Menachos 82
Summary
- Today’s learning continues in *Menaḥot* daf פ״ב from eight lines before the bottom of daf פ״א עמוד ב׳ and centers on the *korban toda* and whether its *laḥmei toda* may be sourced from *maaser sheni*. The text distinguishes between obligations created by *harei alai* and designations created by *harei zu*, applies the rule that *kol davar shebeḥovah eino ba ela min haḥullin*, and analyzes the Mishnah’s language about bringing the offering and bread “*min hamaaser*.” It then presents an Amoraic dispute about whether wheat purchased with *maot maaser sheni* may be used when it was not originally bought with intent for *laḥmei toda*, and it moves to a separate sugya about whether declaring *maot maaser sheni* “for *shelamim*” creates *kedushat shelamim* on the money. The latter section ties the issue to the Tannaitic dispute between רבי יהודה and רבי מאיר about whether *maaser sheni* is *mamon hedyot* or *mamon gavoha*, and it concludes with the Mishnah’s derivation from the verse וזבחת פסח לה' אלקיך צאן ובקר and a Baraita debate between רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא about learning “from *Pesaḥ Mitzrayim*” and the principle that *ein meshivin al hahekesh*.
- A *korban toda* is a *korban shelamim* with unique rules, because while *shelamim* as *kodashim kalim* are eaten for two days and one night, the *toda* is eaten for one day and one night. A *korban toda* comes with *laḥmei toda*, totaling forty breads across four *minim* of ten each, with ten *ḥametz* and thirty *matza*. A person seeks to fulfill the obligation of *laḥmei toda* using wheat of *maaser sheni* and the Mishnah frames the permissibility around whether the obligation is created by *harei alai* or by *harei zu*.
- *Maaser sheni* is separated depending on the year of the *shemitta* cycle and differs from *teruma*, *maaser rishon*, *bikkurim*, and *ḥalla* because it is not given to a *kohen* or *levi* but is brought to ירושלים to be eaten there. A person may live outside ירושלים and still must bring the produce to ירושלים, but when transporting produce risks spoilage the Torah allows transferring the *kedusha* onto money through *pidyon maaser sheni* done outside ירושלים. A person then brings the money to ירושלים and buys food there, and the foods purchasable with *maot maaser sheni* are addressed in a Mishnah in מסכת עירובין.
- A declaration of *harei alai* creates a *ḥovat gavra* that renders the obligation a *davar shebeḥovah* and triggers the rule that *kol davar shebeḥovah eino ba ela min haḥullin*, so *maaser sheni* cannot be used because it is not *ḥullin*. A declaration of *harei zu* designates the specific animal or wheat without creating a personal obligation, and the Mishnah’s presentation implies that use of *maaser sheni* can be valid in that framework. A case where the person explicitly states he will bring the offering and its breads *min hamaaser* leads into the Gemara’s interpretation of the Mishnah’s word יביא.
- The Mishnah states הביא ולחמו מן המעשר יביא, and the Gemara asks whether יביא implies an obligation to bring specifically from *maaser*. רב נחמן and רב חסדא interpret it as permission rather than requirement, stating רצה מייתי לא רצה לא מייתי. The Mishnah then rules ולא יביא מחיטי מעשר שני אלא ממעות מעשר שני, requiring that even when *maaser sheni* may be used for *laḥmei toda*, it cannot be the original wheat with *kedushat maaser sheni* but must come via *maot maaser sheni*.
- רב נחמן and רב חסדא say the Mishnah’s restriction applies only to original חיטי מעשר שני, but wheat purchased with *maot maaser sheni* may be used for *laḥmei toda*. רב ירמיה repeats this to רב זירא, and רב זירא rejects it by saying even חיטין הלקוחות ממעות מעשר שני may not be used when they were not purchased with intent for *laḥmei toda*. רב זירא explains that the permitted use of *maaser sheni* for *toda* derives from *shelamim* via שם שם ממעשר and argues either that *toda* must parallel *shelamim* as אין מין מעשר, excluding wheat bought with *maot maaser sheni* because it remains מין מעשר. רב ירמיה’s position treats the exclusion as limited to אין גופה מעשר, so wheat purchased with *maot maaser sheni* is not the original “body” of the tithe produce and remains eligible.
- רב אמי rules that one who is המדפיס מעות מעשר שני לשלמים does not acquire *kedushat shelamim* on the money because דלא אלמה קדושת שלמים למיכל אקדושת מעשר שני. A Mishnah in מסכת מעשר שני פרק א משנה ד about הלוקח חיה לזבחי שלמים appears to imply that *kedushat shelamim* takes effect, but the Gemara cites רב who says לא קנו שלמים and reinterprets לא יצאו עור לחולין as meaning the transaction fails to transfer even *kedushat maaser sheni*. רבא explains this as נעשה כמי שלקח שור לחרישה, where buying an improper item with *maot maaser sheni* prevents any *kedusha* from transferring.
- The Gemara presents a dispute: רב יוחנן says המתיפיס מעשר שני לשלמים קני while רב אלעזר says לא קני, aligning רב אלעזר with רב אמי against רב יוחנן. The Gemara connects the issue to רבי יהודה and רבי מאיר on whether *maaser sheni* is *mamon hedyot* or *mamon gavoha*, illustrated through the question of whether one can be מקדש אשה with *maot maaser sheni* as in *Kiddushin* daf נב. The Gemara states that according to רבי יהודה, who holds *maaser sheni* is *mamon hedyot*, the declaration should work and קני, while the dispute is framed as operating according to רבי מאיר who holds *mamon gavoha*. רב יוחנן argues that since *maaser sheni* funds can in practice become *shelamim* when used to buy them, a prior declaration can also be תופס as *kedushat shelamim*.
- A Baraita states that one who is המתיפיס מעות מעשר שני לשלמים, when redeeming them, adds שני חומשין, אחד לקודש ואחד למעשר, implying two layers of *kedusha*. The Gemara answers that this is not necessarily דברי הכל and identifies it as המני רבי יהודה היא. The resolution preserves the possibility that according to רבי מאיר the declaration may not create *kedushat shelamim*.
- The text returns to the prior day’s sugya about a *toda* and a *temurat toda* where one animal dies and the remaining animal’s identity is unknown, making it impossible to decide whether to bring *laḥmei toda*. רבי חייא’s ruling leaves no way to bring the animal, and the Gemara had limited this to a case of *harei zu* rather than *harei alai*. An attempted workaround presented to רבינא is rejected because it requires a fresh *neder* of *harei alai toda*, and רבינא cites תורה אמרה טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם and challenges the suggestion of initiating a *neder*.
- The text states that חז״ל discourage *nedarim* and cites the Mishnah in *Nedarim* about כנדרי רשעים and כנדרי כשרים and the Gemara’s statement that הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו הקריב עליה קרבן. The text presents exceptions where *nedarim* are appropriate, including תוספות חולין דף ב עמוד ב bringing a מדרש רבה from וידור יעקב נדר לאמר that מכאן שנודרים בעת צרה לאמר לדורות. The text cites פרקי אבות פרק ג משנה יג, “נדרים סייג לפרישות,” and attributes to the רמב״ם in הלכות נדרים פרק יג הלכה כג that one who makes *nedarim* כדי לכונן דעותיו ולתקן מעשיו is נאה ומשובח, with examples such as restricting meat, wine, gifts, or accepting נזירות to combat arrogance. The text brings the story of שמעון הצדיק who usually avoided eating from אשם נזיר טמא but praised a נזיר who accepted נזירות to overcome vanity, and it attributes to the כסף משנה that this story is the רמב״ם’s מקור.
- The text reports a תשובה in which a גדול rejects the claim that חז״ל made *nedarim* אסור in an absolute sense, arguing that חכמים cannot forbid what the תורה explicitly permits in its parshiyot of *nedarim* and *nezirus*. The text cites the ט״ז’s approach that חז״ל cannot enact a decree that would be מבטל a פסוק, and it compares this to issues such as מילה דוחה שבת, שופר, and ד׳ מינים with concerns like שמא יעבירנו ד׳ אמות ברשות הרבים. The text then challenges that framing by noting that even if *nedarim* are generally restricted there remain recognized exceptions such as נודרים בעת צרה and the רמב״ם’s model of *nedarim* for *perishut*, so the parsha is not eliminated.
- The Mishnah derives the rule that one who says הרי עלי תודה or הרי עלי שלמים must bring them only מן החולין from the verse וזבחת פסח לה' אלקיך צאן ובקר. The Mishnah asks how פסח can be from בקר when פסח is only מן הכבשים ומן העזים, and it answers that צאן ובקר refers to all offerings from flock and cattle that are compared to פסח. The Mishnah establishes that just as פסח is דבר שבחובה and אינו בא אלא מן החולין, so too any דבר שבחובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין, and it adds that נסכים בכל מקום לא יביאום אלא מן החולין.
- A Baraita records רבי אליעזר deriving פסח דורות being only מן החולין from פסח במצרים, asserting that since פסח מצרים was only from *ḥullin* so is פסח לדורות. רבי עקיבא challenges this with וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר, and רבי אליעזר responds that אף על פי שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה. רבי עקיבא raises an additional challenge that פסח מצרים differs because it lacked מתן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח, and רבי אליעזר answers with the verse ועבדת את העבודה הזאת בחודש הזה linking the עבודת הפסח in ארץ ישראל to the עבודת הפסח in מצרים. The Gemara explains that רבי עקיבא’s second challenge is stated לדבריו דרבי אליעזר, and it later frames רבי אליעזר’s use of ועבדת as invoking a היקש that cannot be refuted because אין משיבין על ההיקש. The Gemara then raises the issue of וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש and resolves it by treating פסח כולי חד מילתא so that all forms of פסח are grouped, preventing a chain of “hekesh-to-hekesh” teaching. The text ends by asking what רבי עקיבא’s own מקור is for פסח being אינו בא אלא מן החולין if he rejects רבי אליעזר’s initial מה מצינו based on אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions