(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 78



(a) The Milu'im (the consecration of the Mishkan) required - the same three kinds of bread as the Matzah loaves of the Todah (Chalos, Rekikin and Revuchah).

(b) The Nezirus required two of the three - Chalos and Rekikin.

(c) The latter therefore comprised ten Kabin Yerushalmiyos (instead of fifteen).

(d) That is equivalent to six Esronim 'va'Aduyan' - which is another way of saying 'six Esronim plus', and refers to the extra two thirds (three and a third Esronim for each kind, like the Lachmei Todah).

(a) Rav Chisda Amar Rav Chama bar Gurya quotes the Pasuk (in connection with the Milu'im) "u'mi'Sal ha'Matzos Asher Lifnei Hashem Lakach Chalas Matzah Achas ve'Chalas Lechem Shemen Achas ve'Rakik Echad". It is unarguable - that "Chalas Matzah" is the equivalent of the Matzah Chalos of the Lachmei Todah, and the "Rakik", of the Matzah wafers there.

(b) Rav Chisda is trying to prove from "ve'Chalas Lechem Shemen Achas" - that they also brought the Revuchah.

(c) Rav Ivya however, refutes that by asking 'Eima Ansa de'Mishcha'. Besides an oily loaf, 'Ansa de'Mishchah' might also mean - a cake consisting entirely of oil.

(d) So we cite a D'rashah by Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda Amar Rav Tivla on the Pasuk "Zeh Korban Aharon u'Vanav Asher Yakrivu la'Hashem be'Yom Himashach Oso". The problem with this Pasuk is - why the Pasuk connects the Korban of the Kohanim to the anointing of their father (Aharon).

(a) When we answer 'Ela Makish Chinucho le'Moshcho' - we are comparing the Chinuch of the Kohen Hedyot (including the Milu'im) to the daily Korban Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol ...

(b) ... which was a Revuchah (a proof that the Milu'im included a Revuchah).

(c) According to Rav Chisda, a Kohen who serves in that capacity for the first time has to bring two Esronos ha'Eifah - one for his Chinuch, and the other as his daily Minchas Chavitin.

(d) Rav Ashi says three. He does not argue with Rav Chisda - because he is speaking when he had not serve previously as a Kohen Hedyot, in which case, he needs to bring a Korban Chinuch for that, too.

(a) The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with the Todah) "al Zevach Todas Shelamav" 'Lerabos Shalmei Nazir'. Besides the Shi'ur of ten Kabin Yerushalmiyos, the Tana learns from there - the Din of a Revi'is of oil (exactly like the Matzah Chalos of the Lachmei Todah (only minus the Revuchah).

(b) And the word "Matzos" comes to refute the suggestion 'Yachol le'Chol Mah she'Amur ba'Inyan' - with reference to the Revuchah.

(c) Rav Papa explains - that we preclude Shalmei Nazir from the Revuchah, from the fact that in the Parshah of the Lachmei Todah, the Torah mentions the word "Matzos" both in connection with the Matzah Chalos and the Rekikin, but not by the Revuchah.

(d) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns this from the Pasuk (in connection with the Shalmei Nazir) "ve'Sal Matzos ... Chalos ... u'Rekikei ... " - which is a 'Klal u'Prat', and we rule 'Ein bi'Chlal Ela Mah she'bi'Prat' (that the 'K'lal' contains only what is in the 'P'rat').




(a) Our Mishnah rules that a Todah that was Shechted in the Azarah, whilst its loaves ...
1. ... were outside the walls - the loaves are not sanctified.
2. ... were not yet properly baked - they are not sanctified either ...
(b) ... even if all the loaves were properly baked except for one.

(c) The Tana considers the loaves properly baked - if the surface is crusted.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, 'the walls' refers to Beis Pagi - which is outside the wall of the Har ha'Bayis.

(b) Resh Lakish maintains - that 'the walls' refers to the walls of the Azarah.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes, based on the fact that the Torah writes "*al* Zevach Todas Shelamav" is - whether "al" implies 'immediately next to' (Resh Lakish) or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Pesachim that if someone Shechts a Korban Pesach (or even a Korban Tamid, according to Rebbi Yehudah) or performs Zerikas ha'Dam with Chametz in his possession, he transgresses a La'av. Based on the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sishchat *al* Chametz Dam Zivchi", for the Shochet or the Zorek to transgress, according to ...
1. ... Resh Lakish - the Chametz will have to be in the Azarah ...
2. ... according to Rebbi Yochanan - it can be anywhere in his possession.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish need to argue in both cases. Had they argued in the case of ...
1. ... the Korban Pesach, we might have thought that Rebbi Yochanan argues specifically there - because wherever the Chametz is, it is subject to an Isur, but when it comes to the Lachmei Todah - he will agree with Resh Lakish that they only become sanctified if they are inside the Azarah together with the Korban.
2. ... the Todah, we might have thought that he will agree with Rebbi Yochanan in that of the Pesach - because wherever the Chametz is, it is subject to an Isur.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "al Chalos Lechem Chametz Yakriv" - that the loaves only become sanctified once they have reached the stage of 'bread'.
2. ... "Yakriv Korbano" - that it is the Shechitah of the Korban that sanctifies the loaves.
3. ... "Zevach Todas" - that if one Shechts the Todah she'Lo li'Shemo, the loaves do not become sanctified.
(b) Another Beraisa rules ...
1. ... 'Matzah Na' (which Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel define as one that is baked to the extent that when one breaks a piece off, threads of dough do not accompany it), is Kasher for the Mitzvah of Matzah on Pesach ...
2. ... and so is Matzah that is baked in a pan.
(c) When Rava extends this Halachah to the Lachmei Todah, he is referring - specifically to the latter Halachah (of what is called baked).

(d) We might have thought otherwise - because, as we have already learned, the Torah requires the Lachmei Todah to be a complete loaf (and a loaf that is not completely baked is liable to break into pieces when one moves it).

(a) According to Chizkiyah, if one Shechted a Todah on eighty Chalos, forty of them are sanctified - because the owner only sanctified the other forty 'le'Achrayus' (to cover the first forty should they get lost).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains - that none of the loaves are sanctified.

(c) Rebbi Zeira qualifies the Machlokes. According to him, even Rebbi Yochanan will concede that forty loaves are sanctified - if the owner specifically stated that only forty out of the eighty loaves should be sanctified (see Tosfos DH 'Likdeshu').

(d) Seeing as Chizkiyah concedes that, where the owner declares that he sanctifies forty loaves only if the other forty will be sanctified too, their Machlokes is where the owner sanctified eighty loaves S'tam, and they argue whether he had in mind 'le'Acharayus' (Chizkiyah) or to bring a big Korban (Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) According to Abaye however, their dispute covers a case where the owner specifically sanctifies all eighty loaves, and they are arguing over the K'li Shareis in which the loaves are placed, and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'K'li Shareis Mekadshin she'Lo le'Da'as' (the K'li Shareis in which the loaves are placed [at the time of the Shechitah] only sanctifies what needs to be sanctified [i.e. forty loaves], despite the owner's statement to the contrary' [Chizkiyah]) or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) Rav Papa disagrees. In his opinion, it is not the K'li Shareis over which they are arguing, but the knife which is used to Shecht the Korban (which sanctifies the loaves). In fact, he maintains, that even according to Rebbi Yochanan - a K'li Shareis only sanctifies whatever it needs to be sanctified ...

(c) ... and Rebbi Yochanan invalidates all eighty loaves - because the knife, (which is not a receptacle, is not considered a K'li Shareis, and therefore) sanctifies whatever the owner declares. Whereas, according to Chizkiyah, the knife too, is considered a K'li Shareis, and sanctifies she'Lo le'Da'as, like other K'lei Shareis.

(d) In the second Lashon, Rav Papa holds 'K'lei Shareis Ein Mekadshin Ela mi'Da'as', and again a knife is different. But this time - the basis of their Machlokes is - whether the knife (which is already unique in that it sanctifies even though it is not a receptacle, is also unique in that it) sanctifies only what needs to sanctified (Chizkiyah) or not (Rebbi Yochanan).

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the Todah is Shechted with a Machsheves Chutz li'Zemanah or Chutz li'Mekomah, the loaves are nevertheless sanctified - and have the status of Pigul.

(b) The Tana rules in a case where the Korban is found to be a T'reifah after the Shechitah - that the loaves are not sanctified, because they were Pasul already prior to the Shechitah.

(c) If the animal turns out to be a Ba'al-Mum, Rebbi Eliezer renders the loaves sanctified - whereas the Chachamim rule that they are not.

(d) The Tana rules that the loaves of ...

1. ... a Todah that was Shechted she'Lo li'Shemah - are not sanctified ...
2. ... and the same applies to the loaves of an Eil ha'Milu'im or of the two Kivsei Atzeres that was Shechted she'Lo li'She'mah.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,