Rashi, basing himself on the Talmud, lists the four who bring a todah: one who returns from travel at sea; one who returns from a journey in the wilderness; one who is released from prison; and one who recovers from an illness.

This comment of Rashi requires an explanation. We know that bringing a thanksgiving offering is not obligatory; it is a voluntary heartfelt gesture. The priests and the courts could never demand that someone bring a todah.

How can Rashi then imply that specific cases require one to offer an animal as evidence of his thanks?

We might better understand the korban todah as a moral requirement, not a legal one. Accordingly, the Gemara uses the term tzrichin (should), implying that one is expected to bring a todah as prescribed by the Gemara.

If the Gemara intended to obligate one to bring an offering in these four cases, it would have used the term chayavim, which indicates a halachic (Jewish legal) imperative. This 

click here to continue reading