Menachos Daf 81 מנחוס דַף 81

On the previous Daf, Rebbe Chiya taught that if a תודה became confused with its תמורה and one died, the surviving animal has no resolution. Eight possible resolutions are suggested, and are all rejected. In the final suggestion, Ravina was asked that the owner should bring an animal and say "הרי עלי" – “It is an obligation upon me to bring a תודה,” and designate that animal to fulfill his נדר. He should then bring a third animal and eighty loaves, and stipulate that if the surviving animal is the תמורה, these two new animals should be תודות, and the eighty loaves are for them. If the surviving animal is the original תודה, and the first new animal which was designated to fulfill his נדר is the other, the eighty loaves are for the two of them, and the third animal can be the אחריות of the נדר!? Ravina answered, “The Torah says: טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם – Better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not fulfill, ואת אמרת ליקום ולינדור בתחילה – and you suggest he should arise and vow outright to bring a תודה?!”

The next Mishnah states that if one accepts upon himself to bring a תודה, both the תודה and its לחם must be brought from חולין funds, because his acceptance makes it a personal obligation, and a דבר שבחובה – obligatory [offering] must be funded from chullin. If he says, “הרי עלי to bring a תודה from chullin, and its bread from maaser,” both the korban and לחם must still be brought from chullin, because his initial pledge to bring a תודה from chullin included a לחם obligation. If he pledged to bring “a תודה from maaser and its bread from chullin,” יביא – he should bring them according to his terms (i.e., the korban may be brought from maaser funds, but the לחם must be from chullin). If he said, "היא ולחמה מן המעשר" – “it and its bread from maaser,” יביא – he should bring as he pledged. The Gemara clarifies that this means that he may bring them from maaser, but can certainly also use חולין.

A Baraisa states that one who says, "הרי עלי תודה בלא לחם" – “It is incumbent upon me to bring a todah without bread,” or a korban without נסכים, כופין אותו ומביא תודה ולחמה – we force him to bring a todah with its bread, and a korban with its נסכים. The Gemara wonders why: נדר ופתחו עמו הוא – this is a neder which has its “opening” with it!? Since it is impossible for a תודה to be brought without לחם, this qualification should be tantamount to an immediate retraction!? Chizkiyah answers that this Baraisa follows Beis Shammai, who holds תפוס לשון ראשון – grasp (i.e., give primacy to) the first phrase. Therefore, his pledge to bring a todah requires him to bring one with לחם, and we ignore his second expression. Rebbe Yochanan says Beis Hillel can agree with this Baraisa, and the case is where he said אילו הייתי יודע שאין נודרין כך – “Had I known that one cannot vow this [way], לא הייתי נודר כך אלא כך – I would not have vowed this way, but that way (i.e., a תודה with bread).” Accordingly, he only needs to be “forced” to bring the תודה properly דקא בעי הדר ביה – where he later wants to retract from his נדר.