Menachos 66 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף סו עמוד א explains the core מחלוקת with the צדוקים about ממחרת השבת and establishes that ספירת העומר begins from the second day of פסח, with קצירת העומר and the ספירה at night and הבאת העומר by day. It brings several תנאים and ברייתות that derive this timing from פסוקים, then evaluates which proofs are subject to פירכא and which stand. It presents אביי’s rule of מצוה לממני יומי ומצוה לממני שבועי, contrasts the practice of רבנן דרב אשי and אמימר, and ties the debate to whether ספירה בזמן הזה is מדאורייתא or מדרבנן, including practical ramifications and related explanations from later authorities. It then moves to the משנה and ברייתא describing the practical processing of the עומר grain and concludes with a גמרא analysis of the leftovers’ חיובים in חלה and מעשרות and רבי עקיבא’s reasoning.
- The שיעור frames ממחרת השבת as a major dispute between us and the צדוקים, with us interpreting it as the day after the first day of פסח and the צדוקים interpreting it as Sunday after שבת. It states that on our view the cutting of the עומר begins on the night of the second day of פסח and the קרבן עומר is brought the next morning, while on the צדוקים’ view ספירה always starts Sunday and שבועות always falls Sunday. It presents the גמרא’s effort to assemble multiple sources establishing that our explanation of the פסוק is correct.
- Rabbi Yosi challenges the צדוקים’ reading by saying that if it meant the Sunday שבת within פסח the תורה should have said ממחרת השבת שבתוך הפסח, and it does not. Rabbi Yosi argues that the year is full of שבתות and the תורה would not leave the identity of the שבת ambiguous, so ממחרת השבת must mean the day after יום טוב. Rabbi Yosi then adds a second ראיה by linking the word שבת in the פסוק of שתי הלחם, עד ממחרת השבת השביעית תספרו חמשים יום והקרבתם מנחה חדשה, to the word שבת in וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת, and he concludes that just as there it is a רגל and תחילת רגל, so here the עומר is tied to פסח and brought at the beginning of the רגל on the second day.
- Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel reconciles the פסוקים ששת ימים תאכל מצות and שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו by distinguishing between מצה מן החדש and מצה מן הישן. He says that מצה from the חדש can only be eaten six days because the חדש becomes מותר only on the second day of פסח, leaving six remaining days, while מצה from the ישן can be eaten for seven. He ties this to the premise that the חדש becomes permitted on the second day of יום טוב.
- The ברייתא initially entertains that one might cut and bring the עומר and then count whenever one wants, and it rejects this by citing מהחל חרמש בקמה תחל לספור שבעה שבועות, making the beginning of counting dependent on קצירה. It then entertains that one might cut and count and bring whenever one wants, and it rejects this by citing מיום הביאכם את עומר התנופה, tying ספירה to the day of הבאה. It then entertains that one might cut, count, and bring by day, and it uses שבע שבתות תמימות תהיינה to require starting the counting from the evening to achieve complete weeks. It resolves the apparent tension by concluding that קצירה and ספירה are בלילה while הבאה is ביום, with the שיעור noting the מפרשים’ question about a nighttime מנחה and explaining the special תמימות-driven hava amina alongside the later source at דף ק"ו עמוד א' about מנחה being הוקש to עולה.
- Rava states that most of the various explanations offered to prove the correct reading are subject to פירכא, except for several תנאי-derivations in the ברייתות that are דלאו לפרכא. The שיעור explains that the accounting yields three distinct irrefutable explanations because one repeats across the end of the first and second ברייתא. The גמרא then begins evaluating each לימוד and demonstrates how particular lines of proof can be challenged.
- Abaye states מצוה למימני יומי ומצוה למימני שבועי, requiring both a count of days and a count of weeks. Rabbeinu Yerucham asks why two separate ברכות are not made and answers that counting weeks is connected to bringing the עומר, while counting days is not, so בזמן הזה when the עומר is not brought the primary requirement is counting days and counting weeks is זכר למקדש, leading to one ברכה. The Rambam is presented as holding that counting days and counting weeks are two separate מצוות. The Ran defines למימני שבועי as stating the weeks only on day 7, 14, and so on, and the שאלות ותשובות נשמת חיים is cited that on other days failing to state weeks while stating days still fulfills תמימות.
- The בעל המאור says no שהחיינו is made when beginning ספירת העומר because שהחיינו is for enjoyment and ספירה causes distress by recalling the absence of the קרבן. The שיעור raises the question of why a שהחיינו is made on לולב despite much of its present practice being תקנה דרבנן זכר למקדש, including when the first day of סוכות is שבת and the first taking is later. Rav Chaim Kanievsky answers that once a שהחיינו was established for taking the לולב it remains whenever one begins taking it. Rav Michal Feinstein זכר צדיק לברכה distinguishes that ספירה is defined as counting, while seeing the ד' מינים represents a time of שמחה that warrants שהחיינו, and another explanation links ספירה more tightly to the absent קרבן than the felt experience of ד' מינים.
- The רבנן in the ישיבה of Rav Ashi follow Abaye and count both days and weeks, while Amimar counts days and not weeks because he views present ספירה as only זכר למקדש. The קרן אורה explains that even for Amimar the primary מצוה is counting days, and counting weeks was an added requirement when the בית המקדש existed. The שפת אמת objects that even זכר למקדש should be done as it was in the בית המקדש, and he locates counting weeks in the פסוק שבעה שבועות תספר לך ועשית חג השבועות as preparation for שבועות, while counting days is tied to הקרבת העומר, making זכר למקדש apply specifically to the קרבנות aspect.
- The שיעור presents a popular framing that the dispute about counting weeks relates to whether ספירה בזמן הזה is a חיוב דאורייתא or דרבנן, with Tosafot holding דרבנן and the Rambam seeming to hold דאורייתא. It gives a practical ramification of counting בין השמשות, where the Rambam’s דאורייתא approach leads to ספק דאורייתא לחומרא and recounting, while Tosafot’s דרבנן approach allows ספק דרבנן לקולא. Rav Chaim Brisker connects the Rambam’s view to קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבוא, making the theoretical possibility of הקרבה relevant and supporting a דאורייתא framing, while the opposing view that קדושה ראשונה לא קידשה לעתיד לבוא supports ספירה as זכר למקדש and thus דרבנן.
- Tosafot and the Shulchan Aruch rule that if one forgot at night one counts the next day without a ברכה, but if one missed the entire day one no longer makes further ברכות because of the question whether the ספירה is separate daily מצוות or one extended מצוה of תמימות. The שיעור applies this question to a boy who becomes בר מצוה during the עומר and to an אונן who cannot make ברכות and misses a day, and it notes that the Shulchan Aruch is מחמיר while some take a more lenient approach, including the suggestion to hear the ברכה from someone else. The דברי ישראל interprets counting days and weeks as expressing both anticipation for שבועות and the joy of moving away from יציאת מצרים, with days feeling long in anticipation and weeks marking the passage away.
- The Brisker Rav distinguishes between a זכר למקדש that reproduces the בית המקדש practice in full detail and a זכר בעלמא that does not. The ספר דף על דף quoting Rav Tzvi Reisman uses this to explain why saying זכר למקדש כהלל before כורך is not a הפסק despite the care not to speak from נטילת ידים until שולחן עורך, because כורך is only a זכר and not an exact reproduction of the original practice.
- The משנה states that they cut the עומר, place it in baskets, and bring it to the עזרה. Rabbi Meir says they singe it with fire while still in stalks to fulfill קלוי באש, while the חכמים say they beat it with soft sticks to avoid crushing and then roast it in a perforated copper pipe so fire reaches all parts. It says they spread it in the עזרה and wind dries it, then they mill it in a mill used for beans to preserve the shell consistent with גרש כרמל. It concludes that they produce an עישרון sifted through thirteen sieves and that the remainder is redeemed and eaten by anyone, making it חייב בחלה, with רבי עקיבא addressing its status in מעשרות.
- The ברייתא expounds that אביב means first produce, and Rabbi Meir reads קלוי באש as requiring singeing in fire to fulfill קלוי. The חכמים interpret the fire-roasting through an אבוב של קלאים that is מנוקב ככברה so the fire controls all of it. The ברייתא derives from the placement of באש between קלוי and גרש that roasting precedes grinding. It defines כרמל as רך ומל, and it brings supporting פסוקים including the episode of איש מבעל שלישה bringing לחם בכורים and כרמל בצקלונו to אלישע with the phrase תן לעם ויאכלו, and additional פסוקים used to unpack language patterns such as לכה נרוה דודים עד הבקר and ויאמר מלאך ה' ... כי ירט הדרך לנגדי, with ירט explained as יראתה ראתה נטתה. It also cites דבי רב שילא defining כרמל as כר מלא, describing stalks full of seeds because they are ripe.
- The שיעור cites מקדש דוד that the grain must have been sanctified before מירוח because otherwise it would already be subject to תרומות ומעשרות וחלה, making the משנה’s question meaningful. Rav Kahana in the name of Rav Yehuda states that מירוח הקדש אינה פוטרת from תרומות ומעשרות. Rav Sheshet challenges from a ברייתא that the leftovers are redeemed, eaten by all, and are חייב בחלה ופטור מן המעשר, while רבי עקיבא מחייב בחלה ומעשרות, and the חכמים argue from הפודה מיד גזבר being חייב בחלה ופטור מן המעשר, implying a different understanding of רבי עקיבא’s position. The גמרא concludes with Rav Yochanan that רבי עקיבא’s reason is שלא ניתן מעות אלא לצורך להם, meaning the money was given only for the מנחה portion and the remainder was never הקדש, so it is treated as חולין and is therefore חייב במעשר, and the case is not treated as מירוח הקדש.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions