ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 77
MENACHOS 77 - dedicated by Rav Eli Rosengarten of Zurich, Switzerland. Mazel
Tov on the occasion of the Bar Mitzvah of his grandson, Chaim Yitzchok Ozer
Rosengarten. May he continue in the ways of his illustrious forebears, and
grow to be outstanding in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim.
***** Perek ha'Todah Haysah Ba'ah *****
(a) The Korban Todah, which our Mishnah now discusses, comprised five Sa'in
Yerushalmiyos - or six Midbariyos ...
(b) ... which in turn, is equal to two Eifah (three Sa'ah Midbariyos = one
(c) The twenty Isaron were divided equally between the Matzah and the
Chametz - ten Isaron for the Matzah loaves, and ten for the Chametz.
(d) There were three kinds of Matzah loaves and one of Chametz (each kind
comprised ten loaves).
(a) Each Chametz Chalah comprised - one Isaron.
(b) The three kinds of Matzah loaves consisted of - baked Chalos, wafer
(Matzos) and loaves made of flour and boiling water.
(c) Three and a third Esronim was allocated for each kind of Matzah loaves.
(d) And there were - three Matzah loaves per Isaron.
(a) Given that there are six Kabin in a Sa'ah, the Todah comprised - thirty
(b) Seeing as fifteen Kabin were then allocated for both the Matzah and the
Chametz loaves, each kind of Chametz loaf consisted of five Yerushalmi Kabin
(c) ... three Chalos per Kav.
(a) Given that a 'Bas' is three Sa'ah, Rav Chisda learns from the Pasuk in
Yechezkel "ha'Eifah ve'ha'Bas Tochen Echad Yih'yeh" - that an Eifah
comprises three Sa'ah, too.
(b) We suggest that we know how much a 'Bas' is from the Pasuk there "Laseis
Ma'aser Chomer ha'Bas" (from the Navi's equation of a Bas to a Chomer). We
object to that from the Pasuk there "va'Asiris ha'Chomer ha'Eifah" - on the
grounds that if we knew how much a Chomer was, then why do we not learn the
measurement of an Eifah directly from *this* Pasuk? The fact that we don't,
is proof that we do not know how much a Chomer is, in which case, how can we
determine what a Bas is from the Pasuk equating it with a Chomer?
(c) We ultimately learn how much a Chomer is from another Pasuk there, which
equates a Chomer to a Kur - which we know to be thirty Sa'ah.
(d) This proves - that a Chomer is thirty Sa'ah. Consequently, the Pasuk
"Laseis Ma'aser ha'Chomer ha'Bas teaches us that a Bas is three Sa'ah, and
the Pasuk "ha'Eifah ve'ha'Bas Tochen Echad, that an Eifah too, is three
(a) When Shmuel says 'Ein Mosifin ...
1. ... al ha'Midos Yoser mi'Sh'tus', he means - that if Beis-Din decide to
increase the measures of the town, they may only do so by up to one sixth (a
measure that held for example, five egg-volumes, will now hold six).
(b) The third Chidush Shmuel adds to this list is - that a store-keeper may
earn up to one sixth more than he paid the wholesaler for the wine or fruit,
but no more than that.
2. ... al ha'Matbe'a Yoser mi'Sh'tus', he means that the same rule applies
to coins (in other words, they inflated the value of the coins).
(c) Chazal's reason for this Takanah cannot be for fear that ...
1. ... merchants who bring their wares to sell will raise their prices
accordingly, creating the likelihood that they will raise them too high -
because then they should have forbidden an increass of even a sixth.
(d) ... since Rava said 'Kol Davar she'be'Midah, ve'she'be'Mishkal
ve'she'be'Minyan Afilu Pachos mi'Chedei Ona'ah Chozer' (anything which is
measured, weighed or counted is subject to Bitul Mekach, even if the loss
entails less than a sixth).
2. ... the seller, not knowing of the increase in Midos, will supply the
purchaser using the same measure (which now holds more than sixth more than
it did before, causing Bitul Mekach (the entire sale to be negated) -
because if so, the prohibition should extend even to less than a sixth ...
(a) So we suggest that perhaps, the object of the Takanah is to prevent the
middle man ( who buys from Reuven to sell to Shimon, and who expects to make
a sixth profit) from making a loss on his sale. This means - that by
allowing him to gain a sixth, increasing the measures by a sixth (but not
more) at least ensures that he will not lose anything (even if he doesn't
gain either). But more than that will cause him a loss.
(b) We refute this explanation too however, on the basis of the principle
'Zavan ve'Zavin Tagra Ikri', meaning - that if the middle man will buy and
sell at the same price (without making any profit) he is not a merchant!
Consequently, the Chachamim should have been even more stringent regarding
this Takanah, to enable the seller at least a small margin of profit, and
not just not to lose.
(c) For this to have been the reason, Shmuel ought to have said - 'Ein
Mosifin al ha'Midos Sh'tus, Ki-im *Pachos mi'Sh'tus*'.
(a) Rav Chisda concludes that Shmuel based his ruling on a Pasuk in
Yechezkel. When the Navi writes "ve'ha'Shekel Esrim Geirah, Esrim Shekalim,
Chamishah ve'Esrim Shekalim, Asarah va'Chamishah Shekel, ha'Manah", he is
coming to teach us - that a Manah comprises sixty Shekalim.
(b) He breaks up the Shekalim in this way - because in some places, it
seems, a Manah comprised just twenty Shekalim, in others, twenty-five, and
in others again, fifteen.
(c) "Shekel" in this context refers to - a Sela (two Shekalim [because a
Shekel of Kodesh is double, and two Shekalim comprise a Sela]).
(a) According to Yechezkel - two hundred and forty Dinrim comprise sixty
(b) One would normally expect to find - a hundred Dinrim in a Manah.
(c) Yechezkel refers to two hundred and forty - because to begin with, a
Manah of Kodesh (just like a Shekel of Kodesh) is double that of a Manah of
(d) Besides the Chidush of 'Mosifin al ha'Midos, ve'Ein Mosofon Yoser
mi'Sh'tus' (which are not considered two, because the latter statement is
not contained in the Pasuk, and is the Chachamim's own decision), we can
also learn from Yechezkel - that the sixth under discussion is a sixth of
the total (which we would otherwise refer to as a fifth).
(e) And we prove this - from the Reisha of our Mishnah 'ha'Todah Haysah
Ba'ah Chamesh Yerushalmiyos she'Hein Sheish Midbariyos' (which in fact, is a
fifth more, and not a sixth).
(a) Our Mishnah discusses the distribution of the loaves of the Korban
Todah. The Kohen received - one out of ten of each of the four kinds of
loaves, as 'Terumah'.
(b) The Tana learn from the Pasuk in Tzav "Vehikriv Mimenu ...
1. ... "Echad" - that he had to receive a whole loaf and not a piece, or
(c) The rest of the loaves - are eaten by the owner.
2. ... "mi'Kol Korban" - that all the loaves had to be together, when the
Terumah was taken.
(d) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv Mimenu" - that the Kohen
had to receive one of each of the four kinds (and not two from one and none
from the other).
(a) The Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Terumah" (in Tzav)
Terumah" - that, like Terumas Ma'aser, the owner has to give the Kohen one
tenth of the loaves (as we explained).
(b) The Tana suggests that we learn the Din of the Todah from ...
1. ... Terumas Ma'aser rather than from Bikurim (where the Torah also writes
"Terumah") - because, like Terumas Ma'aser, it is final (unlike Bikurim,
which is followed by other Terumos).
(c) He ultimately learns from "*Mimenu Terumah* la'Hashem" - that we learn
the Din by the Lachmei Todah from that of Terumas Ma'aser (where the Torah
also writes "Mimenu Terumah") and not from that of Bikurim (where the word
Terumah does not appear).
2. ... Bikurim rather than from Terumas Ma'aser - because, like Bikurim
(which must be eaten in Yerushalayim), it can only be eaten in a holy place
(unlike Terumas Ma'aser, which can be eaten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael).
(d) The Tana learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" (in
connection with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) - that each loaf of the Lachmei Todah,
like those of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, must comprise one Isaron.
(a) We suggest that perhaps we ought to learn this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from
the Lechem ha'Panim - in which case, each loaf would comprise *two* Esronim.
(b) The Lachmei Todah are compatible with the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and not with
the Lechem ha'Panim - in that they both come as Chametz, together with a
(c) We counter this by comparing the Lachmei Todah to the Lechem ha'Panim in
two ways. Besides the fact that (unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem) they may both
be brought from the produce of Chutz la'Aretz, they also differ from the
Sh'tei ha'Lechem - inasmuch as they may be brought from the old crops.
(a) We finally learn from the word "Tavi'u (in the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem
Tavi'u Lechem Tenufah Shetayim" [written in connection with the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem]), which is otherwise superfluous - that each Chalah of the
Lachmei Todah must comprise one Isaron (just like the Sh'tei otherwise
superfluous - that each of the Chametz loaves of the Todah, like the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem (which also consist of Chametz) should comprise an Isaron.
(b) And we learn from "So'les *Tih'yenah*" - that the Chametz of the Lachmei
Todah, unlike the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, do not comprise only two Esronim.
(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi explains - that the Tana learns this from the
extra 'Yud' in "Tih'yenah" (which contains an extra 'Yud'), implying 'ten'
(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with the Matzah
loaves of the Todah) "al Chalos Lechem Chametz" - that the Matzos must
comprise the same volume of flour (ten Esronim) as the Chametz.
(b) The Tana interpreted "Mimenu" ("Ve'hikriv Mimenu") to mean 'joined'
(that all the loaves must be together when the Terumah is separated. By the
same token, Rav Chisda Amar Avimi explains the Pasuk (in connection with the
Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur) "ve'es Kol Chelbo Yarim Mimenu" - to mean
that the animal may not be cut into pieces before the Cheilev has been
(c) He also learned the Din of one tenth regarding Terumah (from the loaves
of the Todah) from Terumas Ma'aser. We ask why he does not learn it from ...
1. ...Terumas Midyan - which would entail giving the Kohen one fiftieth.
(d) We answer that ...
2. ... Terumas Chalah - which would entail giving him one forty-eighth.
1. ... Terumas Midyan is different - inasmuch as it only happened once,
whereas the Lachmei Todah and Terumas Ma'aser are ongoing Mitzvos.
2. ... Terumas Chalah is different in that - the word "Mimenu" does not
occur in connection with it (as it does by the other two), as Tana de'Bei
Rebbi Yishmael explains.
(a) Rava asks whether a Zar is Chayav Miysah ve'Chomesh for eating the
Lachmei Todah - Miysah for eating it be'Meizid, and an extra fifth (added to
the principle) for doing so be'Shogeg.
(b) The She'eilah is based on the fact that we learn the Isur from Terumas
Ma'aser (by which this dual punishment is written).
(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who eats Terumah)
1. ... "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that the death penalty applies only
to what *we* call Terumah (i.e. Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser), but
not to anything else.
(d) The Tana learned the ten Esronos (ha'Eifah) by the Chametz loaves of the
Todah from the extra 'Yud' in "Tih'yenah" (by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem 'Im Eino
Inyan' [see Rabeinu Gershom]). According to Rava, we know that this refers
to tenths of an Eifah, and not ten half Kabin (for example) - because (based
on the principle 'Davar ha'Lameid me'Inyano') we will learn from "Sh'nei
Esronim" mentioned in the same Parshah (which specifically refers to tenths
of an Eifah).
2. ... "Ve'ysasaf *Chamishiso* Alav - that the same is true of the extra
(a) And the Beraisa also learned that the Matzah Chalos too, require one
Isaron of oil from "al Chalos Lechem Chametz". The problem with this Limud
is - that it appears to clash with the principle 'Davar ha'Lameid be'Hekesh,
Ein Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh'.
(b) We answer that this is a case of 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' - in which
case it is not considered 'Chozer u'Melameid be'Hekesh' (as we shall now
(c) 'Heimenu ve'Davar Acher' might mean that the Hekesh of Matzah to Chametz
(ten Esronim) is not the same as that of Chametz to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem
(each loaf one Isaron). It might also mean - that since the Lameid and the
Melamed are the Lachmei Todah, they are both part of one Hekesh (and not
(d) According to those who hold that it is nevertheless a Hekesh, we answer
'Tavi'u Ribuya Hi', by which we mean - that the word "Tavi'u" which is
superfluous as far as the Sh'tei ha'Lechem is concerned (as we learned
earlier), in which case the first Limud of Chametz is not a Hekesh, but as
if it is was written there specifically.