POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Menachos 78
1) HOW WE LEARN TO "MATZAH"
(a) (Beraisa): "Tihyenah" (teaches about Lachmei Todah.)
2) THE "MILU'IM"
(b) Question: How do we learn from this?
(c) Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi): It is written with an
extra Yud (hinting at 10 Esronim.)
(d) Question: Perhaps it teaches that 10 Kefizim (a smaller
measure) are used!
(e) Answer (Rava): The verse discusses Esronim.
(f) (Beraisa) Question: This teaches that 10 are used for the
Chametz - what is the source for the Matzah?
1. Answer: "Al Chalos Lechem Chametz" - the Matzah has
as much flour as the Chametz.
(g) Question: Something learned from a Hekesh (Chametz, from
Shtei ha'Lechem) cannot teach to something else (Matzah)
through a Hekesh!
(h) Version #1 - Answer #1: This is a case of a Hekesh and
1. (Tosfos: The Shi'ur of Chametz is not learned
entirely from a Hekesh - we also needed "Tihyenah";
alternatively, the Hekesh only taught the size of
each loaf, the number of loaves was learned from
Terumas Ma'aser through a Gezerah Shavah;
alternatively, Terumas Ma'aser is Chulin, we may
learn Hekesh mi'Hekesh from Chulin.
(i) Version #2 - Rashi - Answer #1: Is this a case of a
Hekesh teaching about something else?! (No, it teaches
about another part of the same Korban;) (end of Version
2. Rashi: The matter learned from a Hekesh (one Isaron
per loaf) is not what is taught through another
Hekesh, rather, the Shi'ur of all the loaves
1. Therefore, it is not considered a Hekesh (to
disallow learning Hekesh mi'Hekesh.)
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that a Hekesh
and something else is not considered a Hekesh;
1. According to the opinion that it is, how can we
(k) Answer #2: "Tavi'u" is not needed to teach about Shtei
ha'Lechem, it was written solely to teach about Todah, we
do not consider Todah to be learned from a Hekesh.
(a) (Mishnah): The Milu'im breads were of the three varieties
of Matzah found in Todah, i.e. Chalos, Rekikim and
(b) Lachmei Nazir are two of the three varieties of Matzah
found in Todah, Chalos and Rekikim, but not Revichah;
(c) Lachmei Nazir consist of 10 Yerushalmi Kavim, this equals
six Esronim and a fraction (two thirds of an Isaron.)
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): "Umi'Sal ha'Matzos Asher Lifnei
Hash-m Lakach Chalas Matzah Achas v'Chalas Lechem Shemen
Achas v'Rakik Echad."
1. Question: Clearly, "Chalah" and "Rakik" are just
like we find in Lachmei Todah - but what is "Chalas
Lechem Shemen Achas"?
(f) Objection (Rav Avya): Perhaps it is a cake of congealed
oil! (Alternatively - a thick piece of dough fried in
2. Suggestion: This is Revuchah (it is called 'Lechem
Shemen' because it has more oil than Chalos or
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda) Question: "Zeh
Korban Aharon u'Vanav Asher Yakrivu la'Sh-m b'Yom
Himashach Oso" - what Korban do Aharon's son's bring on
account of their father's anointment?!
1. Answer: This equates a regular Kohen's Minchas
Chinuch (that he brings the first time he does
Avodah) to the Minchah a Kohen Gadol brings upon
being anointed (and every day afterwards, i.e.
Chavitim), i.e. Revuchah.
(h) (Rav Chisda): A Kohen Gadol brings two Menachos, each is
one Isaron, upon being anointed - one on account of
anointment, one is his Chinuch (on account of his first
Avodah as Kohen Gadol.)
(i) (Mar bar Rav Ashi): He brings three.
(j) They do not argue - Rav Chisda discusses a Kohen who
previously served as a Hedyot, Mar bar Rav Ashi discusses
one who never served before (so he must also bring
Minchas Chinuch of a regular Kohen.)
(k) (Mishnah): Lachmei Nazir are two of the three varieties
of Matzah in Todah.
(l) (Beraisa): (Regarding Todah it says) "Shelamav" - this
includes Ayil Nazir, its breads resemble Lachmei Todah,
they consist of 10 Yerushalmi Kavim of Soles and a
quarter Log of oil;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that all three
kinds of Matzah in Lachmei Todah are brought!
2. Rejection: "Matzos".
3. Question: How do we learn this from the verse?
4. Answer #1 (Rav Papa): We include those Lachmei Todah
regarding which it says "Matzos" - it does not say
"Matzos" regarding Revuchah.
5. Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Matzos" is a
Klal, "Chalos" and "Rakikei" are Pratim - from a
Klal and Prat we only learn the Pratim, Chalos and
3) SLAUGHTER IS "MEKADESH" THE BREAD
(a) (Mishnah): If Lachmei Todah were outside the wall (this
will be explained) when the Todah was slaughtered inside,
the bread is not Mekudash;
4) A "TODAH" THAT WAS SLAUGHTERED FOR 80 LOAVES
(b) If at the time of slaughter the bread had not yet formed
a crust in the oven, even if only one of the loaves did
not have a crust, the bread is not Mekudash.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean 'outside the wall'?
(d) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It means, outside the wall of
Beis Pagi (Rashi Kesav Yad - outside of Yerushalayim;
Rambam - outside of Har ha'Bayis.)
(e) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): It was outside the wall of the
(f) (Todah must be slaughtered "Al Chalos Lechem Chametz".)
(g) Reish Lakish holds that "Al" connotes nearby, therefore,
if the bread was outside of the Azarah, it does not
(h) R. Yochanan says that if it was outside Beis Pagi does
not become Kodesh, but if it was within Beis Pagi, even
though it was outside of the Azarah, it becomes Kodesh -
"Al" does not connote nearby.
(i) Question: They argued about this elsewhere!
1. (Mishnah): ("Lo Sizbach Al Chametz Dam Zivchi") - a
Lav forbids slaughtering Korban Pesach before
(j) They must argue in both cases:
2. R. Yehudah says, the Lav also applies to
slaughtering the Tamid (on the afternoon of Erev
3. (Reish Lakish): He is not liable unless there was
Chametz in the Azarah belonging to the slaughterer,
the one who did Zerikah, or an owner of the Korban;
4. (R. Yochanan): He is liable even if the Chametz was
not in the Azarah.
1. If they argued only about slaughtering, one might
have thought that there R. Yochanan does not require
the Chametz to be nearby, for one transgresses (Bal
Yera'eh and Bal Yimatzei) wherever the Chametz is,
but Lachmei Todah must be in the Azarah;
(k) Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): If Todah was
slaughtered inside, and the bread was outside the wall of
Beis Pagi, the bread is not Mekudash.
2. If they argued only about Lachmei Todah, one might
have thought that there Reish Lakish requires them
to be nearby, but he would agree that "Lo Sizbach"
applies even if the Chametz is far away, for
wherever it is, one transgresses.
(l) (Mishnah): If at the time of slaughter the bread had not
yet formed a crust in the oven...
(m) Question: What is the source of this?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): "Al Chalos *Lechem* Chametz Yakriv
Korbano Al Zevach" - it must be bread, (i.e. a crust must
have formed) at the time of slaughter;
1. "Yakriv Korbano Al Zevach" - only slaughter is
Mekadesh the bread;
(o) (Beraisa): One fulfills his obligation (to eat Matzah on
the first night of Pesach) with Matzah that is Na (this
will be explained), or with Matzah baked in a pan.
2. "Zevach Todas" - if the slaughter was not Lishmah
(l'Shem Todah), the bread is not Mekudash.
(p) Question: What does it mean 'Na'? (Surely, it does not
mean (fully) raw, this is not *Lechem* Oni!)
(q) Answer (Rav Yehudah): If one cuts it and strands do not
extend from one side to the other. (Tosfos - this is the
same degree of baking as forming a crust.)
(r) (Rava): The same applies to Lachmei Todah.
(s) Question: This is obvious, both of these are called
(t) Answer: One might have thought, minimally baked loaves
that can fall apart are considered to be broken, this is
invalid for Lachmei Todah, since "Echad" teaches that
that a full loaf must be taken (from each kind, for
1. Rava teaches, this is not so.
(a) (Chizkiyah): If a Todah was slaughtered for 80 loaves, 40
of them become Kodesh;
5) IS AN INVALID SLAUGHTER "MEKADESH" THE BREAD?
(b) (R. Yochanan): None of them become Kodesh.
(c) (Amora'im argue about their argument.)
(d) Opinion #1 (R. Zeira): All agree that if the slaughterer
said that 40 of them should become Kodesh, 40 become
1. All agree, if he said that all 80 should become
Kodesh, none become Kodesh;
(e) Opinion #2 (Abaye): (All agree that he intends to
Mekadesh all 80, therefore his intent does not Mekadesh
the bread - this is unlike the bracketed text.) They
argue about whether or not Klei Shares (the same applies
to slaughter) are Mekadesh without intent:
2. They argue when he did not specify:
i. Chizkiyah holds that he only intends to
Mekadesh 40, the others are Acharayos, R.
Yochanan holds that he wants to bring a big
Korban of 80 breads.
1. Chizkiyah holds that they are, R. Yochanan holds
that they are not.
(f) Version #1 - Opinion #3 (Rav Papa): All agree that Klei
Shares are Mekadesh without intent - they argue about
whether or not the knife is Mekadesh like a Kli Shares;
1. Chizkiyah holds that it is, R. Yochanan holds that
it is not.
(g) Version #2 - Opinion #3 (Rav Papa): All agree that Klei
Shares are not Mekadesh without intent - they argue about
whether or not the knife is Mekadesh;
1. Chizkiyah says, since it is Mekadesh even though is
does not have an inside, this shows that it has more
power to Mekadesh than Kli Shares, it is Mekadesh
2. R. Yochanan says, it is no better than a Kli Shares.
(a) (Mishnah): If Todah was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz
li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo, the bread becomes Kadosh;
(b) If it was slaughtered and found to be Treifah, the bread
is not Kadosh.
(c) R. Eliezer says, if it was slaughtered and found to be a
Ba'al Mum, the bread is Kadosh;
(d) Chachamim say, it is not Kadosh.
(e) If Todah, Ayil ha'Milu'im or Kivsei Atzeres were
slaughtered Lo Lishmah, the bread is not Kadosh.