Menachos 70 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A shiur on מסכת מנחות דף ע begins from דף סט עמוד ב and follows the גמרא’s line of inquiry about how halacha treats produce that is replanted, especially for מעשר, and how to classify the original growth versus the later תוספת. A central distinction emerges between דבר שזרעו כלה and דבר שאין זרעו כלה, alongside a related question about an עציץ שאינו נקוב that later becomes נקוב and whether earlier growth and later growth share the same חיוב. The sugya then turns to identifying תרומת מעשר on grain that had already reached מירוח, was replanted, and was designated while still מחובר, leading to a clarification that “אין תרומה מחובר לקרקע” is framed for חיוב מיתה וחומש and hinges on whether the act counts as דרך אכילה. The שיעור continues into the משנה’s catalog of חמשת מיני דגן and their shared halachot of חלה, חדש, and קצירה before העומר, the debate about what “השרשה” means in practice, and the גמרא’s derivations linking חלה, מצה, and חדש to grains that come לידי חימוץ, with added דרשות and applications to צירוף for multiple halachic areas.
- A case is posed where grain grew a third, was cut, and מעשר was separated by estimation because exact counting is impractical at that stage, and then the grain was replanted and grew further. The גמרא frames that if growth is not treated as tied to the עיקר, then the תוספת is certainly obligated in מעשר, and the question becomes whether the original עיקר requires being tithed again after replanting. Abיי challenges why this differs from ordinary wheat and barley planting, where one does not re-evaluate the previously tithed seed component when replanting. רבא answers that this comparison addresses דבר שזרעו כלה, where the seed decomposes and the later growth is treated as new, while the actual question concerns דבר שאין זרעו כלה where the planted entity remains.
- A proposed proof is brought from רב יצחק אמר רבי יוחנן that a litra of onion from which תרומות ומעשרות were taken and then replanted is tithed “לכולה,” implying that even what was planted becomes included. The גמרא rejects the proof because by onions “היינו זריעתה,” since planting is normally done by placing an onion itself, and the halachic framing treats the replanted unit like it is not the same as the later growth for the purpose at hand. The grain case is labeled “לאו היינו זריעתה,” since replanting cut grain is not standard planting practice, leaving the original מעשר question unresolved.
- A question is raised about separating תרומות ומעשרות regarding an עציץ שאינו נקוב, and the גמרא clarifies that taking from one non-perforated pot to another non-perforated pot is not the issue. The intended case is where the pot was later pierced, so the plant continues growing under a new halachic status, and the dilemma becomes whether the pre-hole growth is now considered obligated מדאורייתא like the post-hole growth, allowing separation across them, or whether it remains effectively exempt such that separating would be מן החיוב על הפטור. Abיי asserts there is no doubt here because it is “חדא זריעה,” a single growth process, and the hole creates a continuing connected reality, whereas the earlier replanting question involves a different kind of case and remains unanswered.
- A further question of רב אשי asks about ears of grain that were smoothed in a pile (מירוח), replanted, and then had תרומת מעשר designated while still attached to the ground, testing whether the prior מירוח already rendered it טבל such that designation effects קדושה, or whether replanting removes the status because “והרימותם ממנו תרומת השם” teaches “שלא יתרום מן המחובר.” The שיטה explains that the issue is not permissibility to eat but the halachic status of what was replanted. רבנן challenge that accepting the designation would create “תרומה שמחובר לקרקע,” against the principle derived from “ראשית דגנך” that one does not find תרומה while attached. The answer limits that principle to liability for מיתה בידי שמיים and חומש, and it distinguishes between one who detaches and eats, which is treated as ordinary eating, and one who eats while it is still attached, which is labeled “בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם” because it is not the standard manner of eating.
- A challenge is raised from אילפא’s note about eggs of נבלת עוף טהור where part is inside and part outside, with the inside portion מטמא בגדים בית הבליעה while the outside portion does not, even though eating such eggs is not normal and yet “בטלה דעתו” is not applied. The גמרא answers that people do eat detached items in unusual forms, so the act still counts as eating, whereas people do not eat produce while it remains מחובר. The שאלות ותשובות מהרש״ם limits the non-eating characterization to a case where one must bend down in an abnormal way, but argues that biting fruit at mouth level on a tree is דרך אכילה. The צל״ח contrasts תרומה with other איסורים that require כדרך הנאתם, while noting that a זר who eats תרומה שלא כדרך אכילתו still pays קרן וחומש, and the שאלות ותשובות נודע ביהודה emphasizes evaluating whether there is a מעשה אכילה at all. The אבני נזר stresses that the sugya’s focus is whether the act counts as אכילה rather than a special דין in תרומה itself, and it ties liability to the food being תלוש from the ground.
- A practical halachic question is raised about eating fruit or vegetables while still attached on שבת and whether that constitutes תלישה. The שולחן ערוך הרב states that even if one eats the fruit while it is still attached, “אין לך תלישה גדולה מזו,” treating it as an act akin to detaching, but he categorizes it as an איסור דרבנן rather than דאורייתא. The בכור שור is presented as stricter, asserting that שבת does not follow the same rules as הלכות אכילה, and that since one effectively detached, it could be an איסור דאורייתא.
- שמואל rules that one who plants כלאים in an עציץ שאינו נקוב acts in a manner that is אסור מדרבנן. Abיי questions the novelty of stating “אסור,” arguing that if the point were מכת מרדות it would be clearer, and that the Mishnah in מסכת דמאי already treats separation from שאינו נקוב onto נקוב as תרומה with a requirement to redo the separation, showing that such growth is treated as ground-connected מדרבנן. A view is reported that Abיי avoids saying מכת מרדות because he holds it does not apply here, while other ראשונים argue that מכת מרדות does apply.
- The משנה lists חיטין, שעורין, כוסמין, שבולת שועל, and שיפון as obligated in חלה and able to combine to the שיעור, and it states they are forbidden as חדש before פסח and forbidden to harvest before the עומר. The משנה rules that if they took root before the עומר, the עומר permits them, and if not, they remain forbidden until the next year. The תרומת הדשן defines taking root as three days, allowing grain planted before the 13th of ניסן to be permitted after the 16th, while the ש״ך cites a משנה in שביעית indicating two weeks for rooting, extending the window accordingly. The שולחן ערוך applies the rule in בזמן הזה without a קרבן עומר by hinging permissibility on whether it took root before the 16th of ניסן, and the קרן אורה notes this aligns with רבי יהודה’s reading that חדש becomes permitted only on the 17th of ניסן. The נודע ביהודה answers that רבי יהודה treats the 16th as the operative day whose process culminates only toward the night of the 17th, yet the requirement for rooting still targets before the 16th.
- A teaching defines כוסמין as a form of חטין and שבולת שועל ושיפון as forms of שעורין, and it records identifications: כוסמין גולבא, שיפון דשרא, and שבולת שועל שבולת תעלה. The גמרא infers that only these grains, not אורז ודוחן, are included for the core grain-based obligations, and it asks for the source. ריש לקיש derives חלה via a גזירה שוה of לחם לחם from מצה, and the מקור for מצה is derived from “לא תאכל עליו חמץ… תאכל עליו מצות לחם עוני,” limiting matzah to דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ. אורז ודוחן are excluded because they do not become חמץ but rather “לידי סירכוי,” a different kind of fermentation.
- The ספר אמרי אברהם interprets “אשרי תמימי דרך ההולכים בדרך ה'” as describing Jews who remain aligned with דרך ה' even when outside the בית מדרש and בית כנסת, and he connects this to “דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ” as a model of meeting challenges while still fulfilling divine expectations. The ספר יחי יוסף teaches that personality traits are not inherently categorized as purely positive or negative, but are meant to be directed toward עבודת ה', and he frames “דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ” as taking what appears improper and using it constructively. The same phrase “אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח” is applied as a metaphor for channeling challenging traits into the fulfillment of mitzvah.
- A ברייתא teaches that תבואה, קמח, and בצק combine, and the גמרא asks the practical halachic arena for this צירוף. רב כהנא applies it to חדש, רב יוסף to חמץ בפסח for liability, רב פפא to מעשר שני eaten outside ירושלים, and רבא to טומאת אוכלין when combined to כביצה. The גמרא explains that the teaching establishes that תבואה and קמח are treated like בצק as an identifiable food entity for these purposes.
- A proof is brought that חיטין whether shelled or unshelled combine to a ביצה, and that for שעורין only peeled barley combines while unpeeled does not. A contradiction is raised from a teaching of דבי רבי ישמעאל on “וכי יפול מנבלתם על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע,” which measures by “כדרך שבני אדם מוציאין לזריעה,” implying that wheat, barley, and lentils in their shells should combine. The גמרא resolves that one baraita refers to בלחות and the other to ביבשות, and רש״י explains either that moist husks adhere and function as שומר, or that when moist they are edible and thus combine, while when dry they fall away or are inedible.
- The gמרא asks for the source that חדש applies only to the five grains and returns to ריש לקיש’s גזירה שוה of לחם לחם from מצה. The source for the prohibition to harvest before the עומר is derived by רבי יוחנן via ראשית ראשית from חלה. A debate follows on what “קודם לעומר” means for harvesting: רבי ינאי defines it as before קצירת העומר, while רבי יוסי בר זבדא defines it as before הבאת העומר, and the gמרא analyzes the משנה’s phrasing in light of these positions. The sugya then revisits the parallel dispute about what “השרישו קודם לעומר” means, with one view requiring rooting before הבאת העומר and another before קצירת העומר. The אור שמח states that according to the מסקנא, קצירת העומר permits harvesting, while produce that takes root after קצירת העומר becomes permitted to eat only after הבאת העומר, and it records that others disagree and require waiting until the next year for produce that rooted between cutting and bringing the עומר.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions