Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 15, 2018 | 讜壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 66

Study Guide Menachot 66. Arguments against the Baytusim are brought although Rava rejects many of them. The description of how the meal offering of the Omer was prepared is discussed in more detail.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转住驻专 诇讱 住驻讬专讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬爪转讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 砖住驻讬专转讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐

as the verse states: 鈥淪even weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:9). By using the term 鈥渇or you,鈥 the verse indicates that the counting of the weeks is dependent upon the decision of the court, as they know how to calculate the new months. This serves to exclude the possibility that the counting starts after the Shabbat of Creation, whose counting can be performed by every person, not only the court.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 诪诪讞专转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讞专转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪诪讞专转 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛驻住讞 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 诪诇讗讛 砖讘转讜转 爪讗 讜讘讚讜拽 讗讬讝讜 砖讘转

Rabbi Yosei says that the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat]鈥 (Leviticus 23:15), means from the morrow after the festival of Passover. Do you say it means from the morrow after the festival of Passover, or is it only referring to from the morrow after Shabbat of Creation, i.e., Sunday? You can say in response: Is it stated: From the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat] that is during Passover? No, it is stated only: 鈥淔rom the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat].鈥 Considering that the entire year is full of Shabbatot, go and try to examine to which Shabbat the verse is referring. How does one know which Shabbat this means? Clearly, then, this 鈥渄ay of rest鈥 is the Festival, not Shabbat.

讜注讜讚 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 专讙诇 讜转讞讬诇转 专讙诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 专讙诇 讜转讞讬诇转 专讙诇

Rabbi Yosei cites another proof: And furthermore, it is stated 鈥shabbat鈥 below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot (Leviticus 23:16), and it is also stated 鈥shabbat鈥 above (Leviticus 23:15), with regard to starting the counting of the omer. Just as below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot, it is stated: 鈥淓ven until the morrow after the seventh week [shabbat] you shall number fifty days,鈥 and the word shabbat is referring to a time at the beginning of the Festival; so too here, with regard to the bringing of omer, the word shabbat means Festival, and the counting starts near the beginning of the Festival, on the second day of Passover. According to the Boethusians, sometimes the commencement of the counting is well after the start of Passover.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪爪讛 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讛 砖讘注讛 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讛 砖砖讛 诪谉 讛讞讚砖

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says there is yet another proof: One verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat unleavened bread鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), and one verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat unleavened bread鈥 (Exodus 12:15). How can these texts be reconciled? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explains that there is matza that you are unable to eat for all seven days of Passover, due to the prohibition of harvesting and eating from the new crop of grain that ripened before Passover until after the omer offering. But you are able to eat that same matza for six days, although it is from the new crop, as it is permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the second day of Passover. This resolution of the verses is possible only if the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on any other date.

诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 转住驻专讜 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讜讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讬住驻讜专

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar clarifies another two verses that deal with the counting of the omer: 鈥淎nd you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that you brought the sheaf [omer] of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete; even until the morrow after the seventh week you shall number fifty days; and you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:15鈥16). One might have thought that although one must harvest and bring the omer meal offering on the second day of Passover, the sixteenth of Nisan, he may start to count the omer from whenever he wishes after that day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛讞诇 讞专诪砖 讘拽诪讛 转讞诇 诇住驻专 讗讬 诪讛讞诇 讞专诪砖 转讞诇 诇住驻专 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬住驻讜专 讜讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:9). This verse indicates that the counting should commence upon the reaping of the grain for the omer offering. If one would read just this verse: 鈥淔rom the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number,鈥 one might have thought that one can harvest and count and then bring the omer offering whenever he wishes. Therefore, the other verse states: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving鈥ou shall number fifty days,鈥 indicating that the counting should start on the day the omer offering is brought.

讗讬 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬住驻讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注 砖讘转讜转 转诪讬诪转 转讛讬讬谞讛 讗讬诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖讘注 砖讘转讜转 转诪讬诪转 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪转讞讬诇 诇讬诪谞讜转 诪讘注专讘

If one would derive the halakha from this verse: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving,鈥 one might have thought that he should harvest and count and bring the omer offering during the day, not on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete.鈥 When do you find that there are seven complete weeks? You find it at the time when you begin to count from the evening. Only if the counting commences at night, at the start of the sixteenth of Nisan, will the seven weeks of counting be complete, without missing that first evening.

讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讜讬住驻讜专 讘诇讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜住驻讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讘讬讜诐

If so, one might have thought that all of the rites of the omer should be at night, and therefore one should harvest and bring the omer offering and start to count at night. Therefore the verse states: From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving. How can these texts be reconciled? Does one start at night or in the day? Harvesting and counting should be performed at night, and the bringing of the omer offering is during the day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讘专 诪转专转讬 转谞讗讬 讘转专讗讬 讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

搂 The Gemara has presented two baraitot with ten proofs between them countering the Boethusian claim that the counting of the omer begins on the Sunday after Passover. Rava said: For all of the suggested proofs there is a possible refutation except for those of the two last tanna鈥檌m cited, both in the first baraita and in the second baraita, for which there is no refutation.

讗讬 诪讚专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬

Rava elaborates: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said, that there is a contradiction between two verses, as one indicates that there is an obligation to count fifty days and another that the obligation is to count seven weeks, perhaps this contradiction can be resolved in accordance with the statement of Abaye. As Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks. When one counts, he should track both the number of days and the number of weeks.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗讬

Rabbi Eliezer derived that the counting is dependent upon the court, not the individual. Therefore, he claimed that when the verse mentions shabbat it must be referring to the Festival, not a regular Shabbat, which does not require a court for its determination. Rabbi Yehoshua derived that just as the counting and sanctifying of the New Moon is performed at a distinct time, so too the counting of the omer and start of Shavuot that follows must occur on a specific date. Rava refutes both of these claims: If the proof is from that which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua said, granted that their proofs successfully demonstrate that the counting should start after the Festival, not after Shabbat, but from where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, i.e., the seventh day of Passover?

讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

Rava now addresses the statements of the final two the tanna鈥檌m cited in the first baraita: With regard to the proof given by Rabbi Yishmael from the two loaves that are brought at the beginning of a Festival, and the proof mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira from the usage of the word shabbat in connection with Shavuot, Rava said: They have no refutation.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讞诪砖讬谉 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 砖讬转讗

Continuing with the proofs of the tanna鈥檌m from the second baraita, Rava said: If one seeks to disprove the Boethusian claim from that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said, that if the counting starts from Shabbat then Shavuot can occur anywhere from fifty to fifty-six days from the date the counting had started the previous year, I would say that perhaps the verse means fifty days excluding these six extra days.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗讬

Rava continues: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said in the second baraita, that the verse indicates that the counting is dependent upon the decision of the court, not an individual, this can too be refuted: From where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, the seventh day of Passover?

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讜注讜讚

Rava concludes: The first proof cited by Rabbi Yosei was that if the counting starts the day after a regular Shabbat then it would be impossible to determine which Shabbat is meant. Rabbi Yosei himself saw that it is also subject to refutation, and this is why Rabbi Yosei continued and said: Furthermore, and suggested a second proof. As Rava declared, the last two proofs cited in the second baraita, the second proof provided by Rabbi Yosei and the proof of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, stand without refutation.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讜 讬讜诪讬 讜诪谞讜 砖讘讜注讬 讗诪讬诪专 诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 讗诪专 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself of Abaye鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count weeks. The Gemara notes that in fact the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi counted days and they also counted weeks. Ameimar counted days but not weeks. In explanation of his practice, Ameimar said: Since there is no longer an omer offering, the counting is performed only in commemoration of the Temple. Therefore, one does not need to be so scrupulous to count both days and weeks.

诪转谞讬壮 拽爪专讜讛讜 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘拽讜驻讜转 讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇注讝专讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗讜专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 拽诇讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讘拽讜诇讞讜转 讞讜讘讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转诪注讱

MISHNA: After they harvested the omer and placed it in the baskets, they brought it to the Temple courtyard. And they would singe in the fire the kernels of barley while they were still on the stalks, in order to fulfill the mitzva of parched grain, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Prior to parching the kernels, they would remove them from the stalks by beating them with soft, moist reeds and with cabbage stalks, not with sticks, so that the kernels would not be crushed.

谞转谞讜讛讜 诇讗讘讜讘 讜讗讘讜讘 讛讬讛 诪谞讜拽讘 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟 讘讻讜诇讜 砖讟讞讜讛讜 讘注讝专讛 讜讛专讜讞 诪谞砖讘转 讘讜 谞转谞讜讛讜 诇专讬讞讬诐 砖诇 讙专讜住讜转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讜谉 砖讛讜讗 诪谞讜驻讛 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛 谞驻讛 讜讛砖讗专 谞驻讚讛 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转

They then placed the grain into a hollow vessel [le鈥檃buv], and this vessel was perforated so that the fire would take hold of the grain in its entirety. After parching the kernels, they would spread the kernels in the Temple courtyard and the wind would blow upon the kernels, cooling and drying them. They then placed the kernels in a mill used to grind grits, so that the barley would not be ground so fine that the shell would be mixed with the grain. And they produced from the ground barley a tenth of an ephah of barley flour that was sifted through thirteen sifters, and the rest is redeemed and may be eaten by any person. And dough from this barley flour is obligated in the separation of 岣lla, and the grain is exempt from the separation of tithe. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and tithes separated from it.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘讬讘 讝讛 讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讘讗砖 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗砖 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 拽诇讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna cited a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis as to whether the barley kernels were first singed while they were in their stalks or only after they were beaten and removed from their stalks, when they were placed in a hollow vessel. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). 鈥淕rain in the ear鈥; this is a reference to the grain, i.e., the barley kernel. 鈥淧arched [kalui] with fire鈥; this teaches that the Jewish people would singe it in fire, in order to fulfill the mitzva of bringing parched grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:

讗讬谉 讗讜专 诇砖讜谉 拽诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谉 诇砖讜谉 拽诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 拽诇讬诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讘讜讘 砖诇 拽诇讬讜转 讛讬讛 砖诐 讜讛讬讛 诪谞讜拽讘 讻讻讘专讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟转 讘讻讜诇讜

Fire is not the proper interpretation of the term kali in the verse. Rather, kali means something else, i.e., the barley was parched inside a receptacle and not directly in the fire. How so? The term kali means only that something else, a vessel made from burnished [kalil] brass was used in the process of parching the grains. How so, i.e., how was this performed? There was a hollow vessel there, in the Temple, which was used for making parched grains. And it was perforated with holes like a sieve, in order to allow the fire to take hold of it in its entirety.

讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讙专砖 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讗诐 讙专砖 拽诇讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗砖 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The baraita analyzes the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). This indicates that the grain used for the omer offering must be parched with fire, but is unclear if that clause modifies the earlier or later part of the verse. In other words, I do not know if grain in the ear is to be parched before it is ground, or if the ground groats are to be parched. The baraita explains that when the verse states: With fire, it interrupted the previous matter and is now introducing a new clause. Accordingly, the instructions to parch with fire is referring to the grain still in the stalks, not the ground groats.

讻专诪诇 专讱 讜诪诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讬砖 讘讗 诪讘注诇 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讘讗 诇讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇讞诐 讘讻讜专讬诐 讜注砖专讬诐 诇讞诐 砖注专讬诐 讜讻专诪诇 讘爪拽诇谞讜 讜讬讗诪专 转谉 诇注诐 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘讗 讜讬爪拽 诇谞讜 讜讗讻诇谞讜 讜谞讜讛 讛讬讛

The verse states that the omer offering should be of the fresh ear [karmel]. The baraita defines karmel as soft and malleable [rakh umal]. And likewise there are other examples of terms that are interpreted as shortened terms, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd there came a man from Baal Shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain [karmel] in his sack [betziklono]. And he said: Give to the people, that they may eat鈥 (II聽Kings 4:42). This verse mentions the word karmel in connection with the word betziklono, which is interpreted as an abbreviation for: He came [ba] and he poured for us [veyatzak lanu], and we ate [ve鈥檃khalnu] and it was fine [venaveh haya].

讜讗讜诪专 谞转注诇住讛 讘讗讛讘讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讜谞注诇讛 讜谞砖诪讞 讜谞转讞讟讗 讘讗讛讘讬诐

The baraita presents further examples of words that are interpreted as shortened terms of an expanded phrase. And the verse states: 鈥淐ome, let us take our fill of love until the morning; let us solace ourselves [nitalesa] with love鈥 (Proverbs 7:18). The word nitalesa is short for: We shall converse [nissa veniten] and we shall go up [vena鈥檃leh] to bed and we shall rejoice [venisma岣] and be pampered [venit岣ta] with loves.

讜讗讜诪专 讻谞祝 专谞谞讬诐 谞注诇住讛 谞讜砖讗 注讜诇讛 讜谞转讞讟讗

The baraita provides an example of a similar shortened word: 鈥淭he wing of the ostrich beats joyously [ne鈥檈lasa]鈥 (Job 39:13). The word ne鈥檈lasa is a combination of the words: Carries [noseh], goes up [oleh], and places down [venit岣ta]. This bird carries its egg, flies upward, and places it in its nest.

讜讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬专讟 讛讚专讱 诇谞讙讚讬 讬专讗转讛 专讗转讛 谞讟转讛

Likewise, the verse states, after Balaam struck his donkey: 鈥淎nd the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me鈥 (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is also a shortened term: The donkey feared [yirata], it saw [ra鈥檃ta], and it turned aside [nateta].

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻专诪诇 讻专 诪诇讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the word karmel. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that karmel means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., that the shell of the kernel should be filled with the ripened kernel inside.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and the tithes separated from it. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Akiva would say: The smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from the obligation to separate tithes if it is later redeemed for common use. This is despite the halakha that the smoothing of the pile is what causes the obligation of separating tithes to take effect.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜转专 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 谞驻讚讛 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专讜转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 驻讜讚讛 诪讬讚 讙讝讘专 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专讜转

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: What would they do with the leftover of these three se鈥檃 of barley, i.e., the portion not used for the tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? It is redeemed and eaten by any person, and it is obligated in the separation of 岣lla and exempt from the separation of tithes. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and the tithes separated from it. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: The halakha of one who redeems produce from the possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar] proves otherwise, as he is obligated in the separation of 岣lla but exempt from the separation of tithes.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗

Rav Sheshet explains his objection: And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva holds that smoothing a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, what is the significance of that which the Rabbis said to him? Rabbi Akiva would simply disagree with their premise, as it is the same ruling itself: Just as a pile of consecrated grains that was smoothed is not exempt from tithes, so too, Rabbi Akiva would maintain that produce redeemed from the Temple treasury is not exempt from tithes.

讜注讜讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 (讘专 诪转转讬讛) 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉

And furthermore, Rav Kahana bar Ta岣ifa raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Kahana bar Matitya, who reported that Rabbi Akiva holds that consecrated grain is not exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Akiva obligates one in the separation of 岣lla and in the separation of tithes, as the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. Only the requisite tenth of an ephah out of the entire three se鈥檃 was paid from the Temple treasury, and was therefore its property. This indicates that had the entire crop been purchased by the Temple, it would be exempt from the obligation to separate tithes.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诇诪讜讚 注专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘驻讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is a settled, accepted tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Akiva that the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. In other words, Rav Kahana鈥檚 version of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, that in all cases the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, is rejected.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 驻讜讟专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇诪讗 驻讜讟专

Rava likewise said: It is obvious to me that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain exempts one from any subsequent obligation to separate tithes. And even Rabbi Akiva, who requires the separation of tithes from the remainder of the grain not used for the omer offering, obligates one to separate tithes only there, where the money was given only to pay for that which they required for the offering. But he concedes that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain generally exempts one from the obligation to separate tithes.

诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜专诪讬谉 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻诇 注诇 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rava continues: The status of a pile of grain after smoothing performed by a gentile owner is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt other produce bought from gentiles, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt other produce bought from Samaritans. Furthermore, one may separate teruma from the produce of any of the above to exempt the produce of any of the above. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, as they maintain that produce that belonged to gentiles or Samaritans is obligated in tithes and has the same status as produce that initially belonged to a Jew.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜专诪讬谉 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt produce bought from Samaritans, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt produce bought from gentiles. But one may not separate teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans, nor from produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans to exempt produce of a Jew. According to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael, produce that belonged to a gentile or a Samaritan is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. Therefore one may not separate tithes from produce of a Jew, to which the obligation of tithes applies, to exempt such produce.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 66

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 66

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转住驻专 诇讱 住驻讬专讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬爪转讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 砖住驻讬专转讛 讘讻诇 讗讚诐

as the verse states: 鈥淪even weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:9). By using the term 鈥渇or you,鈥 the verse indicates that the counting of the weeks is dependent upon the decision of the court, as they know how to calculate the new months. This serves to exclude the possibility that the counting starts after the Shabbat of Creation, whose counting can be performed by every person, not only the court.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 诪诪讞专转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪诪讞专转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪诪讞专转 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 砖讘转讜讱 讛驻住讞 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪诪讞专转 讛砖讘转 讚讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讻讜诇讛 诪诇讗讛 砖讘转讜转 爪讗 讜讘讚讜拽 讗讬讝讜 砖讘转

Rabbi Yosei says that the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat]鈥 (Leviticus 23:15), means from the morrow after the festival of Passover. Do you say it means from the morrow after the festival of Passover, or is it only referring to from the morrow after Shabbat of Creation, i.e., Sunday? You can say in response: Is it stated: From the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat] that is during Passover? No, it is stated only: 鈥淔rom the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat].鈥 Considering that the entire year is full of Shabbatot, go and try to examine to which Shabbat the verse is referring. How does one know which Shabbat this means? Clearly, then, this 鈥渄ay of rest鈥 is the Festival, not Shabbat.

讜注讜讚 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 专讙诇 讜转讞讬诇转 专讙诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 专讙诇 讜转讞讬诇转 专讙诇

Rabbi Yosei cites another proof: And furthermore, it is stated 鈥shabbat鈥 below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot (Leviticus 23:16), and it is also stated 鈥shabbat鈥 above (Leviticus 23:15), with regard to starting the counting of the omer. Just as below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot, it is stated: 鈥淓ven until the morrow after the seventh week [shabbat] you shall number fifty days,鈥 and the word shabbat is referring to a time at the beginning of the Festival; so too here, with regard to the bringing of omer, the word shabbat means Festival, and the counting starts near the beginning of the Festival, on the second day of Passover. According to the Boethusians, sometimes the commencement of the counting is well after the start of Passover.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖砖转 讬诪讬诐 转讗讻诇 诪爪讜转 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诪爪讜转 转讗讻诇讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪爪讛 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讛 砖讘注讛 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讗讜讻诇讛 砖砖讛 诪谉 讛讞讚砖

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says there is yet another proof: One verse states: 鈥淪ix days you shall eat unleavened bread鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:8), and one verse states: 鈥淪even days you shall eat unleavened bread鈥 (Exodus 12:15). How can these texts be reconciled? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explains that there is matza that you are unable to eat for all seven days of Passover, due to the prohibition of harvesting and eating from the new crop of grain that ripened before Passover until after the omer offering. But you are able to eat that same matza for six days, although it is from the new crop, as it is permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the second day of Passover. This resolution of the verses is possible only if the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on any other date.

诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 转住驻专讜 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讜讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讬住驻讜专

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar clarifies another two verses that deal with the counting of the omer: 鈥淎nd you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that you brought the sheaf [omer] of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete; even until the morrow after the seventh week you shall number fifty days; and you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:15鈥16). One might have thought that although one must harvest and bring the omer meal offering on the second day of Passover, the sixteenth of Nisan, he may start to count the omer from whenever he wishes after that day.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讛讞诇 讞专诪砖 讘拽诪讛 转讞诇 诇住驻专 讗讬 诪讛讞诇 讞专诪砖 转讞诇 诇住驻专 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬住驻讜专 讜讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讬讘讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪even weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:9). This verse indicates that the counting should commence upon the reaping of the grain for the omer offering. If one would read just this verse: 鈥淔rom the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number,鈥 one might have thought that one can harvest and count and then bring the omer offering whenever he wishes. Therefore, the other verse states: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving鈥ou shall number fifty days,鈥 indicating that the counting should start on the day the omer offering is brought.

讗讬 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬住驻讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讘注 砖讘转讜转 转诪讬诪转 转讛讬讬谞讛 讗讬诪转讬 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖讘注 砖讘转讜转 转诪讬诪转 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪转讞讬诇 诇讬诪谞讜转 诪讘注专讘

If one would derive the halakha from this verse: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving,鈥 one might have thought that he should harvest and count and bring the omer offering during the day, not on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete.鈥 When do you find that there are seven complete weeks? You find it at the time when you begin to count from the evening. Only if the counting commences at night, at the start of the sixteenth of Nisan, will the seven weeks of counting be complete, without missing that first evening.

讬讻讜诇 讬拽爪讜专 讜讬讘讬讗 讜讬住驻讜专 讘诇讬诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 拽爪讬专讛 讜住驻讬专讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛讘讗讛 讘讬讜诐

If so, one might have thought that all of the rites of the omer should be at night, and therefore one should harvest and bring the omer offering and start to count at night. Therefore the verse states: From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving. How can these texts be reconciled? Does one start at night or in the day? Harvesting and counting should be performed at night, and the bringing of the omer offering is during the day.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 讘专 诪转专转讬 转谞讗讬 讘转专讗讬 讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讘讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

搂 The Gemara has presented two baraitot with ten proofs between them countering the Boethusian claim that the counting of the omer begins on the Sunday after Passover. Rava said: For all of the suggested proofs there is a possible refutation except for those of the two last tanna鈥檌m cited, both in the first baraita and in the second baraita, for which there is no refutation.

讗讬 诪讚专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讻讚讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬

Rava elaborates: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai said, that there is a contradiction between two verses, as one indicates that there is an obligation to count fifty days and another that the obligation is to count seven weeks, perhaps this contradiction can be resolved in accordance with the statement of Abaye. As Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks. When one counts, he should track both the number of days and the number of weeks.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗讬

Rabbi Eliezer derived that the counting is dependent upon the court, not the individual. Therefore, he claimed that when the verse mentions shabbat it must be referring to the Festival, not a regular Shabbat, which does not require a court for its determination. Rabbi Yehoshua derived that just as the counting and sanctifying of the New Moon is performed at a distinct time, so too the counting of the omer and start of Shavuot that follows must occur on a specific date. Rava refutes both of these claims: If the proof is from that which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua said, granted that their proofs successfully demonstrate that the counting should start after the Festival, not after Shabbat, but from where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, i.e., the seventh day of Passover?

讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗

Rava now addresses the statements of the final two the tanna鈥檌m cited in the first baraita: With regard to the proof given by Rabbi Yishmael from the two loaves that are brought at the beginning of a Festival, and the proof mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira from the usage of the word shabbat in connection with Shavuot, Rava said: They have no refutation.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讚诇诪讗 讞诪砖讬谉 诇讘专 诪讛谞讬 砖讬转讗

Continuing with the proofs of the tanna鈥檌m from the second baraita, Rava said: If one seeks to disprove the Boethusian claim from that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said, that if the counting starts from Shabbat then Shavuot can occur anywhere from fifty to fifty-six days from the date the counting had started the previous year, I would say that perhaps the verse means fifty days excluding these six extra days.

讗讬 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讗砖讜谉 拽讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讞专讜谉 拽讗讬

Rava continues: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said in the second baraita, that the verse indicates that the counting is dependent upon the decision of the court, not an individual, this can too be refuted: From where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, the seventh day of Passover?

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 讜注讜讚

Rava concludes: The first proof cited by Rabbi Yosei was that if the counting starts the day after a regular Shabbat then it would be impossible to determine which Shabbat is meant. Rabbi Yosei himself saw that it is also subject to refutation, and this is why Rabbi Yosei continued and said: Furthermore, and suggested a second proof. As Rava declared, the last two proofs cited in the second baraita, the second proof provided by Rabbi Yosei and the proof of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, stand without refutation.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 诪谞讜 讬讜诪讬 讜诪谞讜 砖讘讜注讬 讗诪讬诪专 诪谞讬 讬讜诪讬 讜诇讗 诪谞讬 砖讘讜注讬 讗诪专 讝讻专 诇诪拽讚砖 讛讜讗

搂 The Gemara analyzes the matter itself of Abaye鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count weeks. The Gemara notes that in fact the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi counted days and they also counted weeks. Ameimar counted days but not weeks. In explanation of his practice, Ameimar said: Since there is no longer an omer offering, the counting is performed only in commemoration of the Temple. Therefore, one does not need to be so scrupulous to count both days and weeks.

诪转谞讬壮 拽爪专讜讛讜 讜谞转谞讜讛讜 讘拽讜驻讜转 讛讘讬讗讜讛讜 诇注讝专讛 讜讛讬讜 诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗讜专 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 拽诇讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘拽谞讬诐 讜讘拽讜诇讞讜转 讞讜讘讟讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转诪注讱

MISHNA: After they harvested the omer and placed it in the baskets, they brought it to the Temple courtyard. And they would singe in the fire the kernels of barley while they were still on the stalks, in order to fulfill the mitzva of parched grain, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Prior to parching the kernels, they would remove them from the stalks by beating them with soft, moist reeds and with cabbage stalks, not with sticks, so that the kernels would not be crushed.

谞转谞讜讛讜 诇讗讘讜讘 讜讗讘讜讘 讛讬讛 诪谞讜拽讘 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟 讘讻讜诇讜 砖讟讞讜讛讜 讘注讝专讛 讜讛专讜讞 诪谞砖讘转 讘讜 谞转谞讜讛讜 诇专讬讞讬诐 砖诇 讙专讜住讜转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪诪谞讜 注砖专讜谉 砖讛讜讗 诪谞讜驻讛 讘砖诇砖 注砖专讛 谞驻讛 讜讛砖讗专 谞驻讚讛 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转

They then placed the grain into a hollow vessel [le鈥檃buv], and this vessel was perforated so that the fire would take hold of the grain in its entirety. After parching the kernels, they would spread the kernels in the Temple courtyard and the wind would blow upon the kernels, cooling and drying them. They then placed the kernels in a mill used to grind grits, so that the barley would not be ground so fine that the shell would be mixed with the grain. And they produced from the ground barley a tenth of an ephah of barley flour that was sifted through thirteen sifters, and the rest is redeemed and may be eaten by any person. And dough from this barley flour is obligated in the separation of 岣lla, and the grain is exempt from the separation of tithe. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and tithes separated from it.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讘讬讘 讝讛 讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讘讗砖 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛讘讛讘讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讗砖 讻讚讬 诇拽讬讬诐 讘讜 诪爪讜转 拽诇讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna cited a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis as to whether the barley kernels were first singed while they were in their stalks or only after they were beaten and removed from their stalks, when they were placed in a hollow vessel. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). 鈥淕rain in the ear鈥; this is a reference to the grain, i.e., the barley kernel. 鈥淧arched [kalui] with fire鈥; this teaches that the Jewish people would singe it in fire, in order to fulfill the mitzva of bringing parched grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:

讗讬谉 讗讜专 诇砖讜谉 拽诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谉 诇砖讜谉 拽诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专 拽诇讬诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗讘讜讘 砖诇 拽诇讬讜转 讛讬讛 砖诐 讜讛讬讛 诪谞讜拽讘 讻讻讘专讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讛讗讜专 砖讜诇讟转 讘讻讜诇讜

Fire is not the proper interpretation of the term kali in the verse. Rather, kali means something else, i.e., the barley was parched inside a receptacle and not directly in the fire. How so? The term kali means only that something else, a vessel made from burnished [kalil] brass was used in the process of parching the grains. How so, i.e., how was this performed? There was a hollow vessel there, in the Temple, which was used for making parched grains. And it was perforated with holes like a sieve, in order to allow the fire to take hold of it in its entirety.

讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讙专砖 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 讗讘讬讘 拽诇讜讬 讗诐 讙专砖 拽诇讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗砖 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉

The baraita analyzes the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). This indicates that the grain used for the omer offering must be parched with fire, but is unclear if that clause modifies the earlier or later part of the verse. In other words, I do not know if grain in the ear is to be parched before it is ground, or if the ground groats are to be parched. The baraita explains that when the verse states: With fire, it interrupted the previous matter and is now introducing a new clause. Accordingly, the instructions to parch with fire is referring to the grain still in the stalks, not the ground groats.

讻专诪诇 专讱 讜诪诇 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讬砖 讘讗 诪讘注诇 砖诇砖讛 讜讬讘讗 诇讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 诇讞诐 讘讻讜专讬诐 讜注砖专讬诐 诇讞诐 砖注专讬诐 讜讻专诪诇 讘爪拽诇谞讜 讜讬讗诪专 转谉 诇注诐 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讘讗 讜讬爪拽 诇谞讜 讜讗讻诇谞讜 讜谞讜讛 讛讬讛

The verse states that the omer offering should be of the fresh ear [karmel]. The baraita defines karmel as soft and malleable [rakh umal]. And likewise there are other examples of terms that are interpreted as shortened terms, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd there came a man from Baal Shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain [karmel] in his sack [betziklono]. And he said: Give to the people, that they may eat鈥 (II聽Kings 4:42). This verse mentions the word karmel in connection with the word betziklono, which is interpreted as an abbreviation for: He came [ba] and he poured for us [veyatzak lanu], and we ate [ve鈥檃khalnu] and it was fine [venaveh haya].

讜讗讜诪专 谞转注诇住讛 讘讗讛讘讬诐 谞砖讗 讜谞转谉 讜谞注诇讛 讜谞砖诪讞 讜谞转讞讟讗 讘讗讛讘讬诐

The baraita presents further examples of words that are interpreted as shortened terms of an expanded phrase. And the verse states: 鈥淐ome, let us take our fill of love until the morning; let us solace ourselves [nitalesa] with love鈥 (Proverbs 7:18). The word nitalesa is short for: We shall converse [nissa veniten] and we shall go up [vena鈥檃leh] to bed and we shall rejoice [venisma岣] and be pampered [venit岣ta] with loves.

讜讗讜诪专 讻谞祝 专谞谞讬诐 谞注诇住讛 谞讜砖讗 注讜诇讛 讜谞转讞讟讗

The baraita provides an example of a similar shortened word: 鈥淭he wing of the ostrich beats joyously [ne鈥檈lasa]鈥 (Job 39:13). The word ne鈥檈lasa is a combination of the words: Carries [noseh], goes up [oleh], and places down [venit岣ta]. This bird carries its egg, flies upward, and places it in its nest.

讜讗讜诪专 讻讬 讬专讟 讛讚专讱 诇谞讙讚讬 讬专讗转讛 专讗转讛 谞讟转讛

Likewise, the verse states, after Balaam struck his donkey: 鈥淎nd the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me鈥 (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is also a shortened term: The donkey feared [yirata], it saw [ra鈥檃ta], and it turned aside [nateta].

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻专诪诇 讻专 诪诇讗

The Gemara returns to discuss the word karmel. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that karmel means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., that the shell of the kernel should be filled with the ripened kernel inside.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and the tithes separated from it. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Akiva would say: The smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from the obligation to separate tithes if it is later redeemed for common use. This is despite the halakha that the smoothing of the pile is what causes the obligation of separating tithes to take effect.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜转专 砖诇砖 住讗讬谉 讛诇诇讜 诪讛 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讘讜 谞驻讚讛 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专讜转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 驻讜讚讛 诪讬讚 讙讝讘专 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪注砖专讜转

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: What would they do with the leftover of these three se鈥檃 of barley, i.e., the portion not used for the tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? It is redeemed and eaten by any person, and it is obligated in the separation of 岣lla and exempt from the separation of tithes. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having 岣lla and the tithes separated from it. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: The halakha of one who redeems produce from the possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar] proves otherwise, as he is obligated in the separation of 岣lla but exempt from the separation of tithes.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗

Rav Sheshet explains his objection: And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva holds that smoothing a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, what is the significance of that which the Rabbis said to him? Rabbi Akiva would simply disagree with their premise, as it is the same ruling itself: Just as a pile of consecrated grains that was smoothed is not exempt from tithes, so too, Rabbi Akiva would maintain that produce redeemed from the Temple treasury is not exempt from tithes.

讜注讜讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 (讘专 诪转转讬讛) 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讞诇讛 讜讘诪注砖专讜转 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉

And furthermore, Rav Kahana bar Ta岣ifa raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Kahana bar Matitya, who reported that Rabbi Akiva holds that consecrated grain is not exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Akiva obligates one in the separation of 岣lla and in the separation of tithes, as the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. Only the requisite tenth of an ephah out of the entire three se鈥檃 was paid from the Temple treasury, and was therefore its property. This indicates that had the entire crop been purchased by the Temple, it would be exempt from the obligation to separate tithes.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转诇诪讜讚 注专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘驻讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is a settled, accepted tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Akiva that the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. In other words, Rav Kahana鈥檚 version of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, that in all cases the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, is rejected.

讗诪专 专讘讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬 讚诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 驻讜讟专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讛转诐 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讜 诪注讜转 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 诇讛谉 讗讘诇 诪讬专讜讞 讛拽讚砖 讘注诇诪讗 驻讜讟专

Rava likewise said: It is obvious to me that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain exempts one from any subsequent obligation to separate tithes. And even Rabbi Akiva, who requires the separation of tithes from the remainder of the grain not used for the omer offering, obligates one to separate tithes only there, where the money was given only to pay for that which they required for the offering. But he concedes that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain generally exempts one from the obligation to separate tithes.

诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜专诪讬谉 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻诇 注诇 砖诇 讻诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rava continues: The status of a pile of grain after smoothing performed by a gentile owner is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt other produce bought from gentiles, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt other produce bought from Samaritans. Furthermore, one may separate teruma from the produce of any of the above to exempt the produce of any of the above. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, as they maintain that produce that belonged to gentiles or Samaritans is obligated in tithes and has the same status as produce that initially belonged to a Jew.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜专诪讬谉 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诪砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 注诇 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 讙讜讬诐 讜砖诇 讻讜转讬讬诐 注诇 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt produce bought from Samaritans, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt produce bought from gentiles. But one may not separate teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans, nor from produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans to exempt produce of a Jew. According to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael, produce that belonged to a gentile or a Samaritan is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. Therefore one may not separate tithes from produce of a Jew, to which the obligation of tithes applies, to exempt such produce.

Scroll To Top