Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Menachos, 80

1) THE "TEMURAH" OF A "TODAS NEDAVAH"

OPINIONS: The Gemara discusses different types of unusual Korbenos Todah, such as a Chilufei Todah (a substitute animal that was designated to take the place of a Korban Todah that became lost, and the original animal was later found), a Velad Todah (the calf born to a Todah), and Temuras Todah (an animal that was made "Temurah" for a Korban Todah). The Gemara says that a Chilufei Todas *Chovah* (that is, a Todah that one must bring due to his Neder in which he stated, "Harei Alai"; this type of pledge obligates him to replace the animal if it becomes lost) requires Lachmei Todah if the original animal was not yet brought. A Chilufei Todas *Nedavah* (a Todah that one must bring due to his freewill Nedavah in which he stated, "Harei Zo"; this type of pledge does not require him to replace the animal if it is lost) is brought with Lachmei Todah whether it is offered before or after the original animal was found and offered. A Velad Todas Nedavah does not require Lachmei Todah, and a Velad Todas Chovah requires Lachmei Todah if its mother was not yet offered.

The Gemara, however, does not discuss whether or not the Temuras Todah must be brought with Lachmei Todah. What is the Halachah?

(a) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 12:8) says that a Temuras Todah has the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah. If it is a Temuras Todas Chovah, then it requires Lachmei Todah, if its mother was not yet brought. If it is a Temuras Todas Nedavah, then it is always brought with Lachmei Todah.

(b) The KEREN ORAH, SEFAS EMES, and others have difficulty with the Rambam's conclusion. It is true that a Temurah does not seem to be similar to a Velad Todah, since the reason why a Velad Todas Chovah requires Lachmei Todah is because a person may bring the Velad in order to fulfill his obligation to bring a Korban Todah. In contrast, a person cannot bring a Temuras Todah in order to fulfill his obligation to bring a Korban Todah. However, a Temuras Todah also does not seem to have the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah either. The Gemara says that the reason why one brings Lachmei Todah whenever he brings a Chilufei Todas Nedavah is because he did not have to replace his lost Korban, because it was a Nedavah ("Harei Zo"). The fact that he decided to dedicate another Korban anyway shows that he wanted to bring another full-fledged Korban Todah, including the Lachmei Todah. In contrast, when a person tries to transfer the Kedushah of his originally designated animal onto a second animal, a Temurah, his attempt is unsuccessful because the Torah says that, in the case of a Temurah, *both* animals become Kadosh. Accordingly, the person has no intention to bring two full-fledged Todos. It is therefore logical that once we have a verse (see 79b) that excludes a Temuras Todah from being brought with Lachmei Todah, we should say that the verse applies to all circumstances of a Temuras Todah, whether or not the original animal was already brought.

There is a clear proof to this opinion from the Gemara later (80b). The Gemara discusses a case in which a Todah became mixed up with the animal that was its Temurah, and one of them died. The Gemara says that the remaining animal cannot be brought. The reason is as follows. If the remaining animal is the original Todah, then it requires Lachmei Todah. If, on the other hand, it is the Temurah, then it does not require Lachmei Todah. The Gemara concludes that the case must be when the original Todah was a Nedavah. This means that a Temuras Todas Nedavah does not require Lachmei Todah even if it is brought before the owner brought the original animal (since, in this case, it died). This is unlike the Rambam's ruling that a Temuras Todas Nedavah is *always* brought with Lachmei Todah. Moreover, the Rambam himself rules in accordance with this Gemara (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 12:13), agreeing that the case is that of a Nedavah and that the remaining animal cannot be brought!

The RASHASH says that this question on the Rambam is "Tzarich Iyun Gadol." (The CHAZON ISH (Temurah 33:7) says that the only way to resolve this difficulty is by suggesting that the words in the Rambam, that a Temuras Todah has the same Halachah as a Chilufei Todah, were inserted in error. The Keren Orah also alludes to this possibility.) (Y. Montrose)

80b

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses a case in which a Todah became mixed up with the animal that was designated as its Temurah, and one of them died. The Gemara says that the remaining animal cannot be brought. If the remaining animal is the original Todah, then it requires Lachmei Todah. If, on the other hand, it is the Temurah, then it does not require Lachmei Todah. Levi asks Rebbi that there is a way to bring the remaining animal. The owner should bring the remaining animal together with the Lachmei Todah, and state a condition: if the remaining animal is the original Todah, then this is the Lachmei Todah needed to accompany it. If it is the Temuras Todah, then this Lachmei Todah is Chulin. Rebbi answered Levi that it is prohibited to bring Chulin into the Azarah, and therefore Levi's suggestion is not possible.

TOSFOS (DH v'Chi) has another suggestion. The owner should bring the Lachmei Todah conditionally, by saying that if the remaining animal is the original Todah, then this is its Lachmei Todah. If the remaining animal is the Temuras Todah, then the Lachmei Todah is hereby donated to Bedek ha'Bayis. In this case, it would be permitted to bring the Lachmei Todah into the Azarah, and thus the animal could be brought as a Korban!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that even though we find that such a condition may be made in other situations of doubt, we may only use such a condition when the item being brought is not really a Korban. When the item being brought is part of a regular Korban, then we say that the prohibition against bringing Chulin into the Azarah still applies, and it cannot be offset by such a condition. (According to Tosfos, the Isur to bring an object of Chulin into the Azarah applies mainly to an object of a Korban. Thus, Tosfos writes that it is permitted to wear one's normal Chulin shirt when he enters the Azarah.)

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#23) explains further that when one brings his Bikurim to the Beis ha'Mikdash and states that some of the fruit should be Kadosh as Bedek ha'Bayis, the Kedushah of the Bikurim fruit is not significantly different from the Kedushah of the Bedek ha'Bayis fruit, and thus it does not appear as though one is bringing Chulin into the Azarah. However, when the object is being brought conditionally because it might not be a Korban (or part of a Korban), then it is apparent that it is of much lesser Kedushah, and thus it is considered Chulin in the Azarah.

(b) TOSFOS in Bava Basra (81b, DH d'Makdish) gives a slightly different answer. He explains that when one brings forty loaves comprised of four different types (the Lachmei Todah), a condition does not help to disassociate the breads from being part of the Korban. This is because it is extremely uncommon for a person to donate for Bedek ha'Bayis exactly the same number and same types of loaves as the Lachmei Todah that are brought with a Todah. However, it is not uncommon for a person to donate fruit to Bedek ha'Bayis. Therefore, the condition in the case of Bikurim works to make the fruit of Bedek ha'Bayis considered to be Hekdesh in the Azarah, since everyone views it as Hekdesh. (See also MISHNEH L'MELECH, Hilchos Shechitah 3:2.) (Y. Montrose)