לחם because מותר תודה הוא, and that ולד תודת חובה requires לחם only before כפרה and not after.
- Shmuel states that any case where by חטאת it would be left to die, by תודה it does not require לחם, and an additional clause is introduced about cases where חטאת is רועה implying that by תודה it would require לחם. A challenge is raised from the ברייתא about a lost-and-found replacement case where the חטאת is treated as רועה while the second תודה lacks לחם, and the sugya answers by aligning Shmuel with רבי and then questions how רועה would exist according to רבי, answering with ריש לקיש’s case of designating two חטאות for אחריות where the second grazes. Another challenge is raised from the תודה analogue where the second תודה would not require לחם, and the sugya concludes that Shmuel actually follows רבי שמעון and that the רועה clause was not said, so Shmuel’s teaching is only that כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעון לחם. The sugya states that this comes לאפוקי מרבי יוחנן and denies אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש.
- Rava rules that if one says זו תודה וזו לחמה and the לחם is lost he brings new לחם, but if the תודה is lost he does not bring another תודה because לחם בגלל תודה ואין תודה בגלל לחם and the case is not a נדר of הרי עלי. Rava also rules that leftover money designated for תודתו may be used for לחם, but leftover money designated for לחמי תודה may not be used for a תודה. The g’mara rejects attributing this to Rav Kahana’s verse-proof that לחמי תודה are called תודה and answers that לחם איקרי תודה but תודה לא איקרי לחם.
- Rava presents a case of three sequentially designated תודות where the first is lost and replaced, the second is lost and replaced, and then the first two are found so all three stand. Rava rules that if he is נתכפר בראשונה the second lacks לחם and the third requires לחם, if he is נתכפר בשלישית the second lacks לחם and the first requires לחם, and if he is נתכפר במצעית then both the first and third lack לחם because the bread of the second exempts the first and the third is connected to the second. Abaye argues that regardless of which one he uses, the other two never require לחם because כולהו חליפי דהדדי נינהו.
- R’ Zira states וכן לענין חטאת with an analogous three-animal replacement chain. R’ Zira rules that if he is מתכפר בראשונה the second dies and the third grazes, if he is מתכפר בשלישית the second dies and the first grazes, and if he is מתכפר במצעית then both the first and third die. Abaye again argues that whichever one is used the other two die because כולהו חליפי דהדדי נינהו. The g’mara asks what “וכן” adds and answers that one might have thought the תודה case differs because one can say מרבה בתודות הוא, while in חטאת one cannot say מרבה בחטאות הוא since a חטאת is not brought as a נדבה, and R’ Zira teaches the דין still parallels.
- R’ Ḥiyya teaches that if a תודה is mixed with its תמורה and one dies, the surviving animal has no remedy because bringing לחם risks that it is a תמורה and omitting לחם risks that it is a תודה. The g’mara clarifies that the case is where the owner said הרי זו, making it a נדבה, because if he had said הרי עלי there would be a solution by bringing another animal and bread and stipulating outcomes. Those who learn before רבי, identified as לוי, propose bringing bread and stipulating that if the survivor is a תמורה the bread becomes חולין, and רבי rejects it because one may not bring חולין לעזרה. לוי proposes bringing a new animal and bread and stipulating that the new animal becomes שלמים if unnecessary, and רבי rejects it משום דקא ממעיט באכילה דשלמים. לוי proposes bringing a new animal and bread and stipulating that the new animal becomes מותר תודה if unnecessary, and רבי rejects it with כמדומה אני שאין לו מוח בקדקדו and the rule that one does not designate initially for מותרות, and the sugya stops with further suggestions to continue tomorrow.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions