(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 80



(a) We just cited Rebbi Yochanan, who confines the Din in the Beraisa exempting the V'lados, Temurah and Chalipin of a Korban Todah from Lechem, to after Kaparah (i.e. after the Todah was already brought), but before Kaparah', they require Lechem, too. The problem Rav Amram has with establishing this with regard to ...
1. ... Chalipei Todas Chovah (i.e. after the owner obligated himself to bring one [see also Rabeinu Gershom]) is - that the Beraisa has specifically dealt with both of these cases (before Kaparah - 'Minayin le'Mafrish Todaso ... ', and after Kaparah - 'Yachol she'Tehei Sheniyah Te'unah Lechem'.
2. ... Chalipei Todas Nedavah (i.e. if he designated an animal as a Korban Todah and it got lost) is - that seeing as he has volunteered to bring two Todos, there is no reason why both should not require Lechem.
3. ... V'lad Todas Nedavah is - that it is no more than Mosar (leftovers of the Todah that he designated), which does not require Lechem under any circumstances (because any increase that comes by itself is considered Mosar).
(b) In fact, he is referring to - V'lad Todas Chovah.

(c) What makes a V'lad Todas Chovah different than a V'lad Todas Nedavah in this regard - is the fact that he would be able to fulfil his obligation with the V'lad ('Adam Miskaper bi'Sh'vach Hekdesh') if he so wished. Consequently, should he bring it first, it requires Lechem. He would not however, be able to fulfill his obligation with the V'lad of a Todas Nedavah (which therefore does not require Lechem).

(d) 'Havi bah Abaye Nami ki Hai Gavna' means - that Abaye had the same problem as Rav Amram, and arrived at the same conclusion.

(a) The corollary that Shmuel draws between a Chatas and the Lachmei Todah is - that whatever dies by a Chatas does not require Lechem by a Todah; whereas whatever is Ro'eh (by a Chatas), does.

(b) In the Mishnah in Temurah, Rebbi rules that if a Chatas got lost, was replaced and found before the second one was Shechted, one of the two Chata'os is brought, and the other one must die. According to the Rabbanan however - the Chatas only dies if it is found after the second one has already been brought ...

(c) ... implying that if it is found before the second one is found, it is 'Ro'eh'.

(a) The Mishnah in Temurah poses a Kashya on Shmuel however - since our Beraisa ruled that only one of the Todos requires Lechem, but not the second; whereas according to Shmuel, 'Kol she'be'Chatas Ro'eh ... '?

(b) So we establish Shmuel like Rebbi (who holds 'Tamus').

(c) We ask when Rebbi will hold 'Ro'eh' - which he must do, because we just established Shmuel like him (and Shmuel said 'Kol she'be'Chatas Ro'eh ... ').

(d) And we answer - 'like Rebbi Oshaya', who said - that someone who designated two Chata'os le'Achrayos (see Tosfos DH 'Hifrish'), may use whichever one he pleases for his Chatas, and the other one is Ro'eh.

(a) The problem with establishing Shmuel like Rebbi Oshaya is - that in Rebbi Oshaya's case, the second Todah does not require Lechem (as we learned in the Beraisa), whereas according to Shmuel it ought to.

(b) We therefore conclude that Shmuel holds neither like Rebbi nor like the Rabbanan, but like Rebbi Shimon - who holds 'Chameish Chata'os Meisos' (including 'Niskapru Ba'alehah be'Acher' [which is why in the case of a Todah, it does not require Lechem]).

(c) According to Rebbi Shimon - no Chatas is ever Ro'eh.

(d) Nevertheless, we establish Shmuel like Rebbi Shimon - by amending his original statement. In fact, he never said anything about Ro'eh, only 'Kol she'be'Chatas Meisah, be'Todah Ein Te'unah Lechem'.

(e) Shmuel found it necessary to correlate the Todah with the Chatas (instead of just stating 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon') to teach us - that even a V'lad Todas Chovah does not require Lechem (not like Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Adam Miskaper bi'Sh'vach Hekdesh').

(a) Rabah rules that, in a case where someone declared 'Zu Todah ve'Zu Lachmah' and ...
1. ... the Lechem got lost - he is obligated to bring fresh loaves.
2. ... the Todah got lost - he is not obligated to bring another Todah.
(b) The reason for the difference is - because the Lechem is secondary to the Korban, but not vice-versa.

(c) He is Patur from replacing the Korban in the latter case - because he said 'Zu Todah' (which is a Nedavah), and not 'Harei Alai' (which is a Neder), and one is not responsible for a Nedavah.

(d) Nevertheless, he is Chayav to replace the Lechem in the former case - because the Lechem goes together with the Korban (as we explained). So as long as the Korban is intact, he is Chayav to bring Lechem together with it.




(a) Rabah also rules that - one may use money leftover from one's Todah to purchase Lachmei Todah.

(b) The source for this ruling is a D'rashah of Rav Kahana - who learned from the Pasuk "Ve'hikriv al Zevach ha'Todah Chalos Matzos" - that Todah incorporates Lechem.

(c) By the same token however, one cannot use money leftover from one's Lachmei Todah to purchase a Todah - because Lechem does not incorporate Todah.

(a) Rabah rules that if, after setting aside a second Todah to replace one that got lost, and a third one when the second one got lost, both Todos are found, he then brings the first Todah, the second one does not require Lechem, the third one does - because the second one is Chalipei Todah, whereas the third is considered an independent Todah (since there is no such thing as 'Chalipei de'Chalipei').

(b) In a case where he brought ...

1. ... the third Todah - the second one will not require Lechem, whereas the first one will.
2. ... the second Todah - both are considered Chalipei Todah, and neither requires Lechem.
(c) Abaye disagrees. According to him - in all of the above cases, the remaining two are considered Chalipei Todah, and do not require Lechem.
(a) Rebbi Zeira extends Rabah's previous ruling to three Chata'os, following the loss of the first Chatas, then the second, and then both are found. If the owner brought the first Chatas - then the second one must die, whilst the third one is Ro'eh; if he brought the third one, then the second one dies and the first one is Ro'eh; whereas if he brought the second one, both remaining Chata'os must die.

(b) According to Abaye - both remaining Chata'os die in all cases.

(c) If Rebbi Zeira had not extended Rabah's ruling to a Chatas, we might have thought - that Rabah's Din is restricted to Todos, where the S'vara 'Marbeh be'Todos' (the owner is bringing another Todah) applies, whereas by Chata'os, where this is not applicable (because one cannot bring a Chatas Nedavah) ...

(d) ... even Rabah would agree that both remaining animals must die.

(a) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa, rules that if a Todah becomes mixed up with its Temurah, and one of them dies, there is nothing one can do about it - because 'Mah Nafshach', if he brings Lechem with the remaining Todah, maybe it is the Temurah, which does not require Lechem. Whereas if he does not, maybe it is the Todah, which requires Lechem.

(b) Rebbi Chiya cannot be speaking when the owner said 'Harei Alai' - because then he would be able (even obligated) to bring another Todah with the Lechem and to stipulate that if the remaining animal is the Temurah, then this one will be the Todah and the Lechem, its Lachmei Todah; whereas if the remaining animal is the Todah, then the Lechem will be its Lachmei Todah, and the second animal will serve as Achrayus for the first one.

(c) He must therefore be speaking - when he said 'Harei Zu' ...

(d) ... and he cannot bring a second Todah 'le'Acharayus, just like in the case of 'Harei Alai' - because a Nedavah does not require Acharayus, as we already learned.

(a) 'Lemeidin Lifnei Rebbi' queries Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa. 'Lemeidin Lifnei Rebbi' is - Levi.

(b) Let him bring Lechem, he asks, and stipulate that if the remaining animal is the Todah, then the Lechem should be Lachmei Todah, whereas if it is the Temurah, then it (the Lechem) should remain Chulin, in which case - the owner will eat his thirty-six loaves, and the Kohen, his four (Terumah), as Chulin.

(c) We refute Levi's suggestion however - on the grounds that it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Azarah (where all the Lechem is taken together with the Korban).

(a) One cannot bring another animal with the Lechem and stipulate that if the remaining animal is the Temurah then this animal is the Todah, and the Lechem, its Lachmei Todah; whereas if the remaining animal is the Todah, then the Lechem is its Lachmei Todah, and the second animal will be a Shelamim - because that would mean eating the second animal (which might be a Shelamim, which may be eaten for two days) by the end of the first day (in case it is a Todah), after which, whatever is left over must be burned. And it is forbidden to bring Kodshim to the Beis ha'Pesul (to burn it prematurely).

(b) Levi asked Rebbi the same Kashya, only he suggested that the second animal should be (not a Shelamim, but) a Mosar Todah. Rebbi reacted - by asking whether Levi had any brains in his head.

(c) He was upset by Levi's Kashya - because he considered it absurd to suggest that one can declare a Mosar Korban (which by definition, means leftover) Lechatchilah.

(d) And when Rebbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa made the same suggestion, but substituted Temurah for Shelamim and Mosar Todah, Rav Nachman retorted - 'Answer me, Rebbi! How can one possibly designate a Korban Lechatchilah, when one receives Malkos for doing so (as Malkos is the punishment for designating a Temurah)?

Next daf


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