Kommentar zu Menachot 7:7

התודה חמש סאין ירושלמיות שהן שש מדבריות – five Seah of Jerusalem [measure] which are six from those that were in the wilderness during the days of Moses. That they added a sixth on the measure that was in the days of Moses. For we hold that we add on the measurements but we don’t add more than one-sixth. But that one-sixth is one-sixth externally/from the outside.

Introduction This chapter deals with the rules regarding the loaves that accompany the thanksgiving offering, the “todah” (see Leviticus 7:12).

שתי איפות – that is to say, these six Seah which are two Ephahs, which are twenty Issaron/tenths of an Ephah, for in each Ephah are ten Issarons/tenths.

The todah required five Jerusalem seahs [of flour], which are six wilderness seahs; The amount of flour required for these loaves was five seahs measured with the Jerusalem measure of the seah, which is equivalent to six seahs as they were measured in the wilderness. What this means is that in Jerusalem the measures were 1/6 larger than they were in the wilderness.

עשרה לחמץ – ten Issarons for ten unleavened loaves that are in the thanksgiving offering.

This is the equivalent to two ephahs, for an ephah is three seahs, or to twenty tenths [of an ephah], ten for the leavened cakes and ten for the matzot. Six wilderness seahs are equivalent to two ephahs, which can be divided up into twenty tenths of an ephah. This comes out to twenty loaves each 1/10 of an ephah. Ten of these were leavened (chametz, see Leviticus 7:13) and ten were matzot (Leviticus 7:12).

רבוכה – a paste made by stirring flour in hot water which is called רבוכה/pulp of flour mixed with hot water and oil (see Rashi) . But Maimonides (see the Laws of Maaseh HaKorbanot, Chapter 9, Halakha 19) explained that his pulp of flour mixed with hot water and oil has a lot of oil and it is roasted/parched in it, because there was oil in it corresponding to the loaves and the wafers.

“Ten for the leavened cakes” one tenth for each cake; Each leavened cake was 1/10 of an ephah (aren’t you grateful for simple math?).

נמצאו שלשה עשרונות ושליש לכל מין ומין – that is in the Matzah/unleavened bread.

“And ten for the matzot” –there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were three and a third tenths of flour for each kind, three cakes to every tenth. Leviticus 7:12 lists three kinds of matzot: “unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, unleavened flours with oil, and cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in.” So if there were ten of each kind, each would have been 1/3 of a tenth of an ephah.

שלש חלות לעשרון – they would have ten loaves for three Esronot and a third.

By Jerusalem measure they were thirty kavs, fifteen for the leavened cakes and fifteen for the matzot. The mishnah now provides the amounts according to the Jerusalem measure. In Jerusalem they didn’t count according to ephah and tenths of an ephah but rather according to kavs. A seah is six kav so five seahs are 30 kav.

במדה ירושלמית – they did not have in them Esronot but rather Kabim, that these five Seah would be thirty Kabim. For the Seah is six Kabim. But in the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 77a) in a Baraita, it brings from an analogy that each and every species from the four kinds that are in the thanksgiving offering, and they stated, it is stated here (Leviticus 7:14): “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the LORD; [it shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the offering of well-being],” and it is stated regarding the tenth of the tenth (Numbers 15:21): “You shall set aside a gift to the LORD from the first yield of your baking, [throughout the ages].” Just as there it is one out of ten, so even here it is one out of ten. And we learned that one kind is of leavened [flour] was ten Issarons corresponding to the three species of Matzah, from what is written (Leviticus 7:13): “This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added, [he shall offer along with his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being],” the Torah stated corresponding to the leavened that comes the unleavened.

“Fifteen for the leavened cakes”, one kav and a half for each cake. According to this account, there were fifteen kav for the leavened cakes, 1 ½ kav per cake.

“And fifteen for the matzot” there were three kinds of matzot: loaves, wafers, and soaked cakes, thus there were five kavs for each kind, two cakes to every kav. When you do the account for the matzot, each kind gets five kav, divided by ten cakes, adds up to ½ a kav per cake.

המלואים – that were in the days of Moses when Aaron and his sons were inaugurated/dedicated into the priesthood.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with two other types of minhah offerings that are similar in amount to the todah: the “basket of matzot” brought on the day that the priests were first consecrated to serve in the Tabernacle (Leviticus 8:26) and the “basket of matzot” brought by the Nazirite (Numbers 6:15).

היו באים כמצה שבתודה חלות ורקיקים ורבוכה – as it is written in the inauguration (Leviticus 8:26): “From the basket of unleavened bread that was before the LORD, he took one cake of unleavened bread, one cake of oil bread, and one wafer, [and placed them on the fat parts and on the right thigh],” one cake of unleavened bread – these are the loaves, and the one cake of oil bread – this is the pulp of flour mixed with hot water and oil that they add into it oil corresponding to the loaves and the wafers. And the wafer is the wafter.

The consecration [minhah] consisted of matzah like the todah: cakes, wafers, and soaked cakes. The minhah offered at the consecration of the priests was the same as the matzot of the todah (see yesterday’s mishnah).

נזירות – the loaves of the Nazirite, as it is stated (Numbers 6:15): “a basked of unleavened cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in, and unleavened wafters spread with oil; [and the proper grain offerings and libations],” but the pulp of flour mixed with oil and water is not mentioned there.

The nazirite minhah consisted of two thirds of the matzah of the todah: cakes and wafers, but not soaked cakes. The minhah of the nazirite’s offering consisted of only cakes and wafers. Unlike the todah and the consecration minhah, there were no soaked cakes.

שתי ידות – two parts of kinds of unleavened bread that are in the thanksgiving offering they were in the Nazirite offering, as it is explained further on.

Thus there were ten kavs by Jerusalem measure, which are six tenths and something over. Since for the nazirite offering there are only two kinds of matzot and not three, there are only ten kavs needed and not the fifteen for the todah (as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah). Each type of matzah is three and 1/3 tenths of an ephah, so the two types of matzah are 6 and 2/3 tenths of an ephah.

נמצאו – for the Nazirite.

From each kind [the priest] took one tenth part as terumah, as it is said, “Out of this he shall offer one of each kind as a gift to the Lord” (Leviticus 7:1: From each type of matzah in the todah and nazirite minhah, the priest takes one tenth as his terumah, his part. This is explicit in Leviticus 7:14 which states that the priest gets one part of each kind, meaning one of the ten cakes, one of the ten wafers and for the todah, one of the ten soaked cakes.

עשר קבין – that behold with the three kinds of unleavened bread that were associated with the thanksgiving offering, they were fifteen Kab, and they were ten [Kab] which were two thirds of the fifteen [for the Nazirite’s offering].

“One:” that he may not take what is broken. The mishnah now contains a brief midrash of this verse. The word “one” means that the matzah that he removes should be whole and not broken.

שהן שש עשרונות ועדוין – that is to say, more that was added to them, for there were three Issarons and one-third of each kind, as it was stated above concerning the unleavened bread that is in the thanksgiving offering, it is found that two kinds are six Issarons and two-thirds of an Issaron, which are as we state six Issaron and something left over.

“Out of each offering:” that each kind of offering shall be equal, [and] that he must not take [the terumah] from the one kind of offering on behalf of another. “Out of each offering” means that the amount of matzot of each type must be equal ten of each. Furthermore, the priest should not take two of one type and none of another rather he must take one of each type.

ומכולן – from all of the four kinds that are in the thanksgiving offering, the Kohanim would take one from ten as a heave-offering.

“It shall go to the priest who dashes the blood of the shelamim:” and the rest was consumed by the owner. Besides the one matzah taken by the priest, the rest of the matzot go to the owner who brings the todah or the nazirite.

שלא יטול פרוס – broken and cut into.

שיהיה כל הקרבנות שוין – the kinds will be equivalent, ten loaves for each kind [of animal].

שלא יטול תרומה מקרבן על חבירו – that if there was five [loaves] from this kind [of animal] and fifteen [loaves] from that kind of animal, it is found that he would separate from this one for that one.

השוחט את התודה בפנים – inside from the Temple courtyard.

Introduction This mishnah deals with situations in which the loaves that accompany the todah sacrifice are for various reasons not sanctified, meaning that they don’t attain the status of a sacrifice. If one were to make non-holy use of one of the loaves that had not been sanctified, he would not be guilty of making illicit use of Temple property.

ולחמה חוץ לחומה – In the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 78b) we establish that it is outside the wall of the House of Pagi. My teachers/Rabbis explained outside the outer wall of Jerusalem [but outside of the Temple courtyard is holy]. But even though it is written (Leviticus 7:12): “[If he offers it (i.e., the sacrifice of well-being/peace offering) for thanksgiving,] he shall offer it together with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes/והקריב על זבח התודה חלות [with oil mixed in, unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of choice flour with oil mixed in, well soaked],” that implies, apparently that the bread is near it at the time of the sacrifice, we don’t expound [the word] "על"/nearby. But Maimonides has the reading of “the house of Bagi.” And he explains that it is a place close to the Temple Mount which is outside the wall of the Temple Mount and there they bake the meal/grain offerings. And on account of this, they would call it Bet Bagi, the language of bread/Bag of the king.

One who slaughtered the todah within [the Temple court] while its bread was outside the wall, the bread has not been sanctified. If they slaughtered the todah while the bread was still outside of the Temple walls, the bread is not sanctified. Some commentators interpret the walls here to be the walls of Jerusalem.

עד שלא קרמו בתנור – these are not bread, but rather mere dough [prior to their forming a crust].

If he slaughtered it before [the loaves] had become crusted in the oven, even if all except one had become crusted, the bread is not sanctified. The todah should be slaughtered only once the bread has been baked. “Dough” turns into “bread” when it is crusted over in the oven. Thus if the loaves were not yet crusted over when the todah is sacrificed, then the loaves are not sanctified.

שחטה – in order to eat it outside of its appropriate time, the bread is sanctified, but it (i.e., the offering) was done with the wrong intention and is disqualified. If on condition to eat it outside of its appropriate place, the bread is sanctified but it (i.e., the sacrifice) is disqualified. But the reason that the bread is sanctified, is because it is disqualified within the Temple courtyard. And we hold that any offering that was disqualified within the Temple courtyard, the Temple courtyard, the Temple courtyard receives it.

If he slaughtered the todah [intending to eat it] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the bread is sanctified. If he sacrifices the todah with an improper intent, then the bread is sanctified. However, it becomes “piggul” or “disqualified” just like the todah. In other words, in this case, the bread became sanctified and then disqualified. In the cases in the first two sections, the bread was simply never sanctified.

שחטה ונמצאת טריפה לא קדש הלחם – for its disqualification occurred prior to ritual slaughtering (see also Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnayot 2-3).

If he slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah, the bread is not sanctified. If the animal is found to be a terefah (an animal that has a defect that would have caused it to die), then the animal was never really a valid sacrifice. Therefore, the bread is not sanctified.

שחטה ונמצאת בעלת מום ר' אליעזר אומר קדש – In the Gemara (Tractate Menahot 79a), it establishes it as a defect in the eye [which is not recognized], that with this defect Rabbi Eliezer held that if they (i.e., the sacrifices) went up [to the altar], they should not go down, since their defect is not recognized, therefore, the bread is sanctified. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

If he slaughtered it and it was found to have a blemish: Rabbi Eliezer says: the bread is sanctified. But the sages say: it is not sanctified. In Zevahim 9:3 we learned that Rabbi Akiva said that an animal with a blemish that was put up on the altar is not taken down. In other words, since the animal was slaughtered to be a sacrifice, it remains sanctified. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with this and therefore holds that the bread is also sanctified. The other rabbis disagree and seem to hold like the other opinion in Zevahim, that if an animal with a blemish is slaughtered and put on the altar, it must be taken down. It was never sacred, and neither is the bread.

שלא לשמה – the bread is not sanctified, as it is written (Leviticus 7:13): “This offering, with cakes of leavened bread added, he shall offer along with his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being,” on the sacrifice that was made for the sake of the peace-offerings of thanksgiving.

If he slaughtered it under another name, and so, too, if the ram of the consecration-offering or the two lambs offered at Shavuot were slaughtered under another name, the bread is not sanctified. If he slaughtered the todah, or the other sacrifices that are accompanied by bread (the ram of consecration was explained above in mishnah two, and the two lambs offered at Shavuot were mentioned in 2:2), under the wrong name, meaning intending for them to be another sacrifice, then the bread that accompanies them is not sanctified because the sacrifice does not count.

וכן איל המילואים – because they were the first of all the sacrifices, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the ram of ordination. And the same law applies to the ram of the Nazirite, for the rams of ordination are considered like the sacrifice of an individual.

נסכים שקדשו בכלי – not exactly in a utensil. For the libations are not sanctified to be defiled by going out [of the Temple] or by being kept overnight, even though they were sanctified in a vessel, other than through the ritual slaughtering of the sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 23:37): “[Those are the set times of the LORD that you shall celebrate as sacred occasions, bringing gifts to the LORD – burnt offerings, grain offerings,] sacrifices and libations, [on each day what is proper to it],” the libations are dependent upon the sacrifices.

If a [minhah that is accompanied by] the libations had already been sanctified in a vessel when the animal-offering was found to be invalid: If there is another animal-offering, they may be offered with it; But if not, they are left to become invalid by remaining overnight. The first section deals with the libations and the minhah that accompany an animal sacrifice (see Numbers 15:2ff and see also above 2:4). If the minhah was already sanctified by having been put in a vessel, and then the animal sacrifice was found to be invalid, there are two possible outcomes. If there is another animal-offering that the minhah and the libations can accompany, then they can be offered with it. If not, then the minhah and the libation should be left over night in the Temple. Anything left out over night is invalid and must be burned. This is the way of disposing of the minhah and the libations. Note that they can’t just get rid of them, because they have already attained a holy status by being put in a vessel.

ונמצא הזבח פסול – that it was disqualified through the sprinkling [of the blood], for had it become disqualified through ritual slaughter, the libations would not be sanctified.

The offspring of a todah, its substitute, and the animal which was set apart in the place of the todah which was set apart and was lost, do not require the [accompanying] bread, as it says, “And he shall offer [them] with the sacrifice of thanksgiving (” (Leviticus 7:1; the todah requires the accompanying bread, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the accompanying bread. There are three different types of animals related to here. The first is the offspring of a todah, meaning an animal born from an animal that had already been set aside as a todah. The second is a substitute, which refers to an animal that someone tried to substitute for a todah (there is an entire tractate devoted to this subject, so we will learn more there). The third is a replacement todah, one that was meant to take the place of a lost todah, but then the original todah was found. In all of these cases, the animal is holy and must be sacrificed. However, since it is not actually itself a todah, it need not be accompanied by the bread. This is derived from the verse which is read as emphasizing that only the todah requires bread, not other sacrifices that are in various ways derived from the todah.

אם יש שם זבח אחר יקרבו עמו – we establish it in our Mishnah with the libations of the community, because the heart of the Jewish court makes a condition upon them, if they were needed for this sacrifice, they were needed, but if not, they would be for another sacrifice. But regarding the libation of an individual [offering], they are not appropriate/fit for another offering. But even the libations of the communal [offering] are not offered with another sacrifice unless it was the same sacrifice that was offered when the first sacrifice was disqualified, but if it was not offered at the time when the first sacrifice was disqualified, it is not offered with another sacrifice. But our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: it should be sacrificed with it. When is this said? That the sacrifice was offered at the same time, but if the sacrifice was not offered at the same time, it becomes like it was disqualified by staying overnight and they are disqualified. And this is how our Mishnah is explained in the Gemara (see Tractate Menahot 79b). And all the time that the libations were not sanctified in a utensil, even though the sacrifice was ritually slaughtered, we are able to offer the libations even after several days, for we hold that a person brings his sacrifice today and his libation even after sevral days, whether it is the libations of an individual or whether it is the libations of the community. And similarly, the leper brings his guilt offering today and his Log of oil after several days.

ולד תודה – he separated out a pregnant thanksgiving offering and its young.

וכן המפריש תודתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה אינה טעונה לחם – the first [bread] if it (i.e., the first sacrifice) was found after the offering up of the second. And similarly, the second, if the first was found prior to its being offered up and he offered up the first, the second no longer requires bread.

חליפתה – that is that he separates a thanksgiving offering and it was lost and he separated out another one in its place.

תמורתה – as for example, that it stands clearly visible and he states, “this is in place of that”, and it is written (Leviticus 27:33): “then it and its substitute shall be holy: [it cannot be redeemed].”

יביא הוא ולחמה מן החולין – but not from [Second] Tithe. For since he said, “I pledge myself/הרי עלי,” this is for him a matter that is of liability, and every matter that is of a liability does not come other than from that that which is unconsecrated.

Introduction This mishnah and the next deal with various laws governing one who vows to bring a todah sacrifice.

ואם אמר הרי עלי תודה מן החולין ולחמה מן המעשר יביא היא ולחמה מן החולם – for the bread is dragged (i.e., attached) to the thanksgiving offering, for since he said, “I pledge myself [to bring] a thank-offering from that which is unconsecrated, he is forced to become liable for the bread, therefore, that which he repeats and states that its bread is from the [Second] Tithe is nothing.

One who says: “Behold I take upon myself [to bring] a todah”, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin. If he vows to bring a todah, he must bring both it and its bread from hullin, non-sacred, sources. He cannot use second tithe money to purchase it or its bread. We will learn why in tomorrow’s mishnah.

תודה מן המעשר ולחמה מן החולין יביא – that is to say, he shall bring according to what he vowed. But it is not a requirement, for all the more so, if he would bring both from that which is unconsecrated, he acted well. But if he wants to bring like he vowed, he can bring.

[If he said:] “A todah from hullin and its bread from tithe,” he must bring the bread from hullin. If he specifies that he will purchase the todah with hullin money, but that he wants to use second tithe money for the bread, he must still use hullin money to purchase both. When he said that he would bring a “todah from hullin” the word “todah” included the bread, so it too must be brought from hullin. His words “and its bread from tithe” don’t make any difference.

[If he said:] “A todah from tithe and bread from hullin,” he may bring. If he says that he wants to bring the todah from tithe, then he may do so. He can also bring the bread from hullin.

ולא יביא הלחם מחטי מעשר שני עצמו – for we require bead that is similar to peace-offerings. Just as peace-offerings come from Second Tithe monies and not from Second Tithe itself, so too, the bread.

[If he said:] “A todah, it and its bread from tithe,” he may bring. If he vows to bring both from tithe, he may do so.

But he must not bring from grain of second tithe, rather from second tithe money. In the previous case, the animal that he brings for a todah will be purchased with second tithe money. Therefore, the bread should also be purchased with money used to redeem second tithe, and not with grain that was itself set aside to be second tithe. This way both the todah and the accompanying bread come from the exact same source.

מה פסח שהוא בא בחובה אינו בא אלא מן החולין – that the Passover offering of Egypt did not come other than from unconsecrated [animals], for they did not yet have any Second Tithe grain for there was no tithe until they entered into the Land [of Israel], and just as the Passover offering of Egypt did not come other than from unconsecrated [animals] even the Passover offering for the generations did not come other than from unconsecrated [animals], for it states (Exodus 13:5): “You shall observe in this month the following practice,” that all the Divine service of this month would be like that of Egypt.

Introduction Today’s mishnah explains why one who says “I take upon myself to bring a todah” must buy the todah with hullin (non-sacred) money and cannot use maaser sheni money. This was the halakhah that we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.

אף כל דבר שבחובה נמי כו' - therefore, the person who states, “I pledge myself [to bring] a thank offering or a peace offering” for since they come as an obligation, as it states, “I pledge myself [to bring}, he should not bring anything other than from that which is unconsecrated.

From where [is it derived] that if one says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” he can bring it only from hullin? This section asks why the mishnah rules that one who vows to bring a todah must purchase it with hullin money.

והנסכים – even if he said, “I pledge myself to bring them from [Second] Tithe, he should not bring them other than from unconsecrated [animals]. For when the All-Merciful permits to include peace-offerings from [Second] Tithe, these words of the peace-offerings themselves, are those things that are consumed, but the libations are burned entirely [on the altar] , he should not bring them from the [Second] Tithe.

As it is said, “And you shall sacrifice the pesah to the Lord your God, from the flock or the herd” (Deuteronomy 16:. But is not the pesah sacrifice brought only from the lambs and from the goats? Why then is it written, “from the flock or the herd”? The answer is derived from a problematic verse that deals with the pesah sacrifice. The pesah sacrifice, according to Exodus, must be brought only from flock animals, meaning sheep or goats. However, Deuteronomy 16:2 states that it can come from herd animals, such as cows. This is a clear example of biblical verses which contradict each other.

It is to compare whatever is brought from the flock and the herd with the pesah: just as the pesah is obligatory and offered only from what is hullin, so everything that is obligatory may be offered only from what is hullin. The mishnah answers that Deuteronomy states “from the flock and the herd” not because the pesah can come from the herd (it cannot) but to compare other sacrifices that come from the flock and the herd with the pesah. The comparison is that whatever sacrifice is obligatory, as is the pesah, must be brought only from hullin sources and not from maaser sheni money. We should note that this makes sense from a practical perspective. If the Torah mandates that I bring a certain sacrifice and it mandates that I bring maaser sheni money and use it to buy food in Jerusalem, combining these two obligations would be cheating the system. Rather, maaser sheni money should be used to buy voluntary sacrifices, sacrifices that I would not otherwise had to have brought.

Therefore if a man says, “I take upon myself to bring a todah,” or “I take upon myself [to offer] a shelamim,” since [in these cases] these are obligatory they may be offered only from what is hullin. A todah is usually a voluntary sacrifice. However, in this case once he makes a vow to bring a todah, it is no longer voluntary but rather obligatory. Since he has made it into an obligatory sacrifice, he can no longer purchase the animal with maaser sheni money. In sum, a normal todah can be purchased with maaser sheni money because it is a voluntary sacrifice but a todah brought because of a vow is a mandatory sacrifice and must be purchased with hullin money.

The libations in every case may be offered only from what is hullin. The libations that accompany a todah or a shelamim sacrifice must always be purchased with hullin money, even if he explicitly vows to bring the todah from maaser sheni. The reason is that these libations are not eaten, but rather fully sacrificed on the altar. Maaser sheni money must be used to purchase food that will be eaten by people and not sacrifices that go completely to the altar.