ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
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).
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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'.
(b) He learns ...
2. ... Shelamim from Ma'aser - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sham" "Sham" (in
Re'ei, in connection with spending Ma'aser Sheini money in Yerushalayim).
1. ... from Ma'aser - that Shelamim may be purchased from Kesef 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
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).