1) HOW WE LEARN TO “MATZAH”

(a) (Beraisa): “Tihyenah” (teaches about Lachmei Todah.)
(b) Question: How do we learn from this?
(c) Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avodimi): It is written with an extra Yud (hinting at 10 Esronim.)
(d) Question: Perhaps it teaches that 10 Kefizim (a smaller measure) are used!
(e) Answer (Rava): The verse discusses Esronim.
(f) (Beraisa) Question: This teaches that 10 are used for the Chametz – what is the source for the Matzah?
1. Answer: “Al Chalos Lechem Chametz” – the Matzah has as much flour as the Chametz.
(g) Question: Something learned from a Hekesh (Chametz, from Shtei ha’Lechem) cannot teach to something else (Matzah) through a Hekesh!
(h) Version #1 – Answer #1: This is a case of a Hekesh and something else;
1. (Tosfos: The Shi’ur of Chametz is not learned entirely from a Hekesh – we also needed “Tihyenah”; alternatively, the Hekesh only taught the size of each loaf, the number of loaves was learned from Terumas Ma’aser through a Gezerah Shavah; alternatively, Terumas Ma’aser is Chulin, we may learn Hekesh mi’Hekesh from Chulin.
2. Rashi: The matter learned from a Hekesh (one Isaron per loaf) is not what is taught through another Hekesh, rather, the Shi’ur of all the loaves together.)
(i) Version #2 – Rashi – Answer #1: Is this a case of a Hekesh teaching about something else?! (No, it teaches about another part of the same Korban;) (end of Version #2)
1. Therefore, it is not considered a Hekesh (to disallow learning Hekesh mi’Hekesh.)
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that a Hekesh and something else is not considered a Hekesh;
1. According to the opinion that it is, how can we answer?
(k) Answer #2: “Tavi’u” is not needed to teach about Shtei ha’Lechem, it was written solely to teach about Todah, we do not consider Todah to be learned from a Hekesh.
2) THE “MILU’IM”
(a) (Mishnah): The Milu’im breads were of the three varieties of Matzah found in Todah, i.e. Chalos, Rekikim and Revichah;
(b) Lachmei Nazir are two of the three varieties of Matzah found in Todah, Chalos and Rekikim, but not Revichah;
(c) Lachmei Nazir consist of 10 Yerushalmi Kavim, this equals six Esronim and a fraction (two thirds of an Isaron.)
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): “Umi’Sal ha’Matzos Asher Lifnei Hash-m Lakach Chalas Matzah Achas v’Chalas Lechem Shemen Achas v’Rakik Echad.”
1. Question: Clearly, “Chalah” and “Rakik” are just like we find in Lachmei Todah – but what is “Chalas Lechem Shemen Achas”
2. Suggestion: This is Revuchah (it is called ‘Lechem Shemen’ because it has more oil than Chalos or Rekikim.)
(f) Objection (Rav Avya): Perhaps it is a cake of congealed oil! (Alternatively – a thick piece of dough fried in oil!)
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda) Question: “Zeh Korban Aharon u’Vanav Asher Yakrivu la’Sh-m b’Yom Himashach Oso” – what Korban do Aharon’s son’s bring on account of their father’s anointment?!
1. Answer: This equates a regular Kohen’s Minchas Chinuch (that he brings the first time he does Avodah) to the Minchah a Kohen Gadol brings upon being anointed (and every day afterwards, i.e. Chavitim), i.e. Revuchah.
(h) (Rav Chisda): A Kohen Gadol brings two Menachos, each is one Isaron, upon being anointed – one on account of anointment, one is his Chinuch (on account of his first Avodah as Kohen Gadol.)
(i) (Mar bar Rav Ashi): He brings three.
(j) They do not argue – Rav Chisda discusses a Kohen who previously served as a Hedyot, Mar bar Rav Ashi discusses one who never served before (so he must also bring Minchas Chinuch of a regular Kohen.)
(k) (Mishnah): Lachmei Nazir are two of the three varieties of Matzah in Todah.
(l) (Beraisa): (Regarding Todah it says) “Shelamav” – this includes Ayil Nazir, its breads resemble Lachmei Todah, they consist of 10 Yerushalmi Kavim of Soles and a quarter Log of oil;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps this teaches that all three kinds of Matzah in Lachmei Todah are brought!
2. Rejection: “Matzos”.
3. Question: How do we learn this from the verse?
4. Answer #1 (Rav Papa): We include those Lachmei Todah regarding which it says “Matzos” – it does not say “Matzos” regarding Revuchah.
5. Answer #2 (Tana d’vei R. Yishmael): “Matzos” is a Klal, “Chalos” and “Rakikei” are Pratim – from a Klal and Prat we only learn the Pratim, Chalos and Rekikim.
78b—————————————78b
3) SLAUGHTER IS “MEKADESH” THE BREAD

(a) (Mishnah): If Lachmei Todah were outside the wall (this will be explained) when the Todah was slaughtered inside, the bread is not Mekudash;
(b) If at the time of slaughter the bread had not yet formed a crust in the oven, even if only one of the loaves did not have a crust, the bread is not Mekudash.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean ‘outside the wall’?
(d) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It means, outside the wall of Beis Pagi (Rashi Kesav Yad – outside of Yerushalayim; Rambam – outside of Har ha’Bayis.)
(e) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): It was outside the wall of the Azarah.
(f) (Todah must be slaughtered “Al Chalos Lechem Chametz”.)
(g) Reish Lakish holds that “Al” connotes nearby, therefore, if the bread was outside of the Azarah, it does not become Kodesh;
(h) R. Yochanan says that if it was outside Beis Pagi does not become Kodesh, but if it was within Beis Pagi, even though it was outside of the Azarah, it becomes Kodesh – “Al” does not connote nearby.
(i) Question: They argued about this elsewhere!
1. (Mishnah): (“Lo Sizbach Al Chametz Dam Zivchi”) – a Lav forbids slaughtering Korban Pesach before eradicating Chametz;
2. R. Yehudah says, the Lav also applies to slaughtering the Tamid (on the afternoon of Erev Pesach.)
3. (Reish Lakish): He is not liable unless there was Chametz in the Azarah belonging to the slaughterer, the one who did Zerikah, or an owner of the Korban;
4. (R. Yochanan): He is liable even if the Chametz was not in the Azarah.
(j) They must argue in both cases:
1. If they argued only about slaughtering, one might have thought that there R. Yochanan does not require the Chametz to be nearby, for one transgresses (Bal Yera’eh and Bal Yimatzei) wherever the Chametz is, but Lachmei Todah must be in the Azarah;
2. If they argued only about Lachmei Todah, one might have thought that there Reish Lakish requires them to be nearby, but he would agree that “Lo Sizbach” applies even if the Chametz is far away, for wherever it is, one transgresses.
(k) Support (for R. Yochanan – Beraisa): If Todah was slaughtered inside, and the bread was outside the wall of Beis Pagi, the bread is not Mekudash.
(l) (Mishnah): If at the time of slaughter the bread had not yet formed a crust in the oven…
(m) Question: What is the source of this?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): “Al Chalos *Lechem* Chametz Yakriv Korbano Al Zevach” – it must be bread, (i.e. a crust must have formed) at the time of slaughter;
1. “Yakriv Korbano Al Zevach” – only slaughter is Mekadesh the bread;
2. “Zevach Todas” – if the slaughter was not Lishmah (l’Shem Todah), the bread is not Mekudash.
(o) (Beraisa): One fulfills his obligation (to eat Matzah on the first night of Pesach) with Matzah that is Na (this will be explained), or with Matzah baked in a pan.
(p) Question: What does it mean ‘Na’? (Surely, it does not mean (fully) raw, this is not *Lechem* Oni!)
(q) Answer (Rav Yehudah): If one cuts it and strands do not extend from one side to the other. (Tosfos – this is the same degree of baking as forming a crust.)
(r) (Rava): The same applies to Lachmei Todah.
(s) Question: This is obvious, both of these are called ‘Lechem’!
(t) Answer: One might have thought, minimally baked loaves that can fall apart are considered to be broken, this is invalid for Lachmei Todah, since “Echad” teaches that that a full loaf must be taken (from each kind, for Terumah);
1. Rava teaches, this is not so.
4) A “TODAH” THAT WAS SLAUGHTERED FOR 80 LOAVES
(a) (Chizkiyah): If a Todah was slaughtered for 80 loaves, 40 of them become Kodesh;
(b) (R. Yochanan): None of them become Kodesh.
(c) (Amora’im argue about their argument.)
(d) Opinion #1 (R. Zeira): All agree that if the slaughterer said that 40 of them should become Kodesh, 40 become Kodesh;
1. All agree, if he said that all 80 should become Kodesh, none become Kodesh;
2. They argue when he did not specify:
i. Chizkiyah holds that he only intends to Mekadesh 40, the others are Acharayos, R. Yochanan holds that he wants to bring a big Korban of 80 breads.
(e) Opinion #2 (Abaye): (All agree that he intends to Mekadesh all 80, therefore his intent does not Mekadesh the bread – this is unlike the bracketed text.) They argue about whether or not Klei Shares (the same applies to slaughter) are Mekadesh without intent:
1. Chizkiyah holds that they are, R. Yochanan holds that they are not.
(f) Version #1 – Opinion #3 (Rav Papa): All agree that Klei Shares are Mekadesh without intent – they argue about whether or not the knife is Mekadesh like a Kli Shares;
1. Chizkiyah holds that it is, R. Yochanan holds that it is not.
(g) Version #2 – Opinion #3 (Rav Papa): All agree that Klei Shares are not Mekadesh without intent – they argue about whether or not the knife is Mekadesh;
1. Chizkiyah says, since it is Mekadesh even though is does not have an inside, this shows that it has more power to Mekadesh than Kli Shares, it is Mekadesh without intent;
2. R. Yochanan says, it is no better than a Kli Shares.
5) IS AN INVALID SLAUGHTER “MEKADESH” THE BREAD?
(a) (Mishnah): If Todah was slaughtered (with intent) Chutz li’Zmano or Chutz li’Mkomo, the bread becomes Kadosh;
(b) If it was slaughtered and found to be Treifah, the bread is not Kadosh.
(c) R. Eliezer says, if it was slaughtered and found to be a Ba’al Mum, the bread is Kadosh;
(d) Chachamim say, it is not Kadosh.
(e) If Todah, Ayil ha’Milu’im or Kivsei Atzeres were slaughtered Lo Lishmah, the bread is not Kadosh.