Menachos Daf 64 - Omer on Shabbos
Summary
- A shiur on Menachot 64 opens with sponsors’ dedications and moves into the sugya beginning on Menachot 63b with Rava’s claim that Rabbi Yishmael seeks to minimize Shabbat desecration by reducing the omer harvest to three se’ah rather than five when the second day of Pesach falls on Shabbat. The Gemara makes three attempts to align Rabbi Yishmael with other Tannaim who apply the principle of limiting Shabbat labor when possible, and each attempt is challenged as not necessarily equivalent because of considerations like *bizayon kodashim*, *pirsumei milsa*, future stumbling, and *tzorekh gavoha*. The sugya then analyzes liability when two communal sin-offerings are slaughtered on Shabbat though only one is needed, probes whether halakhic liability follows intention or outcome through the case of a net set to catch fish that also saves a drowning baby, and resolves a dilemma between doing more acts of labor versus increasing quantity within one act. A Mishnah then requires sourcing grain for the omer from the nearest place to Jerusalem, the Gemara gives reasons of *karmel* and *ein ma’avirin al hamitzvot*, and a historical narrative explains how siege conditions forced the omer and *shtei halechem* to come from distant places, highlighting Mordechai’s ability to decode a mute person’s signs to locate Gagot Tzerifin and Bik’at Ein Sokher.
- A sponsorship by Dr. David Lander honors his wife and children and is *le’ilui nishmat* his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום. A sponsorship by Moshe and Jenny Buchman is *lezekher nishmat* הרב שמחה יצחק לאוער זכרונו לברכה and as a נחמה for the לאוער and Buchbinder families. A sponsorship by חוה Kahn and העשי Kaufman and family honors Elliot Gibber’s leadership and his being honored at tonight’s ישיבה dinner and is for the רפואה שלמה for חיה גיטל בת זלאטא סימא. A sponsorship by David Belzin commemorates his sister רבקה בת דבורה whose יארצייט was שבת.
- A statement of Rava says Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka say the same thing, because Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka rules that when Erev Pesach is on Shabbat one skins the korban Pesach only until the chest to remove the *eimurim* and finishes skinning after Shabbat, while the Sages require full skinning on Shabbat. A challenge says Rabbi Yishmael’s reduction of se’ah might be only where there is no *bizayon kodashim*, or Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka might be limiting skinning because it is no longer *tzorekh gavoha*, whereas bringing five se’ah for the omer could be *tzorekh gavoha* to produce better flour.
- A second statement of Rava says Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim say the same thing, because Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim rules that on Shabbat the omer is harvested by one person with one sickle and one basket, while on a weekday it is done by three with three sickles and three baskets, and the Sages say Shabbat and weekday both use three baskets and three sickles. A challenge says Rabbi Yishmael might accept additional Shabbat labor for greater *pirsumei milsa*, or Rabbi Chanina Sgan HaKohanim might only minimize where one person achieves the same *tzorekh gavoha* as three, unlike reducing five se’ah to three.
- A third statement of Rav Ashi says Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yosi say the same thing, because Rabbi Yosi rules in Rosh Hashanah that witnesses do not desecrate Shabbat to testify about the new moon when it is clearly visible, while the Sages permit desecration whether it is clearly visible or not. A challenge says Rabbi Yishmael’s stringency does not risk “*machshilan le’atid lavo*,” while limiting witnesses might, and another challenge says Rabbi Yosi’s case lacks *tzorekh gavoha* and Shabbat is not “given to be overridden,” whereas omer harvesting necessarily overrides Shabbat and could justify doing it “right” with five se’ah.
- A ruling attributed to Rabbah and/or Rabbi Ami says that if two communal sin-offerings are slaughtered on Shabbat when only one is needed, one is liable for the second slaughter and exempt for the first, even if at the end the community attains atonement with the second, and even if the first is later found to be weak. A question challenges whether Rava could say this, since Rava rules that if one has two sin-offerings, one fat and one lean, slaughtering the fat then the lean incurs liability, while slaughtering the lean then the fat is exempt and one is even told to bring the fat *lechatchila*. A resolution says either the earlier ruling omits the case of “weak,” or the earlier ruling is Rabbi Ami’s and not Rava’s.
- A question from Ravina to Rav Ashi asks about a case where the first animal’s weakness is discovered only internally, and whether liability follows the person’s intention to do an unnecessary Shabbat act or the eventual fact that the act was needed. A comparison is drawn to the dispute of Rava and Rabbah in a case where one hears a baby is drowning and spreads a net intending to catch fish, where catching fish alone incurs liability, and catching fish together with the baby yields a dispute in which Rava obligates because one follows intention and Rabbah exempts because one follows the saving outcome and because the act would be permitted for *pikuach nefesh*. A version limits Rabbah’s exemption to where the person heard about the drowning, and another version frames the entire question as the core dispute between Rabbah and Rava.
- A teaching of Rabbah says that if a sick person is assessed to need one fig and ten people each bring a fig, they are all exempt, whether they arrive at once or one after another, and even if the sick person already recovered from the first fig by the time later figs arrive. An explanation states that the later rescuers do not know the person has already recovered and are not required to clarify before acting, so they may continue responding based on the last information that help is needed.
- A question of Rava addresses a sick person who needs two figs when two figs are on two separate branches while three figs are on one branch, and whether one should cut two branches to bring exactly what is needed or cut one branch and bring extra. A conclusion says it is obvious to bring three from one branch because that minimizes the number of harvesting acts, and Rabbi Yishmael’s reduction of se’ah is limited to cases where reducing quantity also reduces acts of cutting, whereas here reducing quantity increases the number of acts.
- A Mishnah states that the mitzvah of the omer is to bring it from the place nearest Jerusalem, and if the nearest has not ripened one brings it from anywhere. A report says there was an incident where the omer came from גגות צריפין and the *shtei halechem* came from בקעת עין סוכר. A reason is given that the grain should be *karmel* and distant transport hardens it, and another reason is *ein ma’avirin al hamitzvot* derived from “ושמרתם את המצות” as “ושמרתם את המצוות,” meaning one does not delay the first available opportunity.
- A Baraita situates the incident in the war of the Hasmonean kings, with Hyrcanus outside Jerusalem and Aristobulus inside, where money is lowered daily and animals for the *tamid* are raised up so the Temple service continues. A certain elder fluent in *chochmat yevanit* signals that as long as the service continues the besiegers will not succeed, and the next day they send up a pig instead, which claws into the wall and causes the land to quake ארבע מאות פרסא על ארבע מאות פרסא. A decree declares “ארור מי שיגדל חזיר” and “ארור שילמד בנו חכמת יוונית,” and it is in that moment that the teaching about the omer coming from גגות צריפין and the *shtei halechem* from בקעת עין סוכר is framed.
- A narrative says the besiegers burned the fields near Jerusalem so the omer could not be sourced locally, an announcement is made, and a mute person gestures with one hand to a roof and one to a hut. A figure called Mordechai infers the place name גגות צריפין, they verify it exists, and they find grain there. A second scene says that for the *shtei halechem* they again do not know where to bring from, the same mute person gestures one hand to an eye and one to a lock, and Mordechai infers the place name עין סוכר, they verify it exists, and they bring the *shtei halechem* from there.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions