## Menachot Daf 81b

###### Menachot 81b:1
[Menachot 81b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:1)

״תּוֹדָה עָלַי מִן הַחוּלִּין וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״ – יָבִיא הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין. ״תּוֹדָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין״ – יָבִיא. ״הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״ – יָבִיא. וְלֹא יָבִיא מֵחִיטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one said: It is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering from non-sacred** money **and its loaves from** second-**tithe** money, **he must bring** the thanks offering **and its loaves from non-sacred** money. If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering from** second-**tithe** money **and its loaves from non-sacred** money, **he may bring** it in that manner. Likewise, if one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering **and its loaves from** second-**tithe** money, **he may bring** it in that manner. **And he may not bring** the loaves **from second-tithe wheat; rather,** he purchases the flour **with second-tithe money.**


###### Menachot 81b:2
[Menachot 81b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִידָּע יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא דְּלֶחֶם בְּלֹא תּוֹדָה לָא איקָרֵיב, וְהַאי תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ קָאָמַר, וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר ״לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – סוֹף מִילְּתָא נָקֵט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the various ways in which one can take a vow to bring a thanks offering and its loaves, **Rav Huna says: One who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves,** even though he did not expressly take upon himself the obligation to bring the thanks offering itself. **What is the reason? This man knows that loaves are not brought without a thanks offering, and** by stating the vow in **this** manner, he was effectively **saying:** It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering and its loaves. And** the reason he **stated** his vow in **this** manner, namely, by saying: It is incumbent upon me to bring **loaves of a thanks offering,** was that **he was citing the end of the matter,** as the sacrifice of a thanks offering is completed with the bringing of the loaves.


###### Menachot 81b:3
[Menachot 81b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:3)

תְּנַן: תּוֹדָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין – יָבִיא כְּמָה שֶׁנָּדַר. וְאַמַּאי? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״לַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין״ – יָבִיא הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with the statement of Rav Huna from that which **we learned** in the mishna: If one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering from** second-**tithe** money **and its loaves from non-sacred** money, **he may bring** it **as he vowed.** The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of Rav Huna that one who takes a vow to bring the loaves of a thanks offering intends to bring the thanks offering as well, **why** does the mishna state that he may bring the thanks offering from second-tithe money? **Since he said: Its loaves from non-sacred** money, **he should bring** a thanks offering **and its loaves from non-sacred** money.


###### Menachot 81b:4
[Menachot 81b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:4)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״תּוֹדָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״, נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לֶחֶם לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **It is different there,** in the case of the mishna, **as since he said** initially: It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering from** second-**tithe** money, and then said: And its loaves from non-sacred money, **he is considered as one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **loaves to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so.** His vow to bring the loaves is not considered a new vow, but rather as a vow to bring loaves for the specific offering he vowed to bring.


###### Menachot 81b:5
[Menachot 81b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:5)

אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי: תּוֹדָה מִן הַחוּלִּין וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר – יָבִיא הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַחוּלִּין, הָכָא נָמֵי נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה לִפְטוֹר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then with regard to **the first clause** of the mishna, **which teaches** that if one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering from non-sacred** money **and its loaves from** second-**tithe** money, then **he must bring** the thanks offering **and its loaves from non-sacred** money, **here too** let it be said that **he is considered as one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering to exempt the loaves of so-and-so,** and he therefore should bring a thanks offering from second tithe. His initial vow to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money should not include the bringing of the loaves.


###### Menachot 81b:6
[Menachot 81b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:6)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא לֶחֶם לְמִיפְטַר תּוֹדָה אָתֵי, תּוֹדָה לְמִיפְטַר לֶחֶם מִי אָתְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **How can** these cases **be compared? Granted,** in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from second-tithe money and its loaves from non-sacred money, it can be said that he intends that the loaves should be brought to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring a thanks offering, because **loaves come to exempt the thanks offering.** But in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a thanks offering from non-sacred money and its loaves from second-tithe money, it cannot be said that the thanks offering is meant to complete the vow of one who is obligated to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, as **does a thanks offering come to exempt the loaves?**


###### Menachot 81b:7
[Menachot 81b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:7)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם״ וְ״זֶבַח בְּלֹא נְסָכִים״ – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ, וּמֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the statement of Rav Huna that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, must bring a thanks offering and its loaves. **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* that contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna: In the case of **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering without loaves, or** an animal **offering without libations,** the court **coerces him, and he brings a thanks offering with its loaves,** or **an offering with its libations.**


###### Menachot 81b:8
[Menachot 81b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:8)

טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר, אֲבָל לָא אָמַר תּוֹדָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** that he is coerced to bring a thanks offering with its loaves is **that he said** that it is incumbent upon himself to bring a thanks offering. **But** if **he did not say** that it is incumbent upon himself to bring **a thanks offering,** but instead said that it is incumbent upon himself to bring the loaves of a thanks offering, he would **not** be coerced to bring a thanks offering with the loaves, in contradiction to the opinion of Rav Huna.


###### Menachot 81b:9
[Menachot 81b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:9)

הוּא הַדִּין אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָמַר ״תּוֹדָה״, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא ״זֶבַח בְּלֹא נְסָכִים״, דְּלָא מִתְּנֵי לֵיהּ ״נְסָכִים בְּלֹא זֶבַח״, תְּנָא נָמֵי ״תּוֹדָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: Actually, **the same is true even if he did not say** that it is incumbent upon himself to bring **a thanks offering,** but said only: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaves. **And** this is the reason that the *tanna* of the *baraita* mentions specifically the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring a thanks offering without loaves: **Since** the *tanna* **wants to teach** the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring an animal **offering without libations,** concerning **which** he could **not teach** a case where one renders himself obligated to bring **libations without an offering,** because, unlike the loaves of a thanks offering, libations are in fact brought on their own and one can take a vow to bring them on their own, **he** therefore **also taught** the case of one who renders himself obligated to bring **a thanks offering.**


###### Menachot 81b:10
[Menachot 81b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:10)

אַמַּאי? נֶדֶר וּפִתְחוֹ עִמּוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses the actual statement of the *baraita* and asks: **Why** is he coerced to bring a thanks offering and its loaves? Isn’t **this** an instance of **a vow with its** inherent **opening?** That is, the vow should be dissolved entirely on the grounds that the one who took the vow may claim that he thought it was possible to bring a thanks offering without loaves, and now that he has been made aware that he cannot, he regrets taking the vow.


###### Menachot 81b:11
[Menachot 81b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:11)

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: הָא מַנִּי? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: תְּפוֹס לָשׁוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר מִן הַגְּרוֹגְרוֹת וּמִן הַדְּבֵלָה״ – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: נָזִיר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ נָזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ḥizkiyya said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who say:** In the case of one who stated a declaration comprising two contradictory statements, **attend** to only **the first statement. As we learned** in a mishna (*Nazir* 9a): If one says: **I am hereby a nazirite from dried figs and from** pressed **figs,** which is a contradictory statement, as figs are not prohibited to a nazirite, **Beit Shammai say:** He is a full-fledged **nazirite,** as one attends only to the first statement, i.e., I am hereby a nazirite, and the second part is discounted. **And Beit Hillel say:** The second part of his statement is not discounted, and therefore **he is not a nazirite,** as he did not accept naziriteship upon himself.


###### Menachot 81b:12
[Menachot 81b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:12)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בֵּית הִלֵּל, בְּאוֹמֵר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין נוֹדְרִין כָּךְ, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר כָּךְ, אֶלָּא כָּךְ. וּמַאי כּוֹפִין? דְּקָא בָּעֵי הָדַר בֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Hillel,** and the ruling of the *baraita* is **with regard to one who says: Had I known that one does not vow** in **this** manner, i.e., to bring a thanks offering without loaves or an animal offering without libations, **I would not have vowed** in **this** manner **but** in **that** manner, i.e., I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves. There is therefore no opening for a dissolution. **And what** does the *baraita* mean when it states that the court **coerces** him? Why would he require coercion if he says that he would have willingly taken the proper vow? The *baraita* is referring to a case **where,** despite the fact that he would have taken the proper vow initially, **he** now **wants to retract his** vow altogether.


###### Menachot 81b:13
[Menachot 81b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי תּוֹדָה בְּלֹא לֶחֶם״, וְ״זֶבַח בְּלֹא נְסָכִים״, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״הָבֵא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ״, וְ״זֶבַח וּנְסָכִים״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר״ – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* in support of the response of Ḥizkiyya: **Come** and **hear:** In a case involving **one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a thanks offering without loaves, or:** It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal **offering without libations, and** the Sages **said to him: Bring a thanks offering with its loaves, or:** Bring an animal **offering with its libations, and he says: Had I known that such** is the requirement **I would not have vowed** at all; the *halakha* is that the court **coerces him, and says to him: “Observe and hear”** (Deuteronomy 12:28).


###### Menachot 81b:14
[Menachot 81b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְחִזְקִיָּה, נִיחָא לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא וַדַּאי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Granted,** this **works out well according to Ḥizkiyya,** who says that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai that one attends only to the first statement, since this *baraita* can also be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. **But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who says that the *baraita* discusses a case where the person who took the vow says: Had I known that one does not vow in this manner I would have vowed to bring a thanks offering with its loaves, this *baraita* presents **a difficulty,** as although the individual claims that he would not have taken any vow, he must still bring a thanks offering and its loaves. The Gemara responds: **Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said to you: This** latter *baraita* **is certainly** in accordance with the opinion of **Beit Shammai,** but the previous *baraita* may still be explained in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Menachot 81b:15
[Menachot 81b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:15)

מַאי ״שְׁמֹר וְשָׁמַעְתָּ״? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״שְׁמֹר״ – הָבֵא תּוֹדָה, ״וְשָׁמַעְתָּ״ – הָבֵא לַחְמָהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: ״שְׁמֹר״ – הָבֵא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, ״וְשָׁמַעְתָּ״ – שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רָגִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns to analyze the *baraita* itself: **What** is the relevance of the phrase in the verse that says: **“Observe and hear,”** to one who vows to bring a thanks offering without its loaves? **Abaye says: “Observe”** means: **Bring a thanks offering; “and hear”** means: **Bring its loaves. Rava says: “Observe”** means: **Bring a thanks offering and its loaves; “and hear”** means **that you should not act** in **this** manner **regularly.**


###### Menachot 81b:16
[Menachot 81b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:16)

״תּוֹדָה הִיא וְלַחְמָהּ מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״ – יָבִיא. יָבִיא? לָא סַגִּי דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי? רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמְרִי: רָצָה מֵבִיא, לֹא רָצָה לֹא יָבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one states: It is incumbent upon me to bring **a thanks offering and its loaves from** second-**tithe** money, **he shall bring** it in that manner. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna teach: **He shall bring,** which suggests that he must bring the thanks offering and loaves from second-tithe money? Is it **not sufficient** to fulfill his vow even **if he does not bring** it from second-tithe money but from non-sacred money? In fact, it is preferable that he bring the offering from non-sacred money. **Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda say:** The mishna does not mean that he must bring it specifically from second-tithe money; rather, if he **wants, he brings** it from second-tithe money, and if he **does not want, he does not** need to **bring** it from second-tithe money.


###### Menachot 81b:17
[Menachot 81b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:17)

וְלֹא יָבִיא מֵחִיטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אֶלָּא מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. רַב נַחְמָן וְרַב חִסְדָּא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מֵחִיטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל מֵחִיטִּין הַלְּקוּחוֹת מִמְּעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – יָבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And he may not bring** the loaves **from second-tithe wheat; rather,** he purchases the flour **with second-tithe money.** With regard to this, **Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda both say:** The mishna **taught only** that the loaves may not be brought **from second-tithe wheat** itself, **but he may bring** the loaves **from wheat purchased with second-tithe money.**


###### Menachot 81b:18
[Menachot 81b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/81b:18)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מֵחִיטֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אֲבָל מֵחִיטִּין הַלְּקוּחוֹת בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי – יָבִיא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ מֵחִיטִּין הַלְּקוּחוֹת בִּמְעוֹת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לֹא יָבִיא. וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִידִי, וְאֵימָא טַעְמָא דִּידָךְ. אֵימָא טַעְמָא דִּידָךְ: תּוֹדָה מֵהֵיכָא קָא יָלְפַתְּ לַהּ? מִשְּׁלָמִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira, and he was sitting and saying:** The mishna **taught only** that the loaves may not be brought **from second-tithe wheat** itself, **but he may bring** the loaves **from wheat purchased from second-tithe money.** Rabbi Zeira **said to him: My teacher,** do **you say so? I say** that **he may not bring** the loaves **even from wheat purchased from second-tithe money. And I will say my reasoning and I will say your reasoning. I will say your reasoning** first: **From where do you derive** that the loaves of **a thanks offering** may be brought from wheat purchased with second-tithe money? You derive it from the *halakha* of **a peace offering.** A thanks offering is a type of peace offering, as the verse states: “And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanks” (Leviticus 7:15), and a peace offering may be brought from second-tithe money.