Menachos 68
Summary
- A sponsorship is given לעילוי נשמת מרשא מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, and the learning moves into מנחות דף סח with the משנה about the קרבן עומר and the היתר of חדש. A dispute develops over whether חדש becomes permitted by the actual bringing of the עומר or by sunrise on the 16th of ניסן, and how to read the פסוקים עד הביאכם and עד עצם היום הזה. The גמרא explains רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s ruling about יום הנף כולו אסור after the חורבן and connects it to רבי יהודה’s דאורייתא understanding, then reports differing Babylonian practices for eating חדש in חוצה לארץ based on whether חדש there is דאורייתא or דרבנן and whether to fear ספיקא דיומא. The משנה then distinguishes between the עומר permitting grain to ordinary people and שתי הלחם permitting new grain for מנחות, includes an exchange between רב טרפון, יהודה בן נחמיה, and רבי עקיבא, and ends with a question of רמי בר חמא about whether שתי הלחם can permit “out of order,” with an attempted proof from a ברייתא about the עומר being from barley rejected because ביכורים is defined as first for the מזבח rather than first of the produce.
- A sponsorship is stated לעילוי נשמת מרשא מרים שרה בת יעקב משה, with the hope that her נשמה should have an עליה. A greeting opens the learning and identifies the page as מנחות דף סח, starting about halfway through the עמוד at a brand new משנה.
- A משנה states that from when the עומר was brought, הותר חדש מיד, and an ordinary person may eat all brand new grain that had taken root up to that point. A משנה adds that רחוקים are permitted from חצות היום ולהלן because they rely on the assumption that בית דין is not lazy and the עומר has certainly been brought by midday. A משנה states that after the חורבן, רבן יוחנן בן זכאי instituted that יום הנף כולו אסור, requiring waiting until nightfall of the 16th of ניסן. A statement of רבי יהודה says והלא מן התורה הוא אסור based on עד עצם היום הזה, understood as the fullness of the day passing before חדש becomes permitted.
- A teaching of Rav and Shmuel says that when the בית המקדש exists, the עומר permits, and when it does not exist, האיר מזרח permits at sunrise of the 16th. A resolution is given that two פסוקים teach two contexts, with עד הביאכם applying when there is a בית המקדש and עד עצם היום הזה applying when there is not. A teaching of רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש says that even when the בית המקדש exists, האיר מזרח permits, and the phrase עד הביאכם is read as a *mitzvah* requirement rather than a prohibition that generates liability בדיעבד. A series of challenges from the משנה and from the rule that העומר was מתיר במדינה and שתי הלחם במקדש is answered each time with the claim that these formulations describe the לכתחילה *mitzvah* structure.
- A reason is offered for רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s enactment that מהרה יבנה בית המקדש, and people might mistakenly eat at sunrise as they did in a year without an עומר. A difficulty is raised that a גזירה is not made merely to protect a *mitzvah* if no לאו is at stake. A resolution by Rav נחמן בר יצחק states that רבן יוחנן בן זכאי speaks according to רבי יהודה, who reads עד עצם היום הזה as עד עיצומו של יום and holds עד ועד בכלל, yielding an איסור דאורייתא throughout the day. A further challenge notes that the משנה presents רבי יהודה as if he argues on רבן יוחנן בן זכאי, and the גמרא answers that רבי יהודה mistakenly thought the ruling was דרבנן while it is actually דאורייתא. A final issue is raised from the word והתקין, and the גמרא explains מאי התקין דרש והתקין, meaning he expounded the פסוק and thereby established the rule.
- A report says Rav פפא and Rav הונא בריה דרב יהושע ate חדש at night after the 16th into the 17th because they hold חדש בחוצה לארץ דרבנן and they do not fear the *safek* of *s’feika d’yoma*. A contrasting report says the רבנן דבי רב אשי ate in the morning of the 17th because they hold חדש בחוצה לארץ דאורייתא, they read רבן יוחנן בן זכאי’s rule as דרבנן, and they hold that his enactment did not address the *safek*. A statement of Ravina בשם his mother says his father did not eat new grain until the night after the 17th into the 18th because he holds like רבי יהודה and is חושש לספק, ensuring that both possible relevant days have fully passed.
- A משנה states that the עומר permits in the מדינה while שתי הלחם permits in the מקדש, with the עומר allowing consumption of new grain outside and שתי הלחם allowing new grain for מנחות in the מקדש. A משנה rules that no מנחות, ביכורים, or מנחת בהמה are brought from new grain before the עומר and that if they are brought then they are פסול. A משנה rules that before שתי הלחם one should not bring these from new grain, but if one did bring them then they are כשר בדיעבד.
- A scene describes Rav טרפון questioning the difference between offerings brought before the עומר being פסול and before שתי הלחם being כשר. A response of יהודה בן נחמיה explains that before the עומר the grain is not yet permitted even to a הדיוט, while before שתי הלחם the grain is already permitted to a הדיוט because the עומר has been brought. A reaction describes Rav טרפון falling silent and יהודה בן נחמיה’s face shining, and רבי עקיבא rebukes him for rejoicing at answering the elder and says תמיהני אם תאריך ימים. A report of רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי says it was פרוס הפסח, and by עצרת time יהודה בן נחמיה had already died, fulfilling רבי עקיבא’s statement.
- A conclusion of Rav נחמן בר יצחק states that according to יהודה בן נחמיה, נסכים from ביכורים wine brought before the עומר are כשרים. A clarification explains that the restriction of bringing before the עומר applies to grain, because grapes and wine were never forbidden to a הדיוט before the עומר and therefore are not invalidated by that timing.
- A סימן is given as סדר הנצק גלי פיל סימן, and a question of רמי בר חמא asks whether שתי הלחם can permit שלא כסדרן in a case where grain took root between the עומר and שתי הלחם and then the sequence of permissions passes over it in reverse order across years. An attempted proof is brought from a ברייתא identifying מנחת ביכורים as מנחת העומר and establishing that the עומר comes from barley, including רבי אלעזר’s *gezeirah shavah* of אביב and רבי עקיבא’s argument that ציבור must have an obligation from barley and that otherwise two loaves would not be ביכורים. A challenge to the proof states that ביכורים is defined as first for the מזבח rather than first of the produce, and it asserts that if wheat of that year already reached the מזבח via an עומר, it cannot qualify as ביכורים for שתי הלחם. A closing line ends the learning for the day with א גוט געבענטשט וואך and a גוטן חודש.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions