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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 1, 2018 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Menachot 83

From where does Rabbi Akiva derive the halacha that obligatory sacrifices can’t be brought form maaserย sheni? What are the rules regarding what produce the mincha offerings (and possibly also from what animals) can be brought from?


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

ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: โ€œEvery male among the priests may eat itโ€ (Leviticus 6:22), and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: โ€œEvery male among the priests may eat of itโ€ (Leviticus 7:6).

ืื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืจื‘ื•ื™ื ื“ืงืจืื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืชืื›ืœื ื• ื›ืœ ื–ื›ืจ (ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื) ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ื ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

If one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: โ€œIn a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat itโ€ (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tannaโ€™im. There is one tanna who cites it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who cites it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.โ€ โ€œSin offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

ืืฉื ืžื” ืืฉื ืื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื• ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื• ืงืกื‘ืจ ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื”ื•ื™ื™ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ

โ€œGuilt offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moment of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and a placenta in the case of female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.

ืžืœื•ืื™ื ืžื” ืžืœื•ืื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

โ€œInauguration offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: โ€œAnd if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fireโ€ (Exodus 29:34), and there were no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration, so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.

ืฉืœืžื™ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชืคื’ืœื™ืŸ

โ€œPeace offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offering, its components may render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul, so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื–ืืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื—ื” ืžื” ืžื ื—ื” ืžืงื“ืฉืช ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉืช ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข

ยง It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (Leviticus 7:37). From the term โ€œmeal offeringโ€ it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: โ€œWhatever shall touch them shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 6:11), so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื›ื™ื›ื ื‘ืœืขื” ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืฉืจ ืื’ื‘ ื“ืฉืžืŸ ืงื“ื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering. As, had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and therefore sanctifies what it touches; but with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that it is because, on account of its fattiness, the meat penetrates [kadeir] into whatever it touches and sanctifies it; but with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.

ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช

The cited baraita continues: โ€œSin offeringโ€ teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand, so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each oneโ€™s service must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand.

ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื’ื•ืคื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื”ืจืŸ ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืœื• ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ

And with regard to a sin offering itself, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav แธคisda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is hisโ€ (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from money with which the second tithe has been redeemed.

ื‘ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื•ื ืฆื•ืชื• ื ืคืงื ื›ื“ื™ ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Isnโ€™t this principle derived from the expression: โ€œOn the day of His commandingโ€ (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.

ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that the halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of offerings must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand? Isnโ€™t this derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar แธคana? As Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torahโ€™s statement with regard to the leper: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his right fingerโ€ (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar แธคanaโ€™s statement.

ืืฉื ืžื” ืืฉื ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ

The cited baraita continues: โ€œGuilt offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืคืกื—

The mishna teaches that the verse that states: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herdโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:2), indicates by juxtaposition that every obligatory offering, like the Paschal offering, may be brought only from non-sacred money. The Gemara therefore asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who derives this from the verse: โ€œThis is the law ofโ€ฆthe sin offering,โ€ that verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,โ€

ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืคืกื— ืฉืงืจื‘ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืคืกื— ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืคืกื— ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืืœื ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืคืกื— ื™ื”ื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ

what does he make of it, i.e., what does he derive from it? He requires it for that which was stated by Rav Naแธฅman, as Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: From where is it derived that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated but not ultimately sacrificed on Passover eve, is sacrificed as a peace offering afterward? It is derived from that which is stated: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.โ€ The verse is difficult: But isnโ€™t a Paschal offering brought only from the sheep and from the goats? Rather, it is derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering should be sacrificed as an offering brought both from the flock and from the herd, i.e., a peace offering.

ื•ื”ื ืžื”ื›ื ื ืคืงื ืžื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืคืงื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: But is it derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering? It is derived from the verse that Shmuelโ€™s father cites: As it is written: โ€œAnd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord is of the flockโ€ (Leviticus 3:6); and Shmuelโ€™s father said: This teaches that an offering that is brought only from the flock, i.e., the Paschal offering, will be a sacrifice of peace offerings.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื ืคืงื ืžื”ืชื ื ืคืงื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืคืกื— ืœืืœื™ื”

But still it must be asked: Is it derived from here? It is derived from there, from the verse cited in the following baraita. And isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Even though the verse already states that peace offerings come from the flock, as it is written: โ€œAnd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord be of the flock, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemishโ€ (Leviticus 3:6), the verse goes on to specify: โ€œIf he bring a lamb for his offeringโ€ฆand if his offering be a goatโ€ (Leviticus 3:7โ€“12). The word โ€œlambโ€ is written to include the Paschal offering in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar, which is written subsequently with regard to a peace offering (Leviticus 3:9), since this halakha is not mentioned in the verses concerning the Paschal offering.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืคืกื— ืฉืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ืคืกื— ืœื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื™ื˜ืขื ื• ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืชื ื•ืคืช ื—ื–ื” ื•ืฉื•ืง

The baraita continues: When the verse states: โ€œIf he brings a lamb,โ€ it is to include in all the mitzvot of peace offerings a Paschal offering whose first year has passed and is therefore too old to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and peace offerings brought due to a Paschal offering. Specifically, this indicates that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ืขื– ื”ืคืกื™ืง ื”ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ืขื– ืฉืื™ื ื” ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ืืœื™ื”

And when the verse states: โ€œAnd if his offering is a goat,โ€ it interrupted the previous matter and taught that the sacrifice of a goat does not require that the fat tail be burned on the altar. In any event, the verse indicates that a Paschal offering that was disqualified as such because it has reached its second year, i.e., the leftover of a Paschal offering, is sacrificed as a peace offering. It may therefore be asked: Why are there three verses to indicate this one halakha?

ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืœืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ื—ื“ ืœืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื•

Rather, none of these derivations are superfluous, as three verses are written that teach the halakha that a Paschal offering that is sacrificed not on Passover eve is sacrificed as a peace offering. One verse teaches this halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice, Passover eve, has passed, and its first year has also passed, disqualifying it for sacrifice as a Paschal offering. And one verse teaches the halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed, but not its first year. And the third one teaches a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year has passed, but it was sacrificed before Passover eve.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื

And all these verses are necessary. As had the Merciful One written only the case where both its first year and its time of sacrifice have passed, one could say that only such a Paschal offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering, as it was completely rejected from its status as a Paschal offering; but in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed but its first year has not passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืกื— ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืคืกื— ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And if the Torah had taught us only that a leftover Paschal offering whose time has passed but whose year has not passed is sacrificed as a peace offering, one might think that this is because the Paschal offering was rejected from the first Pesaแธฅ; but in a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year have passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on Passover eve, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, all three verses are necessary.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืืจืฅ

MISHNA: All communal and individual meal offerings may come from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael and from outside Eretz Yisrael, from the new crop, i.e., the current yearโ€™s crop, and from the old crop from previous years. This is the halakha of all meal offerings except for the omer, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the two loaves, i.e., the communal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come only from the new crop and from Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื‘ื—ืจ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžื•ื‘ื—ืจ ืฉืœื”ื ืžื›ื ื™ืก ื•ื–ื˜ื—ื ืืœืคื ืœืกืœืช ืฉื ื™ื™ื” ืœื”ืŸ ืขืคื•ืจื™ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืงืขื”

And all meal offerings come only from the optimal-quality grain. And which places have the optimal grain for them? Fields in Makhnis and Zateแธฅa are the primary [alfa] source for fine flour. Secondary to them is Aforayim in the valley.

ื›ืœ ื”ืืจืฆื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืžื›ืืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ

All the regions were valid as the source of the grain, but it is from here, the primary and secondary places, that they would bring grain, because it was of optimal quality.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืขื•ืžืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืฉื—ื™ืกืจ ืžืฆื•ื”

GEMARA: The mishna states that the omer meal offering and the two loaves are prepared only from the new crop. The wording of the mishna indicates that this is an essential requirement. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An omer meal offering that comes from the old crop is valid. Similarly, the two loaves that come from the old crop are valid, but by bringing them from the old crop one lacks the proper fulfillment of its mitzva.

ืขื•ืžืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืืช ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ืš ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The Gemara provides the biblical sources for the rulings of the baraita: The source for the ruling concerning the omer meal offering is as it is written: โ€œAnd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, it is ripened grain, toasted over fire, even groats of the fresh ear, you shall bring the meal offering of your first fruitsโ€ (Leviticus 2:14). The superfluous repetition of the term โ€œyou shall bringโ€ teaches that the omer is valid even if brought from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ืชื‘ื™ืื• ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The source for the ruling concerning the two loaves is as it is written: โ€œAnd you shall offer a new meal offering to the Lord. From your dwellings you shall bring two wave-loavesโ€ (Leviticus 23:16โ€“17). The term โ€œyour dwellingsโ€ is a reference to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the verse indicates that the two loaves must be brought from grain grown there, and not from outside of Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, the term โ€œfrom your dwellingsโ€ teaches that the offering may come from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ื”ื ืืคื™ืงืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื‘ื™ืื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The Gemara asks how two halakhot can be derived from the same term: Didnโ€™t you already expound that term to teach that one can use grain only if it is grown in Eretz Yisrael? How can you also derive from it that the grain can be brought from an old crop? The Gemara explains: That is derived from the next term, as the verse states: โ€œFrom your dwellings you shall bringโ€ (Leviticus 23:17), which teaches that one may bring them from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ืžื‘ื™ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื–ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืชื‘ื™ื ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื™ืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara questions this answer: But that term is necessary to teach that any leavened bread offering that you bring in another instance, i.e., the loaves of the thanksgiving offering, is to be like this offering of the two loaves, i.e., the same requirements apply to it (see 77b). How, then, can you expound the term to also teach that grain from an old crop can be used for the two loaves? The Gemara explains: If so, that the term is written only to teach about the requirements for other leavened bread offerings, then let the verse write: You shall bring [tavi], using the singular form. For what reason then, does it write: โ€œYou shall bring [taviโ€™u],โ€ using the plural form? It is written so that one can learn from it two different halakhot.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœืžืฆื•ื”

The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita that the omer and the two loaves are valid even if brought from an old crop: But isnโ€™t the term โ€œfirstโ€ written with regard to both the omer and the two loaves? This indicates they must come from the new crop. The omer is referred to as โ€œthe first of your harvestโ€ (Leviticus 23:10), and the two loaves are referred to as โ€œan offering of the firstโ€ (Leviticus 2:12). The Gemara answers: The term indicates that only the new crop should be used, but that is only for the proper fulfillment of the mitzva. If an old crop was used, the offerings are still valid.

ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ืฉื” ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืชื”ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืœื›ืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written with regard to the two loaves: โ€œA new meal offeringโ€ (Leviticus 23:16), which indicates that only the new crop can be used? The fact that with regard to the two loaves the Torah repeats this requirement twice suggests that it is indispensable. The Gemara answers: The word โ€œnewโ€ cannot teach that the use of the new crop is essential, as it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva said that even if the two loaves are brought from the old crop, they are valid. How do I realize the meaning of: โ€œA new meal offeringโ€? This teaches that the two loaves are to be the first of all the other meal offerings. No other meal offerings may be brought from the new crop until the meal offering of the two loaves has been brought.

ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ

ยง The Gemara defines the limits of the dispute between the mishna and baraita: They disagree only with regard to whether it is essential for the omer and the two loaves to be brought from the new crop.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 83

ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: โ€œEvery male among the priests may eat itโ€ (Leviticus 6:22), and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: โ€œEvery male among the priests may eat of itโ€ (Leviticus 7:6).

ืื™ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืจื‘ื•ื™ื ื“ืงืจืื™ ืืชื™ ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ื”ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืชืื›ืœื ื• ื›ืœ ื–ื›ืจ (ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ื) ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ืื›ืœื™ื ืืœื ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื”

If one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: โ€œIn a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat itโ€ (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.

ืชื ืื™ ื”ื™ื ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื” ืžื”ื›ื

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tannaโ€™im. There is one tanna who cites it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who cites it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉื” ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.โ€ โ€œSin offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

ืืฉื ืžื” ืืฉื ืื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื• ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืคื™ืจ ื•ืฉืœื™ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื• ืงืกื‘ืจ ื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื”ื•ื™ื™ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื ื•ื“ื ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืžืฉืื™ ืืคืฉืจ

โ€œGuilt offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moment of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and a placenta in the case of female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.

ืžืœื•ืื™ื ืžื” ืžืœื•ืื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžื•ืชืจื™ื”ืŸ ื‘ืฉืจื™ืคื”

โ€œInauguration offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: โ€œAnd if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fireโ€ (Exodus 29:34), and there were no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration, so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers disposed of by incineration. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.

ืฉืœืžื™ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืคื’ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžืชืคื’ืœื™ืŸ

โ€œPeace offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offering, its components may render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul, so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render components of the offering piggul and are rendered piggul.

ื‘ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืชื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื–ืืช ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื—ื” ืžื” ืžื ื—ื” ืžืงื“ืฉืช ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืžืงื“ืฉืช ื‘ื‘ืœื•ืข

ยง It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva that the verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offeringsโ€ (Leviticus 7:37). From the term โ€œmeal offeringโ€ it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: โ€œWhatever shall touch them shall be sacredโ€ (Leviticus 6:11), so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืžื ื—ื” ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืจื›ื™ื›ื ื‘ืœืขื” ืื‘ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ืžื ืœื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืฉืจ ืื’ื‘ ื“ืฉืžืŸ ืงื“ื™ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื ื—ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering. As, had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and therefore sanctifies what it touches; but with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had the Merciful One written this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that it is because, on account of its fattiness, the meat penetrates [kadeir] into whatever it touches and sanctifies it; but with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.

ื—ื˜ืืช ืžื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืื™ื ื” ื‘ืื” ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช

The cited baraita continues: โ€œSin offeringโ€ teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals, and it is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand, so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each oneโ€™s service must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand.

ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื’ื•ืคื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ ืื”ืจืŸ ืืช ืคืจ ื”ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืœื• ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืœื ืžืฉืœ ืžืขืฉืจ

And with regard to a sin offering itself, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav แธคisda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: โ€œAnd Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is hisโ€ (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from money with which the second tithe has been redeemed.

ื‘ื™ื•ื ืžื‘ื™ื•ื ืฆื•ืชื• ื ืคืงื ื›ื“ื™ ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Isnโ€™t this principle derived from the expression: โ€œOn the day of His commandingโ€ (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.

ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื”ื™ืžื ื™ืช ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืฆื‘ืข ื•ื›ื”ื ื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื™ ื ืกื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that the halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of offerings must be performed with the priestโ€™s right hand? Isnโ€™t this derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar แธคana? As Rabba bar bar แธคana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torahโ€™s statement with regard to the leper: โ€œAnd the priest shall dip his right fingerโ€ (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar แธคanaโ€™s statement.

ืืฉื ืžื” ืืฉื ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืขืฆืžื•ืชื™ื• ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ

The cited baraita continues: โ€œGuilt offeringโ€ teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืคืกื—

The mishna teaches that the verse that states: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herdโ€ (Deuteronomy 16:2), indicates by juxtaposition that every obligatory offering, like the Paschal offering, may be brought only from non-sacred money. The Gemara therefore asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, who derives this from the verse: โ€œThis is the law ofโ€ฆthe sin offering,โ€ that verse: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,โ€

ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืคืกื— ืฉืงืจื‘ ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ืช ืคืกื— ืœื”ืณ ืืœื”ื™ืš ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื”ืœื ืื™ืŸ ืคืกื— ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืขื–ื™ื ืืœื ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืคืกื— ื™ื”ื ืœื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื‘ืงืจ

what does he make of it, i.e., what does he derive from it? He requires it for that which was stated by Rav Naแธฅman, as Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: From where is it derived that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated but not ultimately sacrificed on Passover eve, is sacrificed as a peace offering afterward? It is derived from that which is stated: โ€œAnd you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.โ€ The verse is difficult: But isnโ€™t a Paschal offering brought only from the sheep and from the goats? Rather, it is derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering should be sacrificed as an offering brought both from the flock and from the herd, i.e., a peace offering.

ื•ื”ื ืžื”ื›ื ื ืคืงื ืžื“ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืคืงื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ืฆืืŸ ื™ื”ื ืœื–ื‘ื— ืฉืœืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: But is it derived from here that a leftover Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering? It is derived from the verse that Shmuelโ€™s father cites: As it is written: โ€œAnd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord is of the flockโ€ (Leviticus 3:6); and Shmuelโ€™s father said: This teaches that an offering that is brought only from the flock, i.e., the Paschal offering, will be a sacrifice of peace offerings.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื”ื›ื ื ืคืงื ืžื”ืชื ื ืคืงื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืคืกื— ืœืืœื™ื”

But still it must be asked: Is it derived from here? It is derived from there, from the verse cited in the following baraita. And isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Even though the verse already states that peace offerings come from the flock, as it is written: โ€œAnd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord be of the flock, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemishโ€ (Leviticus 3:6), the verse goes on to specify: โ€œIf he bring a lamb for his offeringโ€ฆand if his offering be a goatโ€ (Leviticus 3:7โ€“12). The word โ€œlambโ€ is written to include the Paschal offering in the requirement that the fat tail be sacrificed on the altar, which is written subsequently with regard to a peace offering (Leviticus 3:9), since this halakha is not mentioned in the verses concerning the Paschal offering.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื›ื‘ืฉ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืคืกื— ืฉืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ืฉืœืžื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ื ืžื—ืžืช ืคืกื— ืœื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉื™ื˜ืขื ื• ืกืžื™ื›ื” ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืชื ื•ืคืช ื—ื–ื” ื•ืฉื•ืง

The baraita continues: When the verse states: โ€œIf he brings a lamb,โ€ it is to include in all the mitzvot of peace offerings a Paschal offering whose first year has passed and is therefore too old to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering, and peace offerings brought due to a Paschal offering. Specifically, this indicates that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืื ืขื– ื”ืคืกื™ืง ื”ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ืขื– ืฉืื™ื ื” ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ืืœื™ื”

And when the verse states: โ€œAnd if his offering is a goat,โ€ it interrupted the previous matter and taught that the sacrifice of a goat does not require that the fat tail be burned on the altar. In any event, the verse indicates that a Paschal offering that was disqualified as such because it has reached its second year, i.e., the leftover of a Paschal offering, is sacrificed as a peace offering. It may therefore be asked: Why are there three verses to indicate this one halakha?

ืชืœืชื ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ ืœืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ื—ื“ ืœืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื•ื—ื“ ืœืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื•

Rather, none of these derivations are superfluous, as three verses are written that teach the halakha that a Paschal offering that is sacrificed not on Passover eve is sacrificed as a peace offering. One verse teaches this halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice, Passover eve, has passed, and its first year has also passed, disqualifying it for sacrifice as a Paschal offering. And one verse teaches the halakha in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed, but not its first year. And the third one teaches a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year has passed, but it was sacrificed before Passover eve.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืคืกื— ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื

And all these verses are necessary. As had the Merciful One written only the case where both its first year and its time of sacrifice have passed, one could say that only such a Paschal offering should be sacrificed as a peace offering, as it was completely rejected from its status as a Paschal offering; but in a case where its time of sacrifice has passed but its first year has not passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on the second Pesaแธฅ, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืคืกื— ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ื–ืžื ื• ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจื” ืฉื ืชื• ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืคืกื— ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And if the Torah had taught us only that a leftover Paschal offering whose time has passed but whose year has not passed is sacrificed as a peace offering, one might think that this is because the Paschal offering was rejected from the first Pesaแธฅ; but in a case where neither its time of sacrifice nor its first year have passed, in which case it is still fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering on Passover eve, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, all three verses are necessary.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืืจืฅ

MISHNA: All communal and individual meal offerings may come from produce grown in Eretz Yisrael and from outside Eretz Yisrael, from the new crop, i.e., the current yearโ€™s crop, and from the old crop from previous years. This is the halakha of all meal offerings except for the omer, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the two loaves, i.e., the communal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot, as they come only from the new crop and from Eretz Yisrael.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืžื•ื‘ื—ืจ ื•ืื™ื–ื”ื• ืžื•ื‘ื—ืจ ืฉืœื”ื ืžื›ื ื™ืก ื•ื–ื˜ื—ื ืืœืคื ืœืกืœืช ืฉื ื™ื™ื” ืœื”ืŸ ืขืคื•ืจื™ื™ื ื‘ื‘ืงืขื”

And all meal offerings come only from the optimal-quality grain. And which places have the optimal grain for them? Fields in Makhnis and Zateแธฅa are the primary [alfa] source for fine flour. Secondary to them is Aforayim in the valley.

ื›ืœ ื”ืืจืฆื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืžื›ืืŸ ื”ื™ื• ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ

All the regions were valid as the source of the grain, but it is from here, the primary and secondary places, that they would bring grain, because it was of optimal quality.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืขื•ืžืจ ื”ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ืืœื ืฉื—ื™ืกืจ ืžืฆื•ื”

GEMARA: The mishna states that the omer meal offering and the two loaves are prepared only from the new crop. The wording of the mishna indicates that this is an essential requirement. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: An omer meal offering that comes from the old crop is valid. Similarly, the two loaves that come from the old crop are valid, but by bringing them from the old crop one lacks the proper fulfillment of its mitzva.

ืขื•ืžืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืืช ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ืš ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The Gemara provides the biblical sources for the rulings of the baraita: The source for the ruling concerning the omer meal offering is as it is written: โ€œAnd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, it is ripened grain, toasted over fire, even groats of the fresh ear, you shall bring the meal offering of your first fruitsโ€ (Leviticus 2:14). The superfluous repetition of the term โ€œyou shall bringโ€ teaches that the omer is valid even if brought from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ืชื‘ื™ืื• ื•ืœื ืžืŸ ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The source for the ruling concerning the two loaves is as it is written: โ€œAnd you shall offer a new meal offering to the Lord. From your dwellings you shall bring two wave-loavesโ€ (Leviticus 23:16โ€“17). The term โ€œyour dwellingsโ€ is a reference to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the verse indicates that the two loaves must be brought from grain grown there, and not from outside of Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, the term โ€œfrom your dwellingsโ€ teaches that the offering may come from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ื”ื ืืคื™ืงืชื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืชื‘ื™ืื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืขืœื™ื™ื”

The Gemara asks how two halakhot can be derived from the same term: Didnโ€™t you already expound that term to teach that one can use grain only if it is grown in Eretz Yisrael? How can you also derive from it that the grain can be brought from an old crop? The Gemara explains: That is derived from the next term, as the verse states: โ€œFrom your dwellings you shall bringโ€ (Leviticus 23:17), which teaches that one may bring them from any grain grown in Eretz Yisrael and even from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

ื•ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืฉื›ืœ ืฉืืชื” ืžื‘ื™ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื–ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืชื‘ื™ื ืžืื™ ืชื‘ื™ืื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara questions this answer: But that term is necessary to teach that any leavened bread offering that you bring in another instance, i.e., the loaves of the thanksgiving offering, is to be like this offering of the two loaves, i.e., the same requirements apply to it (see 77b). How, then, can you expound the term to also teach that grain from an old crop can be used for the two loaves? The Gemara explains: If so, that the term is written only to teach about the requirements for other leavened bread offerings, then let the verse write: You shall bring [tavi], using the singular form. For what reason then, does it write: โ€œYou shall bring [taviโ€™u],โ€ using the plural form? It is written so that one can learn from it two different halakhot.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœืžืฆื•ื”

The Gemara questions the ruling of the baraita that the omer and the two loaves are valid even if brought from an old crop: But isnโ€™t the term โ€œfirstโ€ written with regard to both the omer and the two loaves? This indicates they must come from the new crop. The omer is referred to as โ€œthe first of your harvestโ€ (Leviticus 23:10), and the two loaves are referred to as โ€œan offering of the firstโ€ (Leviticus 2:12). The Gemara answers: The term indicates that only the new crop should be used, but that is only for the proper fulfillment of the mitzva. If an old crop was used, the offerings are still valid.

ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื“ืฉื” ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืžืจื• ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ืžืŸ ื”ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ืฉืจื•ืช ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืชื”ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืœื›ืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written with regard to the two loaves: โ€œA new meal offeringโ€ (Leviticus 23:16), which indicates that only the new crop can be used? The fact that with regard to the two loaves the Torah repeats this requirement twice suggests that it is indispensable. The Gemara answers: The word โ€œnewโ€ cannot teach that the use of the new crop is essential, as it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Akiva said that even if the two loaves are brought from the old crop, they are valid. How do I realize the meaning of: โ€œA new meal offeringโ€? This teaches that the two loaves are to be the first of all the other meal offerings. No other meal offerings may be brought from the new crop until the meal offering of the two loaves has been brought.

ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืืœื ื‘ื—ื“ืฉ

ยง The Gemara defines the limits of the dispute between the mishna and baraita: They disagree only with regard to whether it is essential for the omer and the two loaves to be brought from the new crop.

Scroll To Top