Can one cut the barley for the omer during the day? In which meal offerings is a handful removed and the remainder goes to the priest?
Menachot 72
10.21.2018 | י״ב בחשון תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 72
סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, and disagrees with him with regard to one issue. In other words, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has not yet reached one-third of its growth is not considered the start of the reaping of the entire crop, and he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has reached one-third of its growth is also not considered the start of the reaping process, as Rabbi Meir maintains that this is considered the start of the reaping process even when it is performed for animals, and therefore it does not divide the field with regard to pe’a.
קוֹצְרִין מִפְּנֵי הַנְּטִיעוֹת, וּמִפְּנֵי בֵּית הָאֵבֶל, וּמִפְּנֵי בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״קְצִירְכֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא קְצִיר מִצְוָה.
§ The mishna teaches: And one may reap crops prior to the omer due to potential damage to saplings growing alongside the crops; and due to the place of mourning, to create room for those consoling the mourners, who would bless them upon their return from the cemetery; and due to the need to create room for students to study, as failure to do so would lead to dereliction of Torah study in the study hall. The Gemara asks: What is the reason one is permitted to reap prior to the omer offering in these instances? The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). The use of the term “your harvest” indicates that the omer offering’s reaping must precede any personal harvest, but it does not need to precede reaping for the purpose of a mitzva.
וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּרִיכוֹת, אֲבָל מַנִּיחָן צְבָתִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לָא טָרְחִינַן.
§ The mishna teaches: After reaping the crops for any of these reasons, one may not fashion them into sheaves, but he leaves them unbound. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Although reaping is technically permitted, one should limit his involvement with the new grain. Therefore, as much as possible to avoid exerting effort in involvement with the grain, we do not exert effort.
מִצְוַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהָבִיא מִן הַקָּמָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהָבִיא מִן הַקָּמָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מִן הַקָּמָה יָבִיא מִן הָעֳמָרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״.
§ The mishna teaches that the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14)? The baraita explains: Since the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain, from where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the standing grain, he should bring it from the harvested and gathered sheaves? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this scenario.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״תַּקְרִיב״ – לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַלַּח, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מִן הַלַּח יָבִיא מִן הַיָּבֵשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״תַּקְרִיב״ – לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִקְצוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״.
Alternatively, the baraita suggests another reason why the verse states: “You shall bring.” Since it is a mitzva to bring the omer from the moist grain, one can ask: From where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the moist grain, he should bring it from the dry grain? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this case. Alternatively, the term “you shall bring” teaches the following: Since the mitzva of the omer is for it to be reaped at night, from where is it derived that if it was reaped during the daytime, it is fit? The verse states: “You shall bring.”
וְדוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The baraita adds more halakhot that are derived from this same verse. From where is it derived that the omer offering overrides Shabbat? The verse states: “You shall bring.” Also, this term: “You shall bring,” teaches that the omer is brought in any manner that it is found, even from gathered sheaves. Furthermore, the term “you shall bring,” teaches that the omer crop may be brought from anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, if none is found near Jerusalem. Additionally, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even on Shabbat. Lastly, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even in a state of ritual impurity.
נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר. וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר לִקְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר, וּלְהַקְטִיר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל: דָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ כׇּל הַיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר כׇּל הַיּוֹם, דָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ בְּלַיְלָה – כָּשֵׁר כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה.
§ The mishna teaches: If it was reaped during the day, it is fit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Megilla 20b): All mitzvot that must be performed at night may be performed anytime during that night. Therefore, the entire night is valid for reaping the omer on the night following the first day of Passover, for burning the fats of offerings that had been brought during the preceding day, and for burning the limbs of burnt offerings. This is the principle: A matter that it is a mitzva to perform during the entire day is valid if performed anytime during the entire day, and likewise a matter that it is a mitzva to perform at night is valid if performed anytime during the entire night.
קָתָנֵי לַיְלָה דּוּמְיָא דְּיוֹם, מָה דְּיוֹם – בַּלַּיְלָה לָא, אַף דְּלַיְלָה – בַּיּוֹם נָמֵי לָא.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The mishna teaches the principle of mitzvot performed at night as being similar to the principle of those performed during the day. From this one can infer that just as in the case of a mitzva whose prescribed time is by day, if it is performed at night it is not valid, so too with regard to a mitzva whose prescribed time is at night, if it is performed by day it is also not valid. If so, why does the mishna here teach that if the omer was reaped during the day it is fit?
אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי, וְהָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת, אִם יֵשׁ אַחֶרֶת – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הָבֵא אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ״, וְאִם לָאו – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
Rabba said: It is not difficult. This mishna, which teaches that the omer reaped during the day is valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that mishna in Megilla, which states that any nighttime mitzva performed during the day is not valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:9): In a case where a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal offering and it became ritually impure in his hand, if there is another measure of barley grain that is ready to be reaped, then one says to the priest: Reap the barley and bring another meal offering in its stead. And if there is no alternative meal offering available, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; i.e., do not tell anyone that it is impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, אוֹמַר לוֹ: ״הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק״, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁנִּקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ – פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent, as any omer offering that is harvested not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is unfit. Likewise, one may not reap the barley during the daytime, as its prescribed time is at night.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו אֲמָרָהּ, דִּתְנַן: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that barley for the omer offering that is reaped by day is unfit, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the teacher of his father. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 130a): Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve, i.e., before Shabbat begins, does not override Shabbat.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר מִצְוָה, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מָה חָרִישׁ רְשׁוּת, אַף קָצִיר רְשׁוּת, יָצָא קְצִיר הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה.
And furthermore, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that the reaping of barley for the omer offering is a mitzva. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:4) that Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse: “In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21), is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land during the Sabbatical Year, as one might have thought. Rather, it is referring to the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. And the reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the plowing that is prohibited on Shabbat is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited on Shabbat is voluntary. Therefore, the harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. Consequently, the barley for the omer is harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan, even if it occurs on Shabbat.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ נִקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ כָּשֵׁר, אַמַּאי דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת? נִקְצְרֵיהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת! אֶלָּא מִדְּדָחֵי שַׁבָּת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: נִקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ – פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael: And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reached his opinion by the following reasoning: If it enters your mind to say that barley for the omer offering that is reaped not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is nevertheless fit, why would it override Shabbat? Let one reap it on Shabbat eve. Rather, from the fact that the reaping overrides Shabbat, learn from here that if it was reaped not in accordance with its mitzva, it is unfit.
וְרַבִּי, לָאו תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא?
The Gemara comments: Isn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also a student of Rabbi Shimon, who was a student of Rabbi Akiva? Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon, and by extension of Rabbi Akiva, he should accept Rabbi Akiva’s principle that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. If so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that if the omer was not performed at night it should be done by day, why does its harvest override Shabbat? Let it be harvested on Shabbat eve.
וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָיִינוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּתְקוֹעַ, הָיִינוּ מַעֲלִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן וַאֲלוּנְטִית מֵחָצֵר לְגַג, וּמִגַּג לְקַרְפֵּיף, וּמִקַּרְפֵּיף לְקַרְפֵּיף אַחֵר, עַד שֶׁאָנוּ מַגִּיעִין לְמַעְיָין שֶׁאָנוּ רוֹחֲצִין בּוֹ.
The Gemara cites a proof for its claim that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we would study Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry to him oil and a towel [aluntit] from the courtyard to the roof and from the roof into an enclosure similar to a courtyard, and from one enclosure to another enclosure, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe, without passing through a public domain.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּאִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים כְּשֵׁרִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלֹא הָיָה מַמְתִּין לָהֶן עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that reaping barley for the omer offering overrides Shabbat, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. But this is not because it is unfit if reaped at an improper time. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the other opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. As burning the fats and limbs is valid all night, and therefore it is possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nevertheless one would not wait with them until nightfall; rather, one burns them immediately, even on Shabbat. Likewise, when it comes to the reaping of the omer, although it is fit if reaped during the previous day, reaping at night still overrides Shabbat because a mitzva is dear when performed in its proper time.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ?!
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not know of this? He must have known of his father’s statement that a mitzva performed at its proper time overrides Shabbat. If so, his ruling that reaping at an improper time is unfit cannot be proven from the fact that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, as claimed earlier.
אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, it must be that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was aware of that principle, and nevertheless he maintains that the requirement to perform a mitzva at its optimal time does not apply to the case of the reaping of the omer. This is because there, in the case of the burning of the fats and limbs, it is different, as the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, it is dear to perform the burning of its fats and limbs at the proper time, even on Shabbat. One cannot apply this reasoning to the reaping of the omer, as there is no prior labor performed on Shabbat before the reaping. Consequently, the reason it may be performed on Shabbat must be that it would be unfit if reaped any other time.
וּלְרַבִּי, הָכִי נָמֵי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת! אֶלָּא קָסָבַר רַבִּי: קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא דָּחֲיָא שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he should agree that the case of the burning of the sacrifice’s fats and limbs is different from the omer, since also there, the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, the Gemara gives a new explanation: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in fact the reaping of the omer crop does not override Shabbat, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. For this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that the omer is fit if reaped at an improper time does not conflict with the principle of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat.
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – מִשָּׁלֹשׁ הָיָה בָּא. דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (63b) in response to Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that when the sixteenth of Nisan occurred during the week, five se’a of barley were reaped, and when it occurred on Shabbat only three se’a were reaped: And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a? In any case, according to both opinions, the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: That mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ מַגָּלוֹת – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from the latter clause of that mishna. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual, with one sickle and one basket into which the barley was placed, whereas during the week it was reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week it is reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. According to both opinions the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara again responds: That clause of the mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
וּבְשַׁבָּת יֹאמַר לָהֶם ״שַׁבָּת זוֹ?״ – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי!
The Gemara raises another difficulty from a mishna (65a) that describes the series of questions posed by the court emissary who reaps the grain to those assembled to witness the process: And if the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, the court emissary says to those assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on this Shabbat? The assembly says in response: Yes. The Gemara answers: That clause of mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר, וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר? רַבִּי, וְקָתָנֵי: וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאי לָאו קְצִירָה? לֹא, לְהַקְרָבָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from the mishna (71a): If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit, and it overrides Shabbat. Now, whom did you hear who said: If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And yet it is taught in the mishna: And it overrides Shabbat. What, is it not referring to reaping? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the sacrifice of the omer offering.
אֲבָל לִקְצִירָה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְתָמִיד וּפֶסַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara asks: But with regard to reaping, does it not override Shabbat, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the following halakha based upon the verse: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44): What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal offering override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated concerning them: “In its appointed time” (see Numbers 9:2, 28:2), from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat; in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.
שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.
The baraita continues: With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they likewise override Shabbat and ritual impurity? The verse states with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39).
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹמֶר, וְהַקָּרֵב עִמּוֹ? שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַקָּרֵב עִמָּהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – הַכָּתוּב קָבַע מוֹעֵד לְכוּלָּן.
The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include in this halakha the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel,” after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְהַקְרָבָה – שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בְּנֵי הַקְרָבָה נִינְהוּ?
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what ritual does the baraita state that these offerings override Shabbat? If we say for actual sacrifice, this cannot be correct, as are the two loaves fit for sacrifice? The two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar at all. Rather, they are waved and later eaten by priests.
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לִטְחִינָה וְהַרְקָדָה, וְדִכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי עוֹמֶר לִקְצִירָה, וְקָא דָחֵי אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
The Gemara concludes its interpretation of the baraita, which leads to the question about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rather, it is obvious that the two loaves override Shabbat with regard to grinding and sifting. And if so, similarly, with regard to the omer offering, it overrides Shabbat with regard to the process of reaping the grains. And as the baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, evidently he maintains that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat.
אֶלָּא, עוֹמֶר לְהַקְרָבָה, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לַאֲפִיָּה, וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ, אִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִיפְּסִילָה לַהּ בְּלִינָה.
The Gemara answers: Rather, one must say that the baraita is not referring to comparable cases. As far as the omer is concerned, it overrides Shabbat only with regard to its actual sacrifice, but when it comes to the two loaves, it overrides Shabbat with regard to its baking. And the reason why the two loaves must be baked on Shabbat is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it. Therefore, if one were to bake from the previous day, on the eve of Shavuot, he would effectively be disqualifying it from being brought on Shavuot day, as it would be disqualified by being left overnight.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really hold that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.
שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The baraita continues: But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט לִשְׁמָן וְיִזְרוֹק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were properly performed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is the slaughter of the lambs that consecrates the loaves, not baking the loaves in the oven.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הוּקְבְּעוּ וְלֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ קָא אָמַר.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does hold that the oven consecrates the loaves. What the baraita is saying when it uses the categories of consecrated and not consecrated with regard to the slaughter of the lambs is that either the two loaves are fixed as Shavuot meal offerings and cannot be used for any other offering, or they are not fixed as Shavuot meal offerings. In other words, if the lambs were slaughtered and the blood sprinkled in the proper manner, one cannot change the designation of the loaves, whereas if they were not slaughtered and their blood was not sprinkled properly, one can change their designation. If the lambs were slaughtered properly but their blood was sprinkled improperly, the status of the loaves is subject to a dispute. This has nothing to do with when the loaves are consecrated.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת, וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים: מִנְחַת הַסֹּלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, וּמִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת.
MISHNA: And these are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and the remainder of the offering is eaten by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the meal offering prepared in a pan; and the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of loaves; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of wafers; the meal offering of gentiles; and the meal offering of women; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the meal offering of a sinner; and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, וְקוֹמֵץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ, וְשִׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִים לְעַצְמָן.
Rabbi Shimon says: Although its remainder is not eaten by priests, as meal offerings of priests are burned in their entirety, as it is written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), nevertheless, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed. And the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן – עֶשֶׂר תְּנַן, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us, as this is already stated by Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna (76a)?
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים, מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיבָא – כְּתִיבָא, וּדְלָא כְּתִיבָא – כְּתִיב בַּהּ: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״.
§ The mishna teaches: And their remainder is eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara challenges the question: That which is written explicitly, is written. In the case of several meal offerings, including the gift meal offering brought by an individual, the Torah clearly states that the priests eat the remainder. And with regard to that which is not written explicitly, it is written of it: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord…And he shall take up from it his handful…and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar….And the remainder of it shall Aaron and his sons eat” (Leviticus 6:7–9). These verses establish the principle that the priests eat the remainders of meal offerings, even where the Torah does not state this explicitly. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask for a source.
בָּאָה חִיטִּין – לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין. בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין נָמֵי, מִדְּנִקְמֶצֶת – שְׁיָרֶיהָ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara explains the original question: With regard to a meal offering that comes from wheat, we did not ask, as that is included in the cited verse. When we asked it was with regard to a meal offering that comes from barley, i.e., the omer meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota: From where is it derived that the remainders of those offerings are given to the priests? The Gemara responds: With regard to one that comes from barley also, since a handful of it is removed, as the Torah states with regard to all meal offerings (see Leviticus 6:8), clearly its remainder is given to the priests, as why else would a handful be removed and offered?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן; כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אִיכָּא מִנְחָה דְּמִיקַּמְצָא וְלָא מִיתְאַכְלָא.
The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the priests eat the remainder of all meal offerings from which a handful is removed, we did not ask about the source. When we asked it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There is a type of meal offering of which a handful is removed but its remainder is not eaten.
דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן. מְנָלַן?
As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: From the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest, a handful is removed. Subsequently, the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself. Therefore, the question is: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not always eat the remainder when a handful is removed, from where do we derive that the priests eat the remainder of barley-based meal offerings?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין.
The Gemara answers. Ḥizkiyya said: The source is from a verse, as the verse states: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10). The verse is analyzed: If it is not necessary for the matter of a mixed meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a mixed meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of the omer. And if the verse is not necessary for the matter of a dry meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a dry meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of a sota.
וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים –
The Gemara asks: And this verse, does it come to teach this halakha? Isn’t the verse necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for a share of animal offerings, i.e., one may not exchange his share of a meal offering for the equivalent value of meat from an animal offering of which he did not receive a share?
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Menachot 72
סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with his opinion with regard to one issue, and disagrees with him with regard to one issue. In other words, Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has not yet reached one-third of its growth is not considered the start of the reaping of the entire crop, and he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has reached one-third of its growth is also not considered the start of the reaping process, as Rabbi Meir maintains that this is considered the start of the reaping process even when it is performed for animals, and therefore it does not divide the field with regard to pe’a.
קוֹצְרִין מִפְּנֵי הַנְּטִיעוֹת, וּמִפְּנֵי בֵּית הָאֵבֶל, וּמִפְּנֵי בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״קְצִירְכֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא קְצִיר מִצְוָה.
§ The mishna teaches: And one may reap crops prior to the omer due to potential damage to saplings growing alongside the crops; and due to the place of mourning, to create room for those consoling the mourners, who would bless them upon their return from the cemetery; and due to the need to create room for students to study, as failure to do so would lead to dereliction of Torah study in the study hall. The Gemara asks: What is the reason one is permitted to reap prior to the omer offering in these instances? The Gemara answers that the Merciful One states: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10). The use of the term “your harvest” indicates that the omer offering’s reaping must precede any personal harvest, but it does not need to precede reaping for the purpose of a mitzva.
וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּרִיכוֹת, אֲבָל מַנִּיחָן צְבָתִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּכַמָּה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לָא טָרְחִינַן.
§ The mishna teaches: After reaping the crops for any of these reasons, one may not fashion them into sheaves, but he leaves them unbound. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The Gemara answers: Although reaping is technically permitted, one should limit his involvement with the new grain. Therefore, as much as possible to avoid exerting effort in involvement with the grain, we do not exert effort.
מִצְוַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהָבִיא מִן הַקָּמָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוַת הָעוֹמֶר לְהָבִיא מִן הַקָּמָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מִן הַקָּמָה יָבִיא מִן הָעֳמָרִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״.
§ The mishna teaches that the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14)? The baraita explains: Since the mitzva of the omer is to bring the barley from the standing grain, from where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the standing grain, he should bring it from the harvested and gathered sheaves? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this scenario.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״תַּקְרִיב״ – לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַלַּח, וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם לֹא מָצָא מִן הַלַּח יָבִיא מִן הַיָּבֵשׁ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״תַּקְרִיב״ – לְפִי שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ לִקְצוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״.
Alternatively, the baraita suggests another reason why the verse states: “You shall bring.” Since it is a mitzva to bring the omer from the moist grain, one can ask: From where is it derived that if one does not find barley from the moist grain, he should bring it from the dry grain? The verse states: “You shall bring,” to include this case. Alternatively, the term “you shall bring” teaches the following: Since the mitzva of the omer is for it to be reaped at night, from where is it derived that if it was reaped during the daytime, it is fit? The verse states: “You shall bring.”
וְדוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תַּקְרִיב״, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״תַּקְרִיב״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The baraita adds more halakhot that are derived from this same verse. From where is it derived that the omer offering overrides Shabbat? The verse states: “You shall bring.” Also, this term: “You shall bring,” teaches that the omer is brought in any manner that it is found, even from gathered sheaves. Furthermore, the term “you shall bring,” teaches that the omer crop may be brought from anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, if none is found near Jerusalem. Additionally, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even on Shabbat. Lastly, “you shall bring” teaches that it may be brought even in a state of ritual impurity.
נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר. וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה כָּשֵׁר לִקְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר, וּלְהַקְטִיר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל: דָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ כׇּל הַיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר כׇּל הַיּוֹם, דָּבָר שֶׁמִּצְוָתוֹ בְּלַיְלָה – כָּשֵׁר כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה.
§ The mishna teaches: If it was reaped during the day, it is fit. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Megilla 20b): All mitzvot that must be performed at night may be performed anytime during that night. Therefore, the entire night is valid for reaping the omer on the night following the first day of Passover, for burning the fats of offerings that had been brought during the preceding day, and for burning the limbs of burnt offerings. This is the principle: A matter that it is a mitzva to perform during the entire day is valid if performed anytime during the entire day, and likewise a matter that it is a mitzva to perform at night is valid if performed anytime during the entire night.
קָתָנֵי לַיְלָה דּוּמְיָא דְּיוֹם, מָה דְּיוֹם – בַּלַּיְלָה לָא, אַף דְּלַיְלָה – בַּיּוֹם נָמֵי לָא.
The Gemara analyzes this mishna: The mishna teaches the principle of mitzvot performed at night as being similar to the principle of those performed during the day. From this one can infer that just as in the case of a mitzva whose prescribed time is by day, if it is performed at night it is not valid, so too with regard to a mitzva whose prescribed time is at night, if it is performed by day it is also not valid. If so, why does the mishna here teach that if the omer was reaped during the day it is fit?
אָמַר רַבָּה: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי, וְהָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר וְנִטְמֵאת, אִם יֵשׁ אַחֶרֶת – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הָבֵא אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ״, וְאִם לָאו – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
Rabba said: It is not difficult. This mishna, which teaches that the omer reaped during the day is valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that mishna in Megilla, which states that any nighttime mitzva performed during the day is not valid, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 3:9): In a case where a priest was standing and sacrificing the omer meal offering and it became ritually impure in his hand, if there is another measure of barley grain that is ready to be reaped, then one says to the priest: Reap the barley and bring another meal offering in its stead. And if there is no alternative meal offering available, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent; i.e., do not tell anyone that it is impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, אוֹמַר לוֹ: ״הֱוֵי פִּקֵּחַ וּשְׁתוֹק״, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁנִּקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ – פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, one says to him: Be shrewd and keep silent, as any omer offering that is harvested not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is unfit. Likewise, one may not reap the barley during the daytime, as its prescribed time is at night.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו אֲמָרָהּ, דִּתְנַן: כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת אֵינָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that barley for the omer offering that is reaped by day is unfit, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, the teacher of his father. As we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 130a): Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve, i.e., before Shabbat begins, does not override Shabbat.
וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר מִצְוָה, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מָה חָרִישׁ רְשׁוּת, אַף קָצִיר רְשׁוּת, יָצָא קְצִיר הָעוֹמֶר שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה.
And furthermore, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said that the reaping of barley for the omer offering is a mitzva. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 1:4) that Rabbi Yishmael says: The verse: “In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest” (Exodus 34:21), is not referring to the prohibition against farming the land during the Sabbatical Year, as one might have thought. Rather, it is referring to the prohibition against performing labor on Shabbat. And the reason that the verse mentions these two particular forms of labor is to teach that just as the plowing that is prohibited on Shabbat is an otherwise voluntary act, as plowing is never required by the Torah, so too, the harvesting that is prohibited on Shabbat is voluntary. Therefore, the harvesting of the omer is excluded from the prohibition, as it is a mitzva. Consequently, the barley for the omer is harvested on the sixteenth of Nisan, even if it occurs on Shabbat.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ נִקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ כָּשֵׁר, אַמַּאי דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת? נִקְצְרֵיהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת! אֶלָּא מִדְּדָחֵי שַׁבָּת, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: נִקְצַר שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתוֹ – פָּסוּל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan explains why Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael: And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, reached his opinion by the following reasoning: If it enters your mind to say that barley for the omer offering that is reaped not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva is nevertheless fit, why would it override Shabbat? Let one reap it on Shabbat eve. Rather, from the fact that the reaping overrides Shabbat, learn from here that if it was reaped not in accordance with its mitzva, it is unfit.
וְרַבִּי, לָאו תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא?
The Gemara comments: Isn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also a student of Rabbi Shimon, who was a student of Rabbi Akiva? Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon, and by extension of Rabbi Akiva, he should accept Rabbi Akiva’s principle that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat. If so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that if the omer was not performed at night it should be done by day, why does its harvest override Shabbat? Let it be harvested on Shabbat eve.
וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: כְּשֶׁהָיִינוּ לְמֵדִין תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּתְקוֹעַ, הָיִינוּ מַעֲלִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן וַאֲלוּנְטִית מֵחָצֵר לְגַג, וּמִגַּג לְקַרְפֵּיף, וּמִקַּרְפֵּיף לְקַרְפֵּיף אַחֵר, עַד שֶׁאָנוּ מַגִּיעִין לְמַעְיָין שֶׁאָנוּ רוֹחֲצִין בּוֹ.
The Gemara cites a proof for its claim that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was a student of Rabbi Shimon. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we would study Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry to him oil and a towel [aluntit] from the courtyard to the roof and from the roof into an enclosure similar to a courtyard, and from one enclosure to another enclosure, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe, without passing through a public domain.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּאִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה חֲבִיבָה מִצְוָה בִּשְׁעָתָהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים כְּשֵׁרִים כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה, וְלֹא הָיָה מַמְתִּין לָהֶן עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that reaping barley for the omer offering overrides Shabbat, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. But this is not because it is unfit if reaped at an improper time. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the other opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how dear is a mitzva performed in its proper time. As burning the fats and limbs is valid all night, and therefore it is possible to wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and burn them at night, but nevertheless one would not wait with them until nightfall; rather, one burns them immediately, even on Shabbat. Likewise, when it comes to the reaping of the omer, although it is fit if reaped during the previous day, reaping at night still overrides Shabbat because a mitzva is dear when performed in its proper time.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ?!
The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not know of this? He must have known of his father’s statement that a mitzva performed at its proper time overrides Shabbat. If so, his ruling that reaping at an improper time is unfit cannot be proven from the fact that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, as claimed earlier.
אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
Rather, it must be that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was aware of that principle, and nevertheless he maintains that the requirement to perform a mitzva at its optimal time does not apply to the case of the reaping of the omer. This is because there, in the case of the burning of the fats and limbs, it is different, as the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, it is dear to perform the burning of its fats and limbs at the proper time, even on Shabbat. One cannot apply this reasoning to the reaping of the omer, as there is no prior labor performed on Shabbat before the reaping. Consequently, the reason it may be performed on Shabbat must be that it would be unfit if reaped any other time.
וּלְרַבִּי, הָכִי נָמֵי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת! אֶלָּא קָסָבַר רַבִּי: קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא דָּחֲיָא שַׁבָּת.
The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he should agree that the case of the burning of the sacrifice’s fats and limbs is different from the omer, since also there, the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, the Gemara gives a new explanation: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in fact the reaping of the omer crop does not override Shabbat, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. For this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that the omer is fit if reaped at an improper time does not conflict with the principle of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat.
וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – מִשָּׁלֹשׁ הָיָה בָּא. דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (63b) in response to Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that when the sixteenth of Nisan occurred during the week, five se’a of barley were reaped, and when it occurred on Shabbat only three se’a were reaped: And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a? In any case, according to both opinions, the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: That mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ מַגָּלוֹת – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from the latter clause of that mishna. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual, with one sickle and one basket into which the barley was placed, whereas during the week it was reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week it is reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. According to both opinions the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara again responds: That clause of the mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
וּבְשַׁבָּת יֹאמַר לָהֶם ״שַׁבָּת זוֹ?״ – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי!
The Gemara raises another difficulty from a mishna (65a) that describes the series of questions posed by the court emissary who reaps the grain to those assembled to witness the process: And if the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, the court emissary says to those assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on this Shabbat? The assembly says in response: Yes. The Gemara answers: That clause of mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר, וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר? רַבִּי, וְקָתָנֵי: וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. מַאי לָאו קְצִירָה? לֹא, לְהַקְרָבָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty from the mishna (71a): If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit, and it overrides Shabbat. Now, whom did you hear who said: If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And yet it is taught in the mishna: And it overrides Shabbat. What, is it not referring to reaping? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the sacrifice of the omer offering.
אֲבָל לִקְצִירָה לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְתָמִיד וּפֶסַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara asks: But with regard to reaping, does it not override Shabbat, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the following halakha based upon the verse: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44): What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal offering override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated concerning them: “In its appointed time” (see Numbers 9:2, 28:2), from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat; in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.
שְׁאָר קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.
The baraita continues: With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they likewise override Shabbat and ritual impurity? The verse states with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39).
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹמֶר, וְהַקָּרֵב עִמּוֹ? שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַקָּרֵב עִמָּהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – הַכָּתוּב קָבַע מוֹעֵד לְכוּלָּן.
The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include in this halakha the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel,” after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְהַקְרָבָה – שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בְּנֵי הַקְרָבָה נִינְהוּ?
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what ritual does the baraita state that these offerings override Shabbat? If we say for actual sacrifice, this cannot be correct, as are the two loaves fit for sacrifice? The two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar at all. Rather, they are waved and later eaten by priests.
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לִטְחִינָה וְהַרְקָדָה, וְדִכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי עוֹמֶר לִקְצִירָה, וְקָא דָחֵי אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
The Gemara concludes its interpretation of the baraita, which leads to the question about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rather, it is obvious that the two loaves override Shabbat with regard to grinding and sifting. And if so, similarly, with regard to the omer offering, it overrides Shabbat with regard to the process of reaping the grains. And as the baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, evidently he maintains that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat.
אֶלָּא, עוֹמֶר לְהַקְרָבָה, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לַאֲפִיָּה, וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ, אִי אָפֵי לַהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – אִיפְּסִילָה לַהּ בְּלִינָה.
The Gemara answers: Rather, one must say that the baraita is not referring to comparable cases. As far as the omer is concerned, it overrides Shabbat only with regard to its actual sacrifice, but when it comes to the two loaves, it overrides Shabbat with regard to its baking. And the reason why the two loaves must be baked on Shabbat is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it. Therefore, if one were to bake from the previous day, on the eve of Shavuot, he would effectively be disqualifying it from being brought on Shavuot day, as it would be disqualified by being left overnight.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם.
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really hold that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.
שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם. שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן, וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
The baraita continues: But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט לִשְׁמָן וְיִזְרוֹק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were properly performed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is the slaughter of the lambs that consecrates the loaves, not baking the loaves in the oven.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הוּקְבְּעוּ וְלֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ קָא אָמַר.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does hold that the oven consecrates the loaves. What the baraita is saying when it uses the categories of consecrated and not consecrated with regard to the slaughter of the lambs is that either the two loaves are fixed as Shavuot meal offerings and cannot be used for any other offering, or they are not fixed as Shavuot meal offerings. In other words, if the lambs were slaughtered and the blood sprinkled in the proper manner, one cannot change the designation of the loaves, whereas if they were not slaughtered and their blood was not sprinkled properly, one can change their designation. If the lambs were slaughtered properly but their blood was sprinkled improperly, the status of the loaves is subject to a dispute. This has nothing to do with when the loaves are consecrated.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת, וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים: מִנְחַת הַסֹּלֶת, וְהַמַּחֲבַת, וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת, וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, וּמִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת.
MISHNA: And these are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and the remainder of the offering is eaten by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the meal offering prepared in a pan; and the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of loaves; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of wafers; the meal offering of gentiles; and the meal offering of women; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the meal offering of a sinner; and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, וְקוֹמֵץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ, וְשִׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִים לְעַצְמָן.
Rabbi Shimon says: Although its remainder is not eaten by priests, as meal offerings of priests are burned in their entirety, as it is written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), nevertheless, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed. And the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן – עֶשֶׂר תְּנַן, מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us, as this is already stated by Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna (76a)?
לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.
The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים, מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיבָא – כְּתִיבָא, וּדְלָא כְּתִיבָא – כְּתִיב בַּהּ: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״.
§ The mishna teaches: And their remainder is eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara challenges the question: That which is written explicitly, is written. In the case of several meal offerings, including the gift meal offering brought by an individual, the Torah clearly states that the priests eat the remainder. And with regard to that which is not written explicitly, it is written of it: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord…And he shall take up from it his handful…and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar….And the remainder of it shall Aaron and his sons eat” (Leviticus 6:7–9). These verses establish the principle that the priests eat the remainders of meal offerings, even where the Torah does not state this explicitly. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask for a source.
בָּאָה חִיטִּין – לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין. בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין נָמֵי, מִדְּנִקְמֶצֶת – שְׁיָרֶיהָ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara explains the original question: With regard to a meal offering that comes from wheat, we did not ask, as that is included in the cited verse. When we asked it was with regard to a meal offering that comes from barley, i.e., the omer meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota: From where is it derived that the remainders of those offerings are given to the priests? The Gemara responds: With regard to one that comes from barley also, since a handful of it is removed, as the Torah states with regard to all meal offerings (see Leviticus 6:8), clearly its remainder is given to the priests, as why else would a handful be removed and offered?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן; כִּי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אִיכָּא מִנְחָה דְּמִיקַּמְצָא וְלָא מִיתְאַכְלָא.
The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the priests eat the remainder of all meal offerings from which a handful is removed, we did not ask about the source. When we asked it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There is a type of meal offering of which a handful is removed but its remainder is not eaten.
דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן. מְנָלַן?
As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: From the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest, a handful is removed. Subsequently, the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself. Therefore, the question is: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not always eat the remainder when a handful is removed, from where do we derive that the priests eat the remainder of barley-based meal offerings?
אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְכׇל מִנְחָה בְלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״. אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין.
The Gemara answers. Ḥizkiyya said: The source is from a verse, as the verse states: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10). The verse is analyzed: If it is not necessary for the matter of a mixed meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a mixed meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of the omer. And if the verse is not necessary for the matter of a dry meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a dry meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of a sota.
וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים –
The Gemara asks: And this verse, does it come to teach this halakha? Isn’t the verse necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for a share of animal offerings, i.e., one may not exchange his share of a meal offering for the equivalent value of meat from an animal offering of which he did not receive a share?
Follow
