Menachos 80 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:10 - Introduction
01:59 - 79B
04:28 - 80A
19:35 - 80B
37:07 - 81A
39:14 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- The text gives a running שיעור on דף ע״ט עמוד ב׳ into דף פ׳ עמוד א׳ about קרבן תודה and its forty breads when more than one תודה is present through offspring, תמורה, or replacement after loss, and it distinguishes between תודת חובה and תודת נדבה in determining when additional bread is required. It presents רבי יוחנן’s rule that before כפרה certain cases require bread for both, but after כפרה they do not, and it explains this through the principle אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש, while later setting שמואל against רבי יוחנן and limiting שמואל to a rule tied to cases where a חטאת would die. It then develops practical hierarchies that bread is subordinate to the תודה, extends the analysis to chains of multiple replacements for תודה and חטאת with disputes between Abaye and others about how far the “replacement linkage” extends, and ends with תני רב חייא’s case of a תודה mixed with its תמורה where one dies and the remaining animal has no solution, alongside repeated rejected proposals due to חולין בעזרה, ממעיט באכילה דשלמים, creating מותרות לכתחילה, or instructing an איסור תמורה.
- A תודה comes with forty breads when something good happened such as leaving jail, crossing the ocean, crossing the desert, or recovery, and the question is whether two תודות require two sets of forty breads. A משנה rules that when two תודות arise through an offspring or through doing a forbidden תמורה, only one set of breads is brought. A case of a lost תודה that is replaced and then the original is found before שחיטה leaves two animals present, and the owner may choose which one to shecht with the breads because both are in front of him.
- A report is sent in the name of רבי יוחנן that the משנה’s “no extra bread” applies only after כפרה, but before כפרה they are טעונים לחם. רב עמרם asks which case רבי יוחנן addresses, and the analysis distinguishes תודת חובה, where one says הרי עלי and remains obligated to bring a תודה even if the animal is lost, from תודת נדבה, where one says הרי זו and the obligation is only on that specific animal. The conclusion rejects applying רבי יוחנן to חילופי תודת חובה because the relevant outcomes are already taught, and it rejects applying it to חילופי תודת נדבה because that becomes מרבה בתודותיו and requires bread both before and after כפרה.
- The explanation settles on ולד תודת נדבה and ולד תודת חובה as the framework for רבי יוחנן’s statement. A ולד תודת נדבה is treated as מותר דתודה and therefore does not require bread either before or after כפרה because it remains subordinate to the mother’s תודה. A ולד תודת חובה requires bread before כפרה but not after כפרה, because before כפרה one may use the offspring for כפרה and that makes it require bread. A stated חידוש is that רבי יוחנן holds אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש, permitting כפרה through the offspring, and Abaye reaches the same reasoning.
- A חילופי תודת נדבה requires bread both before and after כפרה because the second animal is extra and constitutes מרבה בתודותיו. A ולד תודת נדבה requires no bread either before or after כפרה because it is מותר דתודה. A ולד תודת חובה requires bread before כפרה and no bread after כפרה.
- שמואל states כל שבחטאת מתה בתודה אין טעון לחם and initially presents an additional rule about cases where a חטאת would graze implying the תודה would require bread. The five חטאות מיתות are listed as ולד חטאת, תמורת חטאת, חטאת שמתה בעליה, חטאת שנתכפרו בעליה, and חטאת שעבר שנתה, and שמואל applies an analogous “no bread” rule to a תודה in those parallel situations. A contradiction is raised from a derasha on התודה יקריב and יקריבנו showing that when a lost תודה is replaced and then the original is found while both stand, only one gets bread, while the parallel חטאת case according to חכמים is רועה rather than dying, which would seem to trigger שמואל’s “grazing” rule.
- An answer proposes שמואל כרבי סבירא ליה, since רבי holds that when the original is lost at the time of designation and later found, the remaining one dies rather than grazes. The Gemara then asks how grazing exists for רבי and answers via רבי יאשיה’s case of הפריש שתי חטאות לאחריות, where one is used and the second grazes. The Gemara then rejects this as still conflicting and concludes שמואל כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה, because רבי שמעון treats the five חטאות as always dying so there is no true category of grazing for his view. The final formulation is that שמואל only said the first rule, כל שבחטאת מיתה בתודה אין טעון לחם, and the חידוש is that it excludes רבי יוחנן by denying bread in the scenario tied to ולד הקדש because the parallel ולד חטאת is a case of מיתה.
- Rav Abba rules that if one says זו תודה וזו לחמה and the bread is lost, he brings other bread, but if the animal is lost, he does not bring another animal to match the bread. The reason is stated as לחם לגלל תודה ואין תודה לגלל לחם, establishing the animal as עיקר and the bread as טפל.
- Rava rules that money designated לתודתו may be used for the תודה and, if there is leftover, for the breads as well. Money designated ללחמי תודה cannot be used to buy the animal even if there is leftover, because bread is included under תודה but תודה is not included under bread. A suggestion based on Rav Kahana’s derasha that לחמי תודה are called תודה from ויקריב על זבח התודה חלות is answered with the distinction לחם איקרי תודה, תודה לא איקרי לחם.
- Rava describes a case where a תודה is designated, lost, replaced, the replacement is lost, replaced again, and then all three are found standing. If כפרה is done with the first, the second does not require bread and the third does require bread because it is not linked directly to the first; if כפרה is done with the third, the second does not require bread and the first does; if כפרה is done with the middle, both outer ones do not require bread. Abaye argues that even if כפרה is done with any one of them, the other two do not require bread because כולהו חליפין דהדדי and the linkage runs through the chain.
- Rav Zeira states וכן לענין חטאת with an analogous three-animal chain: if כפרה is done with the first, the second dies and the third grazes; if with the third, the second dies and the first grazes; if with the middle, both die. Abaye again holds that no matter which one is used, the other two die because כולה חליפין דהדדי נינהו. The Gemara explains the need for “וכן” by saying that one might think תודה differs because one can say מרבה בתודה הוא, while one cannot say מרבה בחטאת הוא, and therefore the parallel teaches the linkage still applies.
- A case is taught that a תודה becomes mixed with its תמורה and one of them dies, leaving one animal whose status is uncertain. The remaining animal has no תקנה because bringing bread risks attaching bread to a תמורה, and omitting bread risks offering a true תודה without bread. The Gemara clarifies that the unsolved case is specifically where he said הרי זו, not הרי עלי, because with הרי עלי he could bring another animal and bread and stipulate which is the true תודה.
- A proposal to bring bread and stipulate is rejected as introducing חולין לעזרה if the animal is a תמורה. A proposal to bring another animal and make it שלמים on one side is rejected משום דקא ממעיט באכילה דשלמים, since the condition would force eating it like a תודה for one day rather than two. A proposal to bring another animal and label it מותר דתודה is rejected with וכי מפרישים לכתחילה למותרות. A proposal to solve it by making the second animal a תמורה is rejected because it instructs doing an איסור and incurring מלקות, framed as ארבעים מכתבי וכשרי. The text ends by saying the remaining attempted solutions continue into the next שיעור on דף פ״א עמוד א׳.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions