THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) THE "TEMURAH" OF A "TODAS NEDAVAH"
OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses different types of unusual Korbenos Todah,
such as a Chilufei Todah (a substitute animal that was designated to take
the place of a Korban Todah that became lost, and the original animal was
later found), a Velad Todah (the calf born to a Todah), and Temuras Todah
(an animal that was made "Temurah" for a Korban Todah). The Gemara says that
a Chilufei Todas *Chovah* (that is, a Todah that one must bring due to his
Neder in which he stated, "Harei Alai"; this type of pledge obligates him to
replace the animal if it becomes lost) requires Lachmei Todah if the
original animal was not yet brought. A Chilufei Todas *Nedavah* (a Todah
that one must bring due to his freewill Nedavah in which he stated, "Harei
Zo"; this type of pledge does not require him to replace the animal if it is
lost) is brought with Lachmei Todah whether it is offered before or after
the original animal was found and offered. A Velad Todas Nedavah does not
require Lachmei Todah, and a Velad Todas Chovah requires Lachmei Todah if
its mother was not yet offered.
The Gemara, however, does not discuss whether or not the Temuras Todah must
be brought with Lachmei Todah. What is the Halachah?
(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 12:8) says that a Temuras Todah
has the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah. If it is a Temuras Todas Chovah,
then it requires Lachmei Todah, if its mother was not yet brought. If it is
a Temuras Todas Nedavah, then it is always brought with Lachmei Todah.
(b) The KEREN ORAH, SEFAS EMES, and others have difficulty with the Rambam's
conclusion. It is true that a Temurah does not seem to be similar to a Velad
Todah, since the reason why a Velad Todas Chovah requires Lachmei Todah is
because a person may bring the Velad in order to fulfill his obligation to
bring a Korban Todah. In contrast, a person cannot bring a Temuras Todah in
order to fulfill his obligation to bring a Korban Todah. However, a Temuras
Todah also does not seem to have the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah
either. The Gemara says that the reason why one brings Lachmei Todah
whenever he brings a Chilufei Todas Nedavah is because he did not have to
replace his lost Korban, because it was a Nedavah ("Harei Zo"). The fact
that he decided to dedicate another Korban anyway shows that he wanted to
bring another full-fledged Korban Todah, including the Lachmei Todah. In
contrast, when a person tries to transfer the Kedushah of his originally
designated animal onto a second animal, a Temurah, his attempt is
unsuccessful because the Torah says that, in the case of a Temurah, *both*
animals become Kadosh. Accordingly, the person has no intention to bring two
full-fledged Todos. It is therefore logical that once we have a verse (see
79b) that excludes a Temuras Todah from being brought with Lachmei Todah, we
should say that the verse applies to all circumstances of a Temuras Todah,
whether or not the original animal was already brought.
There is a clear proof to this opinion from the Gemara later (80b). The
Gemara discusses a case in which a Todah became mixed up with the animal
that was its Temurah, and one of them died. The Gemara says that the
remaining animal cannot be brought. The reason is as follows. If the
remaining animal is the original Todah, then it requires Lachmei Todah. If,
on the other hand, it is the Temurah, then it does not require Lachmei
Todah. The Gemara concludes that the case must be when the original Todah
was a Nedavah. This means that a Temuras Todas Nedavah does not require
Lachmei Todah even if it is brought before the owner brought the original
animal (since, in this case, it died). This is unlike the Rambam's ruling
that a Temuras Todas Nedavah is *always* brought with Lachmei Todah.
Moreover, the Rambam himself rules in accordance with this Gemara (Hilchos
Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 12:13), agreeing that the case is that of a Nedavah and
that the remaining animal cannot be brought!
The RASHASH says that this question on the Rambam is "Tzarich Iyun Gadol."
(The CHAZON ISH (Temurah 33:7) says that the only way to resolve this
difficulty is by suggesting that the words in the Rambam, that a Temuras
Todah has the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah, were inserted in error. The
Keren Orah also alludes to this possibility.) (Y. Montrose)
2) BRINGING OBJECTS OF "BEDEK HA'BAYIS" INTO THE "AZARAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a Todah became mixed up with
the animal that was designated as its Temurah, and one of them died. The
Gemara says that the remaining animal cannot be brought. If the remaining
animal is the original Todah, then it requires Lachmei Todah. If, on the
other hand, it is the Temurah, then it does not require Lachmei Todah. Levi
asks Rebbi that there is a way to bring the remaining animal. The owner
should bring the remaining animal together with the Lachmei Todah, and state
a condition: if the remaining animal is the original Todah, then this is the
Lachmei Todah needed to accompany it. If it is the Temuras Todah, then this
Lachmei Todah is Chulin. Rebbi answered Levi that it is prohibited to bring
Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore Levi's suggestion is not possible.
TOSFOS (DH v'Chi) has another suggestion. The owner should bring the Lachmei
Todah conditionally, by saying that if the remaining animal is the original
Todah, then this is its Lachmei Todah. If the remaining animal is the
Temuras Todah, then the Lachmei Todah is hereby donated to Bedek ha'Bayis.
In this case, it would be permitted to bring the Lachmei Todah into the
Azarah, and thus the animal could be brought as a Korban!
(a) TOSFOS answers that even though we find that such a condition may be
made in other situations of doubt, we may only use such a condition when the
item being brought is not really a Korban. When the item being brought is
part of a regular Korban, then we say that the prohibition against bringing
Chulin into the Azarah still applies, and it cannot be offset by such a
condition. (According to Tosfos, the Isur to bring an object of Chulin into
the Azarah applies mainly to an object of a Korban. Thus, Tosfos writes that
it is permitted to wear one's normal Chulin shirt when he enters the
The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#23) explains further that when one brings his
Bikurim to the Beis ha'Mikdash and states that some of the fruit should be
Kadosh as Bedek ha'Bayis, the Kedushah of the Bikurim fruit is not
significantly different from the Kedushah of the Bedek ha'Bayis fruit, and
thus it does not appear as though one is bringing Chulin into the Azarah.
However, when the object is being brought conditionally because it might not
be a Korban (or part of a Korban), then it is apparent that it is of much
lesser Kedushah, and thus it is considered Chulin in the Azarah.
(b) TOSFOS in Bava Basra (81b, DH d'Makdish) gives a slightly different
answer. He explains that when one brings forty loaves comprised of four
different types (the Lachmei Todah), a condition does not help to
disassociate the breads from being part of the Korban. This is because it is
extremely uncommon for a person to donate for Bedek ha'Bayis exactly the
same number and same types of loaves as the Lachmei Todah that are brought
with a Todah. However, it is not uncommon for a person to donate fruit to
Bedek ha'Bayis. Therefore, the condition in the case of Bikurim works to
make the fruit of Bedek ha'Bayis considered to be Hekdesh in the Azarah,
since everyone views it as Hekdesh. (See also MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos
Shechitah 3:2.) (Y. Montrose)