Menachos 81 - NBTD
00:00 - Good Morning
00:13 - Introduction
02:04 - 81A
20:13 - 81B
37:17 - Have a Wonderful Day!
Quiz - Kahoot.MDYdaf.com
Summary
- A speaker learning *sugya* in Menachos explains Rabbi Chiya’s ruling that when a *todah* and its *temurah* become indistinguishable and one animal dies, the remaining animal is an irresolvable *safek* because a *todah* requires bread and a *temurah* brings no bread, so there is no workable way to offer it. The Gemara proceeds through successive proposed solutions and rejects them on technical grounds such as the need for *tenufah* “לפני ה'” and the prohibition of bringing חולין into the *azarah*, as well as the prohibition of reducing the permitted eating time. The shiur then transitions to related Mishnayos and Gemara about vows of *todah* and its bread and whether they may be funded from *maaser sheni*, including how statements focusing only on the bread obligate the animal, how contradictory phrasing is handled via Beis Shammai and Rabbi Yochanan’s approach, and a dispute about whether wheat purchased with *maaser sheni* funds may be used for *todah* bread.
- A person designates one animal as a *todah* and then makes a second animal a *temurah*, and the two animals are mixed up so their identities are unknown. Rabbi Chiya holds that if one of the two animals dies, the surviving animal remains a *safek* whether it is a valid *todah* or a *temurah*, and the owner cannot proceed because bread cannot be brought for a *temurah* and a *todah* cannot be offered without bread. The shiur places the Gemara at Menachos פ״א עמוד א, six lines from the top, in attempt number five out of eight attempts.
- Rav Ila becomes weak and visitors come to him for *bikur cholim*, including Abaye and the Rabbanan, and an *eitzah* is proposed based on Rabbi Yochanan’s view that bread can become *kadosh* even when placed חוץ לחומת העזרה at the time of *shechitah*. The suggestion is to bring the breads, leave them outside the *azarah*, and stipulate that if the surviving animal is a *todah* then the breads become consecrated for it, and if not they remain חולין, thereby avoiding חולין בעזרה. The Gemara rejects this because four breads must be given and waved, and *tenufah* must be done “לפני ה',” so waving outside fails and bringing them inside risks הכנסת חולין לעזרה, and therefore “הלכך לא אפשר.”
- Rav Shisha brei d’Rav Idi proposes using Chizkiyah’s ruling that when someone brings eighty loaves, forty can become sanctified מתוך שמונים. The plan is to bring another animal and eighty loaves and make a condition so that whether the surviving animal is a *todah* or a *temurah*, the breads can be allocated through the rule of forty-out-of-eighty. The Gemara rejects this “משום דקא ממעט באכילה דארבעים,” because the arrangement creates a prohibited reduction of the permitted eating parameters by forcing a framework that shortens or constricts consumption, which the shiur parallels to the rule against treating a two-day *shelamim* like a one-day *todah*.
- Rav Ashi suggests to Rav Kahana an approach based on Rabbi Yochanan’s statement about a pregnant *chatat* that gives birth, “רוצה בה מתכפר רוצה בולדה מתכפר,” tied to the idea that the fetus may be treated as distinct. The proposed *eitzah* is to bring a pregnant animal, wait until it gives birth, bring eighty loaves, and stipulate allocations so that if the surviving original animal is a *temurah* then the mother and offspring become two *todah* offerings with eighty loaves, and if the original is a *todah* then the mother becomes a *todah* with forty loaves while the offspring becomes *mosar todah*. The Gemara rejects this by challenging the premise that Rabbi Yochanan holds the fetus is “שיורי משויר,” suggesting instead “דלמא שיורי אינו משויר” and that Rabbi Yochanan’s point is “אדם מתכפר בשבח הקדש,” meaning the offspring’s use is as *shevach hekdesh* rather than a separately designated entity, so the offspring falls under a category that does not generate bread in the needed way.
- Ravina travels to דמהריא and Rav Dimi brei d’Rav Huna miD’mahar’ya proposes bringing an animal with a new commitment of “הרי עלי,” then bringing another animal and eighty loaves and making conditions that would cover all outcomes, with one animal designated “לאחריות.” Ravina rejects encouraging new vows by citing “התורה אמרה טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם,” and challenges the proposal as creating unnecessary *nedarim*.
- The Mishnah rules that one who says “הרי עלי תודה” brings both the animal and the bread מן החולין. The Mishnah distinguishes cases where the speaker specifies “תודה עלי מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר,” which still requires both from חולין because the bread becomes a *chovah*, versus “תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין,” which is permitted “יביא,” and also “היא ולחמה מן המעשר,” which is likewise “יביא.” The Mishnah adds “ולא יביא מחטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני,” requiring the bread not be made from *maaser sheni* wheat itself but rather from wheat purchased with *maaser sheni* money.
- Rav Huna teaches that one who says “הרי עלי לחמי תודה” must bring *todah* and bread, because “מידע ידעי האי גברא דלחם בלא תודה לא יקרב,” so the statement is understood as intending both and “סוף מלתא נקט.” The Gemara tests this against the Mishnah’s case “תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין” and answers that when someone already says “תודה מן המעשר,” the addition of “לחמה” is treated differently as “נעשה כמי שאמר הרי עלי לחם לפטור תודתו של פלוני,” creating a separate framing for the bread. The Gemara rejects extending the symmetry to “תודה מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר” by explaining that bread can be an add-on to fulfill a *todah* obligation, but “תודה לפטור לחם יעשה?” is not a meaningful construct.
- A Baraisa states that one who says “הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם” is compelled to bring a *todah* with bread, and similarly one who says an offering without *nesachim* is compelled to bring them. The Gemara raises the issue of *pesach charatah* and explains the coercion through Chizkiyah’s attribution to Beis Shammai, “תפוס לשון ראשון,” supported by the Mishnah case “הריני נזיר מן הגרוגרות ומן הדבלה,” where Beis Shammai treats him as a *nazir* based on the first words. Rabbi Yochanan offers a Beis Hillel-compatible reading where the person clarifies “אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרים כך לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך,” but a further Baraisa where he says “אילו הייתי יודע שכן לא הייתי נודר” creates a “קשיא” for Rabbi Yochanan until he answers that this Baraisa follows Beis Shammai. Abaye explains “שמור הוי תודה” and “ושמעת הוי לחם,” while Rava says “שמור הוי תודה ולחם” and “ושמעת” is a warning “שלא תהא רגיל לעשות כן.”
- The Gemara clarifies that when the Mishnah says “תודה היא ולחם מן המעשר יביא,” Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak interprets it as “רצה מביא לא רצה לא יביא,” allowing either *maaser sheni* funds or חולין funds. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak also limits the Mishnah’s restriction to “מחיטה מעשר שני” itself while permitting “מחיטה הנלקחת ממעות מעשר שני,” and Rabbi Ami reports this to Rabbi Zeira. Rabbi Zeira disagrees and says “אפילו מחיטי הלקוחות במעות מעשר שני לא יביא,” and they explain their reasoning by deriving *todah* from *shelamim* via “ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו” and the *gezera shavah* “שם שם,” with one side arguing that wheat purchased with *maaser sheni* money “אין גופן מעשר” and the other arguing “מה שלמים אינו מן מעשר… אף תודה אינו מן מעשר,” excluding wheat as “דמן מעשר נינהו.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions