Menachos 68 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף ס"ח opens on דף ס"ז עמוד ב' with the question of whether the prohibition of *chadash* creates a גזירה against cutting new grain before the עומר, and it tests the consistency of רבי יהודה by comparing his stringency about בדיקת חמץ with his position about cutting new grain. The גמרא explains why *chadash* is treated differently, develops practical distinctions about unusual methods of harvesting and processing, and then transitions to the core timeline of when *chadash* becomes permitted with the עומר, with חצות for רחוקים, and with later post-חורבן enactments attributed to רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. The sugya contrasts views of רב ושמואל versus רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש about whether the עומר is indispensable or only למצוה, anchors the post-חורבן prohibition in the reading of עד עצם היום הזה, and explores differences between ארץ ישראל and חוץ לארץ practice around ספק יום טוב and the status of *chadash*. The end moves to the משנה about what the עומר and שתי הלחם permit, the פסול/כשר status of offerings brought too early, the exchange between רב טרפון, יהודה בן נחמיה, and רבי עקיבא, and a concluding clarification about יין and נסכים in relation to these rules.
- Today's sugya starts from the earlier משנה’s מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה about whether one may cut from the new grain before it is permitted to eat from it when the קרבן עומר has not yet been brought. The גמרא frames the issue as whether חז"ל forbid cutting out of concern דילמא אתו למיכל מיניה, or whether cutting is allowed without that concern. The גמרא challenges רבי יהודה from his view in פסחים י' עמוד ב' that one should not do בדיקת חמץ after בשעת הביעור because finding חמץ then may lead to eating it, while חכמים allow checking even during יום טוב and after יום טוב.
- Rava answers that *chadash* is different because pre-permission harvesting is not done in the normal fashion, since it is done by hand rather than with a sickle, and that change functions as a זכר so one will not eat it. The רש"ש explains that the cutting was done at night, and by the time the grain reaches ירושלים the עומר will already have been brought, removing the concern for buyers. Abaye accepts the reminder element for harvesting but asks about טחינה והרקדה done in a normal fashion, and the גמרא answers that these too are altered, with grinding by a hand mill and sifting done differently, again serving as a reminder.
- The sugya raises the case of בית השלחין שבעמקים, where the משנה teaches that one may cut before the עומר in the normal manner because the עומר is not brought from such fields, but one may not make piles, expressed as אבל לא גודשים. Rashi explains that this field is poor quality and needs irrigation, and the produce may be ruined if left standing, so cutting is allowed earlier. The מפרשים cite a ברייתא that the איסור of קצירכם applies only to grain cut at the normal time, while grain cut earlier is outside that limitation. Tosafos states that when חז"ל see the need for leniency they restrict it to what is necessary, so cutting is permitted but piling is not. The שאגת אריה explains that the special dispensation is only for קצירה under קצירכם, and no parallel dispensation exists for later stages, so the rule remains אבל לא גודשים.
- Abaye returns to the original חמץ comparison and says *chadash* is בדיל מיניה because people refrain from it for a significant portion of the year, while חמץ is eaten all year and is not *badil minei*, so the concern of accidental eating is stronger for חמץ. Rava adds that the apparent inconsistency within the רבנן is resolved because a person doing בדיקת חמץ is going to burn the חמץ, so the act itself signals intent to destroy rather than eat. The פני יהושע states that the sugya’s framework is focused on חמץ and *chadash* and not on other מאכלות אסורות, and he distinguishes בשר בחלב because the תורה uniquely adds איסור בישול and איסור הנאה, reflecting a greater concern since each component is permitted alone and only the combination is forbidden.
- Rav Ashi proposes reconciling רבי יהודה by reading the משנה as dealing with קמח וקלי, where roasted grain is not really edible, so a גזירה is unnecessary. The גמרא rejects this by noting that before roasting, the concern remains, and it re-raises the בית השלחין case where regular cutting is allowed, undermining the claim that altered procedure always prevents eating. The sugya concludes that Rav Ashi’s explanation is ברותא.
- The שיעור introduces the issue of selling *chadash* against the background of *sechorah* with forbidden items. The explanation given is that *chadash* lacks an איסור הנאה, so business dealings can be more lenient, and the fact that *chadash* is forbidden for much of the year supports that people are *badil minei*. Another approach from the פוסקים limits *sechorah* to items inherently forbidden, while *chadash* is time-bound and not inherently forbidden, so the דין does not apply. The שיעור adds that even where *sechorah* is not prohibited, there remains a separate concern of מסייע if one sells to someone knowing the buyer will eat it when it is prohibited.
- The משנה states that once the עומר is brought, *chadash* becomes permitted מיד, and the ראשונים explain that permission begins as soon as the מנחת העומר is offered and does not wait for the accompanying כבש. The משנה states that הרחוקים may eat from *chadash* from חצות and onward because they assume the offering has been brought and rely on the principle שאין בית דין מתעצלים. The משנה states that after the חורבן, רבן יוחנן בן זכאי instituted that יום הנף, the second day of פסח, is כולו אסור for eating *chadash*.
- The גמרא asks why a תקנה is needed if the תורה already forbids eating until ולחם וקלי וכרמל לא תאכלו עד עצם היום הזה, and it assumes עד ועד בכלל so the day is entirely forbidden. The discussion returns to the רחוקים allowance at חצות and the reliance on בית דין’s diligence, and the שיעור cites the שפת אמת questioning reliance on a “נס” such as מעולם לא נמצא פסול בעומר alongside the rule אין סומכין על הנס. The חתם סופר and שפת אמת’s framing uses רוב, and the objection is raised that this is a דבר שיש לו מתירין, with the ספר זבחי צדק answering either that within the בית המקדש one may rely on a נס or that there is no reason to create concern without basis. The קרן אורה asks how חצות can work if the עומר follows מוסף and מוסף is in the sixth hour, and he answers that on the second day of פסח they advanced מוסף to enable earlier offering of the עומר because the ציבור is waiting to eat *chadash*.
- The שיעור cites the ספר חשוקי חמד asking how far the principle אין בית דין מתעצלים can be used outside the מקדש, presenting a scenario where a בית דין scheduled to write a גט perishes after the appointment and the husband is killed later, leaving doubt whether the גט was written in time. The חשוקי חמד concludes that the reliance in the משנה is tied to the unique circumstances of the מקדש and consistent annual performance, and it does not automatically transfer to unrelated cases.
- Rav and Shmuel say that when the בית המקדש stands, the עומר is what permits *chadash*, and when it does not stand, האיר המזרח permits it, with Rashi explaining this as נץ החמה because עד עצם היום הזה implies full day. The גמרא explains that two verses exist, one tying permission to bringing the offering and one tying it to the day itself, and it assigns them to the מקדש versus no מקדש cases. רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש say that even when the בית המקדש stands, האיר המזרח permits *chadash*, and they interpret the requirement to wait for the offering as למצוה, with the משנה’s משקרב העומר הותר החדש מיד read the same way.
- The gufa of the תקנה is explained as protecting against confusion when מהרה יבנה בית המקדש, since people might say last year the morning permitted, so this year too, without realizing that the return of an עומר changes the rule. The גמרא argues that if waiting for the עומר were only a מצוה, that would not justify the sweeping full-day prohibition, and it moves to רב נחמן בר יצחק’s statement that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי speaks in the method of רבי יהודה, reading עד עצם היום הזה as עד עיצומו של יום. The גמרא confronts the apparent disagreement where רבי יהודה challenges the need for a תקנה, and it answers that רבי יהודה misunderstood, assuming רבן יוחנן בן זכאי meant מדרבנן, while in truth he meant a דרשה establishing the דין מדאורייתא, and התקין means דרש והתקין.
- The שיעור relates a story that רב משה בצלאל אלתר told the בריסקר רב in the name of his brother the אמרי אמת about why the two תקנות appear split between משניות, with לולב שבעה in סוכה מ"א and יום הנף כולו אסור in מנחות. The אמרי אמת explains that the לולב enactment as זכר למקדש could depress people by implying prolonged גלות, so רבן יוחנן בן זכאי immediately paired it with the optimistic premise behind יום הנף כולו אסור, namely מהרה יבנה בית המקדש. The explanation concludes that מנחות, centered on the hopeful rebuilding concern, does not need to add the “depressing” זכר למקדש theme, while סוכה includes the counterbalance.
- Rav Pappa and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua eat *chadash* on the night following the sixteenth, reasoning that *chadash* in חוץ לארץ is מדרבנן and they do not worry about ספקא דיומא in that context. The מרדכי asks why leniency applies when *chadash* is a דבר שיש לו מתירין, and he answers that ספקא דיומא is itself a difficult rule once the calendar is fixed, making leniency possible when the baseline is דרבנן. The דרבנן of דבי רב אשי eat only on the morning of the seventeenth because they hold *chadash* in חוץ לארץ is דאורייתא. The sugya states that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s rule targets the actual sixteenth, not an added ספק day.
- Ravina reports that his mother said his father did not eat *chadash* until the night after the seventeenth, extending abstention through the third day of פסח. The practice is attributed to holding like רבי יהודה that *chadash* is אסור מדאורייתא the entire second day and also being concerned for ספקא דיומא, which in חוץ לארץ adds another full day.
- The משנה states that the עומר permits eating *chadash* במדינה, and the שתי הלחם permits bringing מנחות from the new crop in the מקדש. The משנה states that one may not bring מנחות, בכורים, or מנחת בהמה before the עומר, and if one does, it is פסול. The משנה states that before the שתי הלחם one should not bring such offerings, but if one did, it is בדיעבד כשר, and the שיעור cites a מחלוקת אחרונים about whether, after קמיצה, one must stop or may proceed, with the שפת אמת requiring stopping and the מקדש דוד allowing continuation.
- The גמרא reports that Rav Tarfon wonders why offerings before the עומר are פסול while those before the שתי הלחם are not. Yehuda ben Nechemya answers that before the עומר the new grain has not been permitted at all for a הדיוט, while before the שתי הלחם the grain is already permitted for ordinary eating, so the מוקדם status is less severe. Rav Tarfon is silent and Yehuda ben Nechemya’s face glows, prompting Rabbi Akiva to criticize the joy at “answering the elder” and to say he doubts Yehuda ben Nechemya will have אריכות ימים, and Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai reports that Yehuda ben Nechemya died before עצרת. The בני יששכר in אגרא דפרקא explains that the issue is not answering Torah questions but the attitude expressed by צהבו פניו, understood as shaming the questioner with “I know and you do not.”
- Rav Nachman Yitzchak states that נסכים and wine brought as ביכורים, if brought before the עומר, are כשרים. The גמרא explains that wine is not subject to *chadash* as grain is, so there is no earlier-to-later release needed for it, and one might have thought that without any “heter” event it would be excluded until a formal permission point, but the sugya teaches that no such restriction exists.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions