Menachos Daf 67 - Miruach and Gilgul Nochri
Summary
- A daily shiur on Menachos 67a–b frames two central issues: whether *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* and *miruach ovdei kokhavim* rise and fall together regarding the obligations of *challah* and *terumos u’ma’asros*, and whether the immediate availability of *tevuah chadashah* in Jerusalem’s markets right after the Korban Omer reflects praiseworthy readiness or a risky practice that could lead to premature eating. Along the way, the shiur traces how *hekdesh* and non-Jewish involvement affect the moment of halachic obligation, how Rabba resolves an internal uncertainty, why certain beraisos seem to challenge that resolution, and how Chazal’s decrees address public tax-avoidance schemes. The Mishnah on 67b then describes the Omer’s procedures and records a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah over the post-Omer marketplace, with a later comparison to bedikas chametz highlighting when Chazal do or do not fear people will eat prohibited items during preparation.
- A. The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Lander in honor of his wife and children לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום and for רפואה שלימה for חוה שרה בת שושנה דינה who is having surgery today, with the tefillah that she have a רפואה שלימה בתוך שאר חולי ישראל. B. The shiur is also sponsored by the Gross family לזכר נשמת חנה לאה בת משה צבי, רב משה יהודה בן מנחם, חיה לאה בת נפתלי הרצקא, וצבי מנחם בן שמיהו, with the note that the neshamah should have an עליה.
- A. The text states that *gilgul hekdesh* is patur from *challah* because the חיוב is set at the moment of kneading, and if the dough is *hekdesh* then, no חיוב attaches even if it is later redeemed into חולין. B. The Mishnah in Maseches Challah is cited: if she is מקדיש the dough before kneading and redeems it before kneading, then after kneading it is chayav; if she kneads before making it *hekdesh*, it is chayav; and if she is מקדיש before kneading, the kneading is done ביד הגזבר, and she redeems afterward, then it is patur because בשעת חובתה it was patur.
- A. Rava asks: if an עובד כוכבים kneads dough, is it patur from *challah* even when it later comes into Jewish possession, or does the future Jewish owner still have to separate *challah* despite non-Jewish ownership at the time of kneading. B. A Mishnah in Maseches Challah is brought: a גר whose dough was kneaded before conversion is patur, after conversion is chayav, and if it is uncertain, it is chayav because ספק דאורייתא לחומרא.
- A. The Gemara then asks whether that Mishnah reflects דברי הכל, including Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah who hold *miruach ovdei kokhavim* is not פוטר from *terumos u’ma’asros*, or whether it is only Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon who also exempt *miruach ovdei kokhavim*. B. One side distinguishes the areas by deriving *terumos u’ma’asros* from repeated occurrences of דגנך, using one as a מיעוט for *hekdesh* and treating the remaining as מיעוט אחר מיעוט that becomes a ריבוי to include *ovdei kokhavim*, with Rashi explaining it is more מסתבר to be ממעט *hekdesh* and be מרבה *ovdei kokhavim* because *hekdesh* is further removed from ordinary ישראל produce since it requires redemption before eating. C. The חידושים המיוחסים לרשב״א questions why a doubled exclusion is needed to include *ovdei kokhavim*, and answers that with only one term one might have excluded both *hekdesh* and *ovdei kokhavim*, so the Torah’s structure forces a split and then the סברא favors excluding *hekdesh* and including *ovdei kokhavim*.
- A. The other side proposes that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah learn *challah* from *ma’aser* by *reshis reshis* between ראשית דגנך and ראשית עריסותיכם, so the status of *miruach ovdei kokhavim* would determine the status of *gilgul ovdei kokhavim*. B. Rava expresses the uncertainty with יהא רעוא דאחזי בחלמא, and the text raises the difficulty from the principle that דברי חלומות אין מעלין ואין מורידין, citing the story in Sanhedrin 30a about a dream revealing money’s location yet being disregarded as to its *ma’aser sheni* status, and noting the Shach’s rejection of relying on dreams while the Maharai Asad argues a חילוק between private factual matters and matters of כלל ישראל, alongside the principle of לא בשמים היא. C. The text then presents the פשוט פשט that Rava’s phrase functions as an expression of how confusing the issue is.
- A. Rava then concludes: whoever holds *miruach ovdei kokhavim* is פוטר also holds *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is פוטר, and whoever holds *miruach ovdei kokhavim* is אינו פוטר also holds *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is אינו פוטר, meaning the two dinim hinge on one another. B. The text explains that a non-Jew has no obligation to separate *challah*, but if the dough comes into Jewish possession then the Jewish owner must separate *challah* under the view that *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is not פוטר.
- A. The text reports a machlokes rishonim on what *miruach ovdei kokhavim* means, whether it depends on who performs the *miruach* or on who owns the grain at the moment of *miruach*, and it parallels a similar question by *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* for a Jewish-owned business with non-Jewish workers. B. The Maharit Algazi is cited as saying it is the same machlokes for defining *gilgul* and *miruach*, while the Shitah Mekubetzes is cited as distinguishing them: by *miruach* the act can exempt, but by *gilgul* the exemption depends on ownership, with the reasoning that *challah* is derived from עריסותיכם, implying whose dough it is, whereas the derivation by grain relates to who does the *digun*.
- A. A responsum of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul in Or L’Tzion is brought about a potato farmer in Ofakim where *terumos u’ma’asros* were not separated properly even בדיעבד, creating widespread distribution issues, and he proposes a ספק ספיקא including the possibility the produce came from areas outside the obligated boundaries and the possibility that the *gemar melachah* was done by non-Jewish workers. B. The text notes that although the accepted ruling is that non-Jewish workers do not exempt at the core level asserted there, it is framed as part of a leniency effort given the broader circumstances.
- A. Rav Papa challenges Rava from a beraisa: if an עובד כוכבים separates a sheep for *pidyon peter chamor* or separates *challah*, they inform him he is patur; his animals are patur from *bechorah*; *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is patur from *challah*; his “*challah*” is eaten by *zarim*; and his *peter chamor* has no kedushah, while the phrasing implies his *terumah* is treated as prohibited, suggesting *miruach ovdei kokhavim* is not פוטר even though *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is פוטר. B. Ravina challenges from another beraisa: *challas ovdei kokhavim* in Eretz Yisrael and his *terumah* in Chutz LaAretz lead to informing him he is patur, his “*challah*” is eaten by *zarim*, and his “*terumah*” does not create *dimua*, while the text infers that *terumah* from Eretz Yisrael would be אסורה ומדמאת, again implying *miruach ovdei kokhavim* is not פוטר even though *gilgul ovdei kokhavim* is פוטר.
- A. The Gemara answers that Rava’s linkage holds on a דאורייתא level, and the חיוב of *terumos u’ma’asros* on non-Jewish produce in these sources is מדרבנן as a גזירה משום בעלי כיסים, to block wealthy landowners from using public sales to a non-Jew and non-Jewish *miruach* as an הערמה to evade *ma’aser*. B. The Gemara then asks why a similar decree is not made for *challah*, and answers that people can evade *challah* simply by making batches smaller than the שיעור, so such a decree would not help. C. The Gemara further asks why the *terumah* decree helps if there are other avoidance strategies like רבי אושעיא’s method of bringing produce in while still in its husk for animal consumption or bringing it in דרך גגות ודרך קרפיפות to avoid ראיית פני הבית, and it answers that those alternatives are done בפרהסיא and are זילא במילתא, so people prefer the sale-to-non-Jew route, while by *challah* avoidance can be done בצינעא without embarrassment.
- A. The text connects this to the season of מכירת חמץ and frames a broader question about when הערמה is permitted, including the claim some poskim restrict הערמה for דאורייתא obligations and therefore avoid selling חמץ גמור while allowing sales of rabbinically prohibited חמץ forms. B. The text quotes Rabbi Willig as saying his sale is not an הערמה but an iron-clad sale, defining הערמה as using a weaker mechanism rather than a full sale.
- A. The Mishnah describes that once the grain reaches an עשרון, oil and frankincense are placed on it, the oil is poured and mixed, the כהן performs תנופה and הגשה, takes a קומץ and collects the לבונה, and burns them on the מזבח, while the remainder is eaten by the כהנים like other שירי מנחות. B. The Mishnah states that after the Omer is offered, the markets of Jerusalem are found full of *kemach kali* from *tevuah chadashah*, and Rabbi Meir says this is שלא ברצון חכמים due to concern that intensive preparation could lead people to eat from it before it becomes permitted, while Rabbi Yehudah says it is done ברצון חכמים because it makes permitted new grain readily available at the correct time. C. The text notes that the wording suggests the practice continued despite the disapproval, with Tiferes Yisrael explaining this as an instance of מוטב שיהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין, while Rashi is read as implying Chazal did issue a formal response.
- A. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehudah’s lack of concern here from his view in Pesachim that bedikas chametz is done before the איסור period and not pushed into the time when one may come to eat chametz. B. Rava answers that *chadash* is different because its harvesting is limited to an unusual method of קיטוף, making the restriction memorable, whereas chametz does not have that built-in reminder. C. The shiur closes with the note that continuation will be on the second line of Menachos 68a and ends with א גוטן חודש.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions