Shalom. I'm sure that I'm missing something - but Rashi D"H Mun Leima Lan says that if we use the svarah of Adam mischaper b'shvach hekdesh, by the todah he can use either the mother or the v'lad and bring the lechem with either. The gemora at the beginning of the sugya clarified that Rav Chiya must have been talking about a case of a Todas nedava. The gemora on 80a stated clearly that by a Todas nedava Rav Yochanan's svara of Adam mischaper b'shvach hekdesh doesn't work (as a Rashi ksav yad explains over there) and you must only use the mother for the Todah and the v'lad is only a mosar todah. I understand that Tosfos and the Shita have established that the sugya on 81a disagrees with the sugya in Temura - and perhaps even with the sugya here on 80a, according to Tosfos on 80A - but that was with regards to a chattas and I can't see a connection between that "machlokes hasugyos" and why we should say something different by a Todas nedava. Even if we were to suggest that on 80a we were dealing with a case when the mother wasn't pregnant b'shaas hafrasha and on 81a when the mother was already pregnant, since the gemora on 81a is going on the tzad that we use the sevara of Adam mischaper b'shvach hekdesh even in this case, why should there be a difference - and if there is, the gemora on 80a could have said that R Yochanan on 79b was talking about a Todas nedava when it was already pregnant b'shaas hafrasha.

I just chapped that on 81a we are suggesting that he bring a new Todas chovah. It is irrelevant that the original one was a Todas nedava....sorry for the silly question.

I would just point out that if the gemora meant that he needs to be mafrish a Todas chova, it should have said that he should first say Harei Alai, as it suggests in the last proposal, from Rav Dimi brei d'Rav Huna from Dimhurya... not such a strong question because my question wasn't really on the gemora but rather on Rashi - but still, you have to say that Rashi was addressing a case when he said Harei Alai...

Todah

Yakov, Toronto