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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 1, 2018 | 讻状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • 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 83

From where does Rabbi Akiva derive the halacha that obligatory sacrifices can’t be brought form maaser聽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"

讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘

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

讗讬 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪专讘讜讬讗 讚拽专讗讬 讗转讬 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻诇 讝讻专 (讘讻讛谞讬诐) 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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: 鈥淚n a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it鈥 (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.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. 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.

讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 诪拽讚砖讛 讘讘诇讜注 讗祝 讻诇 诪拽讚砖讛 讘讘诇讜注

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: 鈥淭his 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.鈥 鈥淪in offering鈥 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.

讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 讗讬谉 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谉 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讜 拽住讘专 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

鈥淕uilt offering鈥 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.

诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讛 诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛

鈥淚nauguration offering鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire鈥 (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.

砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉

鈥淧eace offering鈥 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.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讻讜壮 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪拽讚砖转 讘讘诇讜注 讗祝 讻诇 诪拽讚砖转 讘讘诇讜注

It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva that the verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Leviticus 7:37). From the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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: 鈥淲hatever shall touch them shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:11), so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘诪谞讞讛 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪谞讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬讻讗 讘诇注讛 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讟讗转 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖专 讗讙讘 讚砖诪谉 拽讚讬专 讗讘诇 诪谞讞讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 讘讗讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转

The cited baraita continues: 鈥淪in offering鈥 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 priest鈥檚 right hand, so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one鈥檚 service must be performed with the priest鈥檚 right hand.

讜讞讟讗转 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗讛专谉 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诇讜 诪砖诇讜 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专

And with regard to a sin offering itself, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav 岣sda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his鈥 (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.

讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜转讜 谞驻拽讗 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Isn鈥檛 this principle derived from the expression: 鈥淥n the day of His commanding鈥 (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.

讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转 诪讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗爪讘注 讜讻讛谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讬诪讬谉 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

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 priest鈥檚 right hand? Isn鈥檛 this derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na? As Rabba bar bar 岣na 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 Torah鈥檚 statement with regard to the leper: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his right finger鈥 (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 岣na鈥檚 statement.

讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉

The cited baraita continues: 鈥淕uilt offering鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讜讝讘讞转 驻住讞

The mishna teaches that the verse that states: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd鈥 (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: 鈥淭his is the law of鈥he sin offering,鈥 that verse: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,鈥

诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 砖拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 驻住讞 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 驻住讞 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 讬讛讗 诇讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜诪谉 讛讘拽专

what does he make of it, i.e., what does he derive from it? He requires it for that which was stated by Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.鈥 The verse is difficult: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞驻拽讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 拽专讘谞讜 诇讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讛讗 诇讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐

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 Shmuel鈥檚 father cites: As it is written: 鈥淎nd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord is of the flock鈥 (Leviticus 3:6); and Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讘砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗诇讬讛

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 isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Even though the verse already states that peace offerings come from the flock, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord be of the flock, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 3:6), the verse goes on to specify: 鈥淚f he bring a lamb for his offering鈥nd if his offering be a goat鈥 (Leviticus 3:7鈥12). The word 鈥渓amb鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讻讘砖 诇讛讘讬讗 驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 诇讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讬讟注谞讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

The baraita continues: When the verse states: 鈥淚f he brings a lamb,鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 注讝 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛注讝 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讗诇讬讛

And when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is a goat,鈥 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?

转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘 讞讚 诇注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜讞讚 诇注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜讞讚 诇诇讗 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜

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.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讞讝讬 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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 Pesa岣, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 Pesa岣; 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛转讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜诪谉 讛讗专抓

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 year鈥檚 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.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讜讘讞专 砖诇讛诐 诪讻谞讬住 讜讝讟讞讗 讗诇驻讗 诇住诇转 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讛谉 注驻讜专讬讬诐 讘讘拽注讛

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

讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讛讬讜 讻砖专讜转 讗诇讗 诪讻讗谉 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛

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.

注讜诪专 讚讻转讬讘 转拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转 讘讻讜专讬讱 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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 fruits鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). The superfluous repetition of the term 鈥測ou shall bring鈥 teaches that the omer is valid even if brought from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讘讬讗讜 讜诇讗 诪谉 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The source for the ruling concerning the two loaves is as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall offer a new meal offering to the Lord. From your dwellings you shall bring two wave-loaves鈥 (Leviticus 23:16鈥17). The term 鈥測our dwellings鈥 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 鈥渇rom your dwellings鈥 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.

讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 转讘讬讗讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara asks how two halakhot can be derived from the same term: Didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淔rom your dwellings you shall bring鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讝讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 转讘讬讗 诪讗讬 转讘讬讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淵ou shall bring [tavi鈥檜],鈥 using the plural form? It is written so that one can learn from it two different halakhot.

讜讛讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 诇诪爪讜讛

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 isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渇irst鈥 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 鈥渢he first of your harvest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10), and the two loaves are referred to as 鈥渁n offering of the first鈥 (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.

讛讻转讬讘 讞讚砖讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专讜转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讞讚砖讛 砖转讛讗 讞讚砖讛 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淎 new meal offering鈥 (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 鈥渘ew鈥 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: 鈥淎 new meal offering鈥? 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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讞讚砖

搂 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 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 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 83

讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘

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

讗讬 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪专讘讜讬讗 讚拽专讗讬 讗转讬 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻诇 讝讻专 (讘讻讛谞讬诐) 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

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: 鈥淚n a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it鈥 (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.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. 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.

讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 诪拽讚砖讛 讘讘诇讜注 讗祝 讻诇 诪拽讚砖讛 讘讘诇讜注

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: 鈥淭his 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.鈥 鈥淪in offering鈥 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.

讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 讗讬谉 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讜 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谉 砖驻讬专 讜砖诇讬讗 拽讚讜砖 讘讜 拽住讘专 讜诇讚讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讛谉 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讜讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

鈥淕uilt offering鈥 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.

诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讛 诪诇讜讗讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讗祝 讻诇 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讜转专讬讛谉 讘砖专讬驻讛

鈥淚nauguration offering鈥 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: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire鈥 (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.

砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉

鈥淧eace offering鈥 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.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 讻讜壮 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪拽讚砖转 讘讘诇讜注 讗祝 讻诇 诪拽讚砖转 讘讘诇讜注

It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva that the verse states: 鈥淭his 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鈥 (Leviticus 7:37). From the term 鈥渕eal offering鈥 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: 鈥淲hatever shall touch them shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:11), so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讘诪谞讞讛 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘诪谞讞讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讻讬讻讗 讘诇注讛 讗讘诇 讞讟讗转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讟讗转 诪砖讜诐 讚讘砖专 讗讙讘 讚砖诪谉 拽讚讬专 讗讘诇 诪谞讞讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讞讟讗转 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谞讛 讘讗讛 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讜诇讬谉 讜讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转

The cited baraita continues: 鈥淪in offering鈥 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 priest鈥檚 right hand, so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one鈥檚 service must be performed with the priest鈥檚 right hand.

讜讞讟讗转 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗讛专谉 讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 诇讜 诇讜 诪砖诇讜 讜诇讗 诪砖诇 诪注砖专

And with regard to a sin offering itself, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav 岣sda said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his鈥 (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.

讘讬讜诐 诪讘讬讜诐 爪讜转讜 谞驻拽讗 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Isn鈥檛 this principle derived from the expression: 鈥淥n the day of His commanding鈥 (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.

讘讬讚讜 讛讬诪谞讬转 诪讚专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 谞驻拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗爪讘注 讜讻讛谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讬诪讬谉 讻讚讬 谞住讘讛

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 priest鈥檚 right hand? Isn鈥檛 this derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar 岣na? As Rabba bar bar 岣na 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 Torah鈥檚 statement with regard to the leper: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his right finger鈥 (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 岣na鈥檚 statement.

讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉

The cited baraita continues: 鈥淕uilt offering鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗讬 讜讝讘讞转 驻住讞

The mishna teaches that the verse that states: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering to the Lord your God, of the flock and the herd鈥 (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: 鈥淭his is the law of鈥he sin offering,鈥 that verse: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Paschal offering,鈥

诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪谞讬谉 诇诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 砖拽专讘 砖诇诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讘讞转 驻住讞 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 爪讗谉 讜讘拽专 讜讛诇讗 讗讬谉 驻住讞 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讻讘砖讬诐 讜诪谉 讛注讝讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 讛驻住讞 讬讛讗 诇讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜诪谉 讛讘拽专

what does he make of it, i.e., what does he derive from it? He requires it for that which was stated by Rav Na岣an, as Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淎nd you shall sacrifice the Passover offering unto the Lord, your God, of the flock and the herd.鈥 The verse is difficult: But isn鈥檛 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.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讚讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞驻拽讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 拽专讘谞讜 诇讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗诪专 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讬讛讗 诇讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬诐

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 Shmuel鈥檚 father cites: As it is written: 鈥淎nd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord is of the flock鈥 (Leviticus 3:6); and Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讘砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻住讞 诇讗诇讬讛

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 isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Even though the verse already states that peace offerings come from the flock, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings to the Lord be of the flock, male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 3:6), the verse goes on to specify: 鈥淚f he bring a lamb for his offering鈥nd if his offering be a goat鈥 (Leviticus 3:7鈥12). The word 鈥渓amb鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讻讘砖 诇讛讘讬讗 驻住讞 砖注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 诇讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖诇诪讬诐 砖讬讟注谞讜 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

The baraita continues: When the verse states: 鈥淚f he brings a lamb,鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 注讝 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛注讝 砖讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讗诇讬讛

And when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is a goat,鈥 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?

转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘 讞讚 诇注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜讞讚 诇注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讜讞讚 诇诇讗 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜

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.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讞讝讬 诇驻住讞 砖谞讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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 Pesa岣, I would say that it is not sacrificed as a peace offering.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 诪驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 注讘专讛 讝诪谞讜 讜诇讗 注讘专讛 砖谞转讜 讚讗驻讬诇讜 诇驻住讞 专讗砖讜谉 谞诪讬 讞讝讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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 Pesa岣; 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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛转讜讚讛 讛讬转讛 讘讗讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讘讗讬谉 诪谉 讛讗专抓 讜诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讚砖 讜诪谉 讛讗专抓

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 year鈥檚 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.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛诪讜讘讞专 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪讜讘讞专 砖诇讛诐 诪讻谞讬住 讜讝讟讞讗 讗诇驻讗 诇住诇转 砖谞讬讬讛 诇讛谉 注驻讜专讬讬诐 讘讘拽注讛

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

讻诇 讛讗专爪讜转 讛讬讜 讻砖专讜转 讗诇讗 诪讻讗谉 讛讬讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 注讜诪专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专讜转 讗诇讗 砖讞讬住专 诪爪讜讛

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.

注讜诪专 讚讻转讬讘 转拽专讬讘 讗转 诪谞讞转 讘讻讜专讬讱 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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 fruits鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). The superfluous repetition of the term 鈥測ou shall bring鈥 teaches that the omer is valid even if brought from an old crop that was stored away in the attic.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 转讘讬讗讜 讜诇讗 诪谉 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The source for the ruling concerning the two loaves is as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall offer a new meal offering to the Lord. From your dwellings you shall bring two wave-loaves鈥 (Leviticus 23:16鈥17). The term 鈥測our dwellings鈥 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 鈥渇rom your dwellings鈥 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.

讛讗 讗驻讬拽转讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 转讘讬讗讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪谉 讛注诇讬讬讛

The Gemara asks how two halakhot can be derived from the same term: Didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淔rom your dwellings you shall bring鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讻诇 砖讗转讛 诪讘讬讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讝讛 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 转讘讬讗 诪讗讬 转讘讬讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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: 鈥淵ou shall bring [tavi鈥檜],鈥 using the plural form? It is written so that one can learn from it two different halakhot.

讜讛讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 诇诪爪讜讛

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 isn鈥檛 the term 鈥渇irst鈥 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 鈥渢he first of your harvest鈥 (Leviticus 23:10), and the two loaves are referred to as 鈥渁n offering of the first鈥 (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.

讛讻转讬讘 讞讚砖讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讛讘讗讜转 诪谉 讛讬砖谉 讻砖专讜转 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讞讚砖讛 砖转讛讗 讞讚砖讛 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to the two loaves: 鈥淎 new meal offering鈥 (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 鈥渘ew鈥 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: 鈥淎 new meal offering鈥? 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.

注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讞讚砖

搂 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