(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 81



(a) Abaye and the Rabbanan paid Rav Ula bar Aba a visit - because he was sick.

(b) They suggested (in the case of the Todah that became mixed up with its Temurah) that according to Rebbi Yochanan, who declares the Lechem sanctified even if it is outside the Azarah - one might follow the initial suggestion (to stipulate that if the remaining animal is the Temurah, the Lechem will remain Chulin).

(c) They refuted this suggestion however - because of the four loaves that need to be waved, and which, on the one hand, must be waved in the Azarah, whereas on the other, if they are Chulin, they cannot be brought into the Azarah.

(a) Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi suggested that according to Chizkiyah, who holds that forty out of eighty loaves are sanctified, one may bring another animal as a second Todah plus eighty loaves, and stipulate - that if the remaining animal was the Todah, then the loaves would serve as the Lachmei Todah for both Todos. And if not, then the second animal would be a Todah and forty of the eighty loaves would be its Lachmei Todah, whereas the other forty loaves would remain Chulin.

(b) He would then place the two Todos in the Azarah - the eight loaves of the Terumah he would place in the Azarah, together with the two Todos, (since they are all Kodshim), and the remaining seventy-two, outside the Azarah.

(c) And he would stipulate - that if both animals are Todos, then the eight loaves will be Terumas Lachmei Todah; whereas if the first animal is a Temurah, then four out of the eight loaves will be included in the forty (out of the eighty) loaves that are sanctified as Lachmei Todah.

(d) What have we now gained with Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi's explanation is - that we have avoided the Isur of bringing Chulin into the Azarah.

(a) We refute this suggestion too, on the grounds that it will entail detracting from the allotted time for eating the forty loaves ('de'Ka Mema'et ba'Achilah de'Arba'im') - since the Kohanim who have many Korbanos to eat, will inevitably eat four of the eight loaves, but will be loathe to eat the remaining four, on the assumption that the first animal is a Temurah, and that they are therefore not Terumah at all (but part of the forty sanctified loaves that the owner is supposed to eat). As a result, they may well end up being burned.

(b) Alternatively, we might explain 'de'Ka Mema'et ba'Achilah de'Arba'im' to mean - that perhaps the second set of forty loaves are not sanctified at all, and whatever the owner does not manage to eat, will be wasted (a contravention of the La'av of 'bal Tashchis', wasting something useful).

(c) According to the text 'de'Ka Mema'et ba'Achilah de'Arba'ah', what we mean is -that treating the second set of four loaves as Terumah entails that they must be eaten by Kohanim, who have only their families and their Avadim to whom to feed them, and who may therefore not manage to finish them on that day, in which case they will have to be burned.

(d) If, on the other hand, those four loaves were eaten by the owner as part of the forty loaves - he would have far less problem finding people in Yerushalayim to eat them.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone designated a pregnant animal for his Chatas, then - should it give birth before he brings it on the Mizbe'ach, he has the choice of bringing either the mother or the V'lad as his Chatas.

(b) The difference between this case and that of V'lad Chatas (which we learned earlier, has the Din of Mosar Todah) - is that in this case, having designated the animal after it was already pregnant (as opposed to that of the V'lad Todah), he obviously had the baby in mind too.

(c) Based on this statement of Rebbi Yochanan, Rav Ashi attempts to solve the problem with the Safek Todah, Safek Temurah - by suggesting that he brings a pregnant animal together with eighty loaves, and stipulates that if the Safek is the Temurah, then the mother and the baby and the eighty loaves will be two Todos and their Lachmei Todah; whereas if it is the Todah, then the V'lad will be a Mosar Todah.

(d) We cannot ask 've'Chi Mafrishin Techilah le'Mosros?', like we asked earlier, because here, unlike there, when he initially designated the animal, the V'lad was an intrinsic part of the Korban, and only became Mosros after it was born and he brought the mother on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) The basis of Rav Ashi's suggestion is the S'vara - 'Ubar La'av Yerech Imo Hu' (or Shayro, Meshuyar [a fetus is not considered part of the baby, in which case, the owner could have precluded it from the sanctity of the mother had he so wished]), which explains why Rebbi Yochanan permits bringing the V'lad as his Chatas (or Todah), should he so choose.

(b) Rav Kahana refutes Rav Ashi's suggestion however - by establishing Rebbi Yochanan's reason as 'Adam Miskaper bi'Shevach Hekdesh' (which we discussed earlier), even if he holds 'Shayro Eino Meshuyar' (or 'Ubar Yerech Imo' [rendering the V'lad part of the mother]).

(c) Finally, Rav Dimi b'rei de'Rav Huna from Damhurya suggests bringing an animal and declaring 'Harei Alai Todah' - plus eighty loaves together with a second animal.

(d) He then stipulates - that if the Safek is the Temurah, then the other two animals will be Todos and the loaves, their Lachmei Todah; whereas if it is the Todah, then the second animal will be a Todah too, and the loaves will serve as their Lachmei Todah, whereas the third animal will serve as a back-up for the second one.

(e) Ravina refutes this suggestion on the basis of the Pasuk in Koheles - "Tov Asher Lo Tidor ... ", turning making Nedarim into an Isur, and negating Rav Dimi b'rei de'Rav Huna from Damhurya's plan.




(a) Our Mishnah states that if someone declares 'Harei Alai Todah', he must bring both the Todah and the Lechem from Chulin and not from Ma'aser (i.e. Ma'aser Sheini) - because one is obligated to pay one's obligations from Chulin, and not from Ma'aser.

(b) In a case where the owner declares 'Todah Alai min ha'Chulin, ve'Lachmah min ha'Ma'aser', the Tana rules 'Hi ve'Lachmah min ha'Chulin'.

(c) The underlying reason for both previous rulings (concerning the Lechem) is - the principle 'Lechem G'lal Todah' (the Lechem is automatically considered part of the Todah , as we have already learned).

(d) Nevertheless, in the case of 'Todah min ha'Ma'aser ve'Lachmah min ha'Chulin', the Tana rules 'Yavi Kemo she'Amar' (not applying the principle 'Lechem G'lal Todah' that governed the previous cases) - because, seeing as the principle Mitzvah is to bring one's Korban from Chulin, and he did not do that, the Lechem does not follow the Korban (to extend the sin, as it were).

(a) Rav Huna rules that if someone declares 'Harei Alai Lachmei Todah' - he is obligated to bring the Todah as well.

(b) And the reason that our Mishnah rules ...

1. ... 'Todah min ha'Ma'aser ve'Lachmeh min ha'Chulin, Yavi ke'Mah she'Nadar' (and not bring the Todah from Chulin [just as the Shelamim (which is meat) cannot be brought from the actual Ma'aser itself, so too, can the Todah (and its Lechem) not be brought from the actual Ma'aser itself (and wheat that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money is indeed not Ma'aser) is - because he specifically said 'Todah min ha'Ma'aser', making this case no different than if he had volunteered to bring the Lechem for someone else's Todah.
2. ... 'Todah min ha'Chulin ve'Lachmah min ha'Ma'aser, Yavi Hi ve'Lachmah min ha'Chulin' (and not also consider it as if he had volunteered to bring the Lechem for someone else's Todah) - because here we will apply the principle 'Lechem G'lal Todah' (whilst in the previous case, bringing the Todah from Chulin would have been a matter of 'Todah G'lal Lechem', which we do not say).
(c) If someone declares 'Harei Alai Todah be'Lo Lechem, Zevach be'Lo Nesachim', the Beraisa rules - 'Kofin Oso, u'Meivi Todah ve'Lachmah, Zevach u'Nesachim'.
(a) 'Todah be'Lo Lechem ... ' implies - that if one were to declare Lechem be'Lo Todah', he would not be obligated to bring a Todah (a Kashya on Rav Huna, because otherwise, the Tana should rather have presented the reverse case, which is a bigger Chidush).

(b) And we answer - by referring to the Seifa, where the Tana could not have inserted 'Nesachim be'Lo Zevach', since there he would indeed bring Nesachim without a Korban ...

(c) ... which he would then sprinkle on the burning Korbanos.

(d) We ask on the Reisha of the Beraisa, 'Harei Neder u'Pischo Imo', which might mean that the Noder added 'be'Lo Lechem' to indicate that he had changed his mind (which is perfectly legitimate 'Toch K'dei Dibur'). Alternatively, it might mean - that the Noder should be able to claim that he genuinely believed that he could bring a Todah without Lechem, in which case, the Neder ought not to take effect against his will.

(a) Chizkiyah answers by establishing the Beraisa like Beis Shamai, who rules in the Mishnah in Nazir, that if someone declares 'Hareini Nazir min ha'Gerogros u'min ha'Deveilah' - he is a Nazir (and is forbidden to drink wine) ...

(b) ... because they hold 'T'fos Lashon Rishon' (we go after his opening words, which imply in this case, that he is a Nazir from wine).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Beraisa even like Beis Hillel (who hold 'T'fos Lashon Acharon'). The Noder must then have added (to his initial undertaking to bring a Minchah without Lechem) - that had he realized that one cannot undertake to bring a Todah without Lechem, he would never have declared such a Neder (a clear proof that he did not retract).

(d) And the Tana rules 'Kofin Oso' (in spite of the Noder's admission that he meant to bring the Minchah at all costs) - because the Beraisa is speaking when he subsequently decided to go after his opening words (retracting, as it were, from his own admission).

(a) Another Beraisa rules that, in a case where the Noder declared 'Harei Alai Todah be'Lo Lechem ... ', adding that, had he known that such a Neder is invalid, he would not have made the Neder in the first place - one nevertheless forces him to carry out his Neder.

(b) Chizkiyah will establish this Beraisa too, like Beis Shamai - and this time, so will Rebbi Yochanan (since it is not possible to establish it like Beis Hillel).

(c) Abaye interprets the Tana's quote from the Pasuk in Re'ei as "She'mor" - 'Havei (bring) Todah'; "Ve'shama'ata" - 'Havei Lachmah'. Rava interprets it as - "Sh'mor" - 'Havei Todah ve'Lachmah'; "Ve'shama'ata" - 'Don't do such a thing again'.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Hi ve'Lachmah min ha'Ma'aser, Yavi'. The problem with that is - why he should have to bring specifically Ma'aser. Surely it would be even better to bring Chulin?

(b) Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda interpret 'Yavi' to mean (not that they have to, but) - that they may bring it from Ma'aser if they so wish.

(a) The Tana in our Mishnah qualifies the final ruling 'Hi *ve'Lachmah* min ha'Ma'aser', confining it to - Ma'aser Sheini *money*, but not from the wheat

(b) And Yirmiyah qualifies the Tana's qualification - by permitting even the actual wheat that they purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money.

(c) Rebbi Zeira - disagreed with Rebbi Yirmiyah's statement. According to him, that too, is forbidden.

(a) Rebbi Zeira presented both his reason and that of Rebbi Yirmiyah. Rebbi Yirmiyah learns Todah from Shelamim, and Shelamim, from Ma'aser ...
1. ... Todah from Shelamim - because the Torah specifically refers to the Todah as 'Shelamim'.
2. ... Shelamim from Ma'aser - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" "Sham" (in Re'ei, in connection with spending Ma'aser Sheini money in Yerushalayim).
(b) He learns ...
1. ... from Ma'aser - that Shelamim may be purchased from Kesef Ma'aser Sheini.
2. ... Todah from Shelamim - that just as the Shelamim (which is meat) cannot be bought from the actual Ma'aser itself, so too, may the Todah (or its Lechem) not be bought from the actual Ma'aser itself (and wheat that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money is indeed not Ma'aser).
(c) Rebbi Zeira learns the identical dual Limud (Todah from Shelamim, Shelamim from Ma'aser) - only he concludes that 'the Shelamim cannot be brought from the same species of Ma'aser Sheini (i.e. any of the five species of grain), and neither may the Todah (or its Lechem) (and wheat that is purchased with Ma'aser Sheini money is indeed the same species as Ma'aser).
Next daf


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