Menachos 81
Summary
- Shalom to all, today’s daf is Menachos 81, starting at the top line with *yisav v’Yitzchak*, and it is sponsored *l’iluy nishmas* מרת מרים שרה בת יעקב משה הירש הירניש ע״ה, that her נשמה should have an עליה. Rabbi Chiya teaches that when a person has a קרבן תודה and made a תמורה, and one of them died with the survivor unidentified, the remaining animal cannot be brought either with לחם or without לחם, and repeated conditional proposals to resolve the ספק are rejected. The daf then turns to cases of verbal commitments about bringing a תודה and its לחמים, how wording determines obligations, and whether components may be funded from חולין or מעשר שני, including a dispute about using wheat bought with מעשר שני money for לחמי תודה and how to read the comparison of תודה to שלמים.
- A case stands where one animal is the original תודה and the other is its תמורה, one died, and the owner does not know which survived, so the survivor cannot be offered with לחם because it might be a תמורה and cannot be offered without לחם because it might be the original תודה. A proposed solution brought before Rav Nachman suggests bringing a new animal and לחם and stipulating that if the survivor is the תמורה then the new animal and bread serve as a תודה with its לחם, and if the survivor is the תודה then the new bread is its לחם and the new animal becomes a תמורה. Rav Nachman rejects it because it requires intentionally making תמורה and incurs מלקות, expressed as “ארבעים בכתפיה וכשר?”
- A further proposal offered during the illness of רבי אלע assumes רבי יוחנן’s view that לחמי תודה are קדוש even when outside the wall of the עזרה, and suggests bringing the breads, leaving them outside, and stipulating that if the survivor is a תודה the breads become its לחם and if not they remain חולין. רבי אלע rejects it because four loaves must be waved as the תרומה for the כהן, and tenufah must be “לפני ה׳” inside the עזרה, which would force חולין into the עזרה if the breads are not actually required. The conclusion is הלכך לא אפשר.
- Rav Sheshes son of Rav Idi proposes relying on חזקיה’s rule that when eighty loaves are brought for one תודה without specification, forty become קדוש. He suggests bringing a new animal with eighty loaves and stipulating that if the survivor is the תודה then the new animal is also a תודה and the eighty loaves serve both, and if the survivor is the תמורה then the new animal is the תודה and only forty out of the eighty become קדוש. The proposal is rejected משום דקא ממעיט באכילה דארבעים, with explanations that the arrangement creates confusion or practical limits in how the loaves are eaten by the entitled כהנים and risks leaving over נותר.
- Rav Ashi suggests to Rav Kahana using רבי יוחנן’s ruling about a pregnant חטאת that gives birth, where one may be מכפר with either the mother or the child, to build a solution for the תודה case by designating a pregnant animal as a new תודה, waiting for birth, bringing eighty loaves, and structuring תנאים so loaves attach correctly while a third animal becomes מותר תודה. Rav Kahana rejects this because it is uncertain that רבי יוחנן holds “אם שיירו משויר” in a way that allows choosing to treat the offspring as a full תודה, and because רבי יוחנן’s rationale for חטאת is “אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש,” which does not transfer to תודה.
- Ravina in דמהריא hears a suggestion from Rav Dimi son of Rav Huna of דמהריא to resolve the ספק by creating a new obligation through saying “הרי עלי” and designating an animal as that vowed תודה, then bringing another animal with eighty loaves and making תנאים so that in one scenario two newly brought animals are תודות with the breads, and in the other scenario the vowed animal and the original survivor are the two תודות while the extra animal serves as אחריות and needs no breads. Ravina rejects invoking a neder l’chat’chilah, citing “טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם,” and concludes that none of the eight suggestions work, leaving Rabbi Chiya’s ruling that there is no way to offer the surviving animal.
- A Mishnah teaches that one who says “הרי עלי תודה” brings it and its לחם מן החולין. A person who says “תודה מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר” still brings both from חולין because once the תודה is obligated from חולין, its required לחם is drawn with it. A person who says “תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין” brings as vowed, and one who says “היא ולחמה מן המעשר” also brings as vowed, but the breads are not brought from חיטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני.
- Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi rules that one who says “הרי עלי לחמי תודה” must bring a תודה ולחמה because people know לחם בלא תודה לא מיקרב and the phrase “לחמי תודה” is understood as taking on the entire required package, with the speaker merely stating the סוף. Rav Huna challenges from the Mishnah’s allowance of “תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין,” asking why the bread clause does not pull the whole offering into חולין, and the Gemara answers that since he first said “תודה מן המעשר” it is as if he said “הרי עלי לחם לפטור תודתו של פלוני,” which is allowed. The Gemara rejects applying the same logic to the earlier case “תודה מן החולין ולחמו מן המעשר” because “תודה לפטור לחם” does not exist, since לחם cannot be brought without תודה.
- A beraisa states that one who says “הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם” or “זבח בלא נסכים” is compelled to bring תודה ולחמה and זבח ונסכיו. The Gemara maintains the rule would apply even if he only said the breads, and explains the beraisa’s wording is chosen because the parallel “נסכים בלא זבח” is valid while “זבח בלא נסכים” is the needed case to teach. A question asks why the vow is not treated as “נדר ופתחו עמו,” meaning the second phrase cancels the first, and חזקיה answers that the beraisa follows בית שמאי who hold תפס לשון ראשון, supported by the case “הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבילה” where בית שמאי say he is a נזיר and בית הלל say he is not. רבי יוחנן says the beraisa can fit בית הלל when the speaker says “אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרים כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך,” and “כופין” refers to a case where he then tries to retract, but a subsequent beraisa explicitly aligns with בית שמאי and ends with “שמור ושמעת,” which אביי reads as obligating תודה and then its לחם, while רבא reads “שמור” as obligating both and “ושמעת” as instructing not to become accustomed to making such formulations.
- The Gemara clarifies that “היא ולחמה מן המעשר יביא” means רצה מביא לא רצה לא יביא, and Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda limit the rule “ולא יביא מחיטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני” to wheat that itself was מעשר שני, while allowing wheat purchased with מעות מעשר שני. רבי ירמיה repeats this before רבי זירא, and רבי זירא disagrees and says even wheat bought with מעות מעשר שני should not be used, presenting two ways to apply the derivation that תודה is learned from שלמים and שלמים is linked to מעשר by גזירה שוה of “שם שם.” רבי זירא’s position excludes חיטין הנלקחות במעות מעשר שני as “דמן המעשר נינהו,” and he explains that the permitted case is where the מעשר שני money is used to purchase wheat designated specifically for לחם התודה, while wheat first bought for regular use and later redirected to לחמי תודה is not acceptable.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions