Menachos 72
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Menachot 72, continuing from 71a–b in the middle of the sugya beginning at “אלא רבי מאיר בשיטת רבי יהודה אמרה,” with the *shiur* sponsored *lezchus* *refuah sheleimah* for שרה רבקה בת אינדלעייא. The text aligns Rabbi Meir’s ruling in Pe’ah about when cutting for fodder splits a field with the tannaitic positions about whether קוצר לשחת counts as קצירה before the Omer, rejects identifying him fully with Rabbi Yehudah or Rabbi Akiva, and concludes that Rabbi Meir partially follows Rabbi Akiva and partially disagrees. The sugya then derives multiple halachos of the Omer from the single word תקריב, presents a machlokes whether day-harvesting is valid *b’dieved*, and develops a broader analysis of what it means that the Omer and Shtei HaLechem are דוחה שבת, including how Rabbi’s view is reconciled with sources that treat preparatory acts and the offerings themselves differently.
- Today's *daf* is מנחות דף ע"ב, continuing from דף ע"א and ב' in the middle of the ongoing discussion. This *shiur* is sponsored *lezchus* *refuah sheleimah* for שרה רבקה בת אינדלעייא, רפואה שלימה בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. The learning resumes from “אלא רבי מאיר בשיטת רבי יהודה אמרה,” about twelve lines before the end of the page.
- Rabbi Meir rules that when a field is divided into two halachic fields, each requires its own corner for פאה, and the sugya defines what creates a division. Rabbi Meir states that קוצר לשחת can be מפסיק, and the sugya assumes it is מפסיק only if it lacks the status of קצירה; if it is genuine קצירה, it is part of one continuous harvest and does not split the field. The gemara first tries to align Rabbi Meir with Rabbi Yehudah’s position that cutting for fodder is permitted only when one started before the crop reached one-third growth, but rejects it because Rabbi Yehudah’s leniency is limited to needs of an animal rather than a person, and because “אימתי” is read as clarifying the first view rather than introducing a third tannaitic position. The gemara then tries to align Rabbi Meir with Rabbi Akiva via the mishnah of המנמר שדהו and Shmuel’s qualification that Rabbi Akiva obligates multiple pe’ah portions only when the “spotting” is done for כלאות, but rejects that alignment due to Rabbi Yochanan’s report that Rabbi Akiva obligates even במנמר לאוצר. The gemara concludes that Rabbi Meir adopts Rabbi Akiva’s idea in one respect and disputes him in another, agreeing that before one-third growth even cutting for a person is not called קצירה, while holding that once the crop reaches one-third growth it has a שם קצירה and therefore would not be מפסיק.
- The mishnah permits harvesting before the Omer for needs of הנטעים, בית האבל, and בית המדרש. The gemara explains this from “קצירכם” as excluding קציר מצוה, so mitzvah-harvesting does not violate the requirement that the Omer be the first of “your harvest.” The mishnah’s restriction that one may not make כריכות but may leave צבתים is explained by the principle that as much as possible one avoids extra exertion and creates a visible שינוי so it is recognizable that the cutting is for a mitzvah purpose rather than ordinary harvesting.
- A baraisa derives several halachos of the Omer from the repeated word תקריב in the verse of ואם תקריב מנחת ביכורים. The baraisa states that the mitzvah is to bring the Omer מן הקמה, and learns from תקריב that if one does not find standing grain one brings from העומרים. The baraisa also presents a דרשה that the mitzvah is to bring מן הלח and learns from תקריב that if one does not find moist stalks one brings מן היבש, described as bringing from a more distant place where it dries. A further דרשה states that the mitzvah is to harvest at night and learns from תקריב that if it was harvested by day it is כשר, and another דרשה learns that it is דוחה שבת; it additionally states תקריב אפילו בטומאה. The baraisa then repeats the set in one formulation—תקריב כל שהוא, תקריב מכל מקום, תקריב אפילו בשבת, תקריב אפילו בטומאה—establishing that all the דרשות are operative together.
- The gemara challenges the statement נקצר ביום כשר from the mishnah in Megillah that “כל הלילה כשר לקצירת העומר,” with a general rule implying that a nighttime mitzvah is not valid by day. Rava resolves it as a tannaitic dispute, attributing the permissive view to Rabbi and the restrictive view to Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon. A baraisa describes a case where the Omer becomes טמא during the offering: Rabbi holds that if another is available they bring a replacement, and if not they bring the טמא offering quietly, while Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon holds that in either case they bring it quietly because “שכל העומר שנקצר שלא כמצוותו פסול,” requiring harvesting specifically at night.
- Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon follows Rabbi Akiva’s rule that any מלאכה possible before Shabbos does not override Shabbos, and also follows Rabbi Yishmael who treats קצירת העומר as a mitzvah that overrides Shabbos based on “בחריש ובקציר תשבות” excluding קצירת העומר. The gemara argues that if harvesting at the wrong time were valid *b’dieved*, then קצירת העומר would not need to override Shabbos because it could be done earlier, so the fact that it is דוחה שבת indicates that נקצר שלא כמצוותו is פסול. This yields Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon’s insistence that night-harvesting is essential, not merely ideal.
- The gemara asks why Rabbi, who also learned by Rabbi Shimon, does not follow the Rabbi Akiva framework to require avoiding Shabbos labor when possible. The answer states that Rabbi follows a different teaching of Rabbi Shimon: “בוא וראה כמה חביבה מצוה בשעתה,” illustrated by burning חלבים ואיברים on Shabbos rather than waiting until after Shabbos despite their validity all night. Rabbi applies that principle to the Omer, preferring performance at its appointed time even when earlier performance would technically suffice. Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Shimon rejects the analogy by distinguishing that חלבים ואיברים follow a process already overriding Shabbos via שחיטה, while the Omer would not yet have overridden Shabbos unless its time-specific requirements made earlier performance invalid.
- The sugya tests whether Rabbi can hold that קצירת העומר is not דוחה שבת by citing mishnayos that describe various public procedures of קצירת העומר on Shabbos, and answers that those mishnayos can be read as not following Rabbi. The gemara then confronts the internal pairing in the baraisa that combines “נקצר ביום כשר” with “ודוחה את השבת,” and answers that “דוחה את השבת” may refer to the הקרבה rather than the קצירה. A further baraisa in Rabbi’s name derives from “וידבר משה את מועדי ה'” and “אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם” that ציבור offerings, including עומר and שׁתי הלחם with their accompanying offerings, have a fixed מועד and therefore override Shabbos and טומאה.
- The gemara reasons that “דוחה שבת” for שׁתי הלחם cannot mean הקרבה because the loaves are not offered on the מזבח, and initially suggests it must mean preparatory acts like טחינה והרקדה, with parallel implications for the Omer’s קצירה. The sugya then rejects that and interprets Shtei HaLechem’s Shabbos override as אפייה, while interpreting the Omer’s override as its הקרבה. Rabbi’s explanation ties this to the view that the oven confers קדושה such that baking earlier would create פסול לינה, but a baraisa about כבשי עצרת states that the bread is not sanctified except through the שחיטה, and details רבי’s position of “הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש” when שחיטה is לשמן and זריקה is שלא לשמן, contrasted with רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון’s requirement that both be לשמן. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves that the baraisa speaks in terms of “הוקבעו ולא הוקבעו,” meaning the acts of שחיטה and זריקה determine the bread’s being fixed to these specific rams rather than initiating its basic sanctity.
- The text concludes with “הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל” and states that the next session will begin the next perek, moving into the topics of אלו המנחות and the ensuing discussion framework.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions