Menachos 71 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today's *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף עא, beginning on דף ע עמוד ב with רב אלעזר speaking to רבי אושעיה דדרי, and it frames why the גמרא identifies him as “from his generation” through explanations of רש״י, the ריטב״א, and other approaches. The learning develops the halachic mechanism of when the קרבן עומר is *matir* *chadash*, arguing from multiple פסוקים until רבא derives *hashrashah* from a פסוק about שתי הלחם and answers רב פפא with the term סודני as explained by רש״י. The משנה then permits limited pre‑עומר harvesting in specific cases while restricting processing into bundles to avoid confusion and premature eating, and it sets ideal procedures for the עומר’s source, moisture, timing, and שבת override. The גמרא brings רבי בנימין’s reconciliation of פסוקים about harvesting versus “ראשית קצירכם,” debates whether “place” or “species” is the distinction, and then revisits אנשי יריחו’s practices through a ברייתא and a רבי מאיר–רבי יהודה dispute over when חכמים protested. The sugya later connects קוצר לשחת to the laws of פאה and field‑division, aligning positions through רבי יוחנן, challenges from a ברייתא about crop damage, and concludes with רב דימי attributing רמיא’s approach to רבי עקיבא while רבין reports a broader רבי עקיבא liability, leading to partial agreement and partial dispute.
- Rabbi Elazar addresses רבי אושעיה דדרי, and רש״י in מסכת קידושין explains that the phrase distinguishes him from a different רבי אושעיה who was a תנא and not a colleague of רב אלעזר, showing that this אמורא רבי אושעיה is alive in רב אלעזר’s time. Rashi in מסכת סוטה explains that the identification prevents the impression that רב אלעזר spoke sharply to a תנא, because he says to him לא תישיב אכרעך and such language is appropriate toward a colleague. The ריטב״א explains that לא תישיב אכרעך means he should not sit until he explains what he has been saying, while other explanations understand it as not sitting in the place he is standing or not sitting on his chair. The sugya connects this to the contradiction in מסכת מגילה דף כא עמוד א between ואשב בהר and ואנכי עמדתי בהר, with רבא explaining רכות מעומד קשות מיושב and applying it so that this question does not require sitting.
- Rabbi Elazar asks for the source that the עומר permits produce based on השרשה, meaning anything that took root before the עומר becomes permitted through the קרבן עומר. The גמרא first tries to infer from ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים להשם אביב that some grain is not אביב, but it challenges that this might mean it did not yet reach אייתי שליש rather than lacking השרשה. Shmuel derives from מהחל חרמש בקמה that something not yet cuttable is not permitted, and the גמרא challenges that “not cuttable” might mean it has not reached שחת rather than not rooted. Rav Yitzchak reads קמה to imply a stage of stalk growth and excludes what is not yet at that level, and the גמרא counters that perhaps the threshold is אגם. Rava derives from וחג הקציר בכורי מעשיך אשר תזרע בשדה that the determinant is משעת זריעה understood as taking root, and רש״י notes that although the פסוק speaks about שתי הלחם, it is used because שתי הלחם and מנחת עומר are both tied to חדש.
- Rav Pappa challenges that if the proof is אשר תזרע, then even without השרשה it should be permitted as long as it was planted before the second day of פסח. Rava responds by calling him סודני, which רש״י explains as a title for a תלמיד חכם based on the פסוק סוד ה' ליראיו, and also as a reference to a beer manufacturer with the association of סוד נאה, alongside the connection to Rav Pappa’s wealth from brewing in מסכת פסחים. Rava answers that the derivation relies on בסאסאה, teaching that it must already be at the stage that reflects rooting and not merely planting.
- The משנה permits cutting in a בית השלחים שבעמקים even before the עומר, either because the produce will be ruined if not cut or because it is low‑quality grain not fit for the עומר, while grain fit for the עומר may not be cut. The משנה allows cutting but forbids גדישה, and רש״י explains that where there is no real concern of loss they disallow piling to prevent eating חדש, while another explanation frames it as a שינוי because normal processing would lead to eating. The משנה states that אנשי יריחו קוצרין ברצון חכמים, but they did גדישה שלא ברצון חכמים and yet חכמים did not protest, and the מאירי explains that since מעיקר הדין it is permitted and the restriction is a rabbinic safeguard, it does not rise to the level requiring public protest.
- The משנה permits קוצר לשחת ומאכיל לבהמה, and רש״י understands this as permission specifically when it is שחת and intended for animal feed, not for human consumption. Tosafos and other *Rishonim* understand that קוצר לשחת always permits cutting when it is only at the stage of שחת, and they add a separate rule permitting cutting even when fully grown if the purpose is animal feed. Rabbi Yehuda limits the permission to when the cutting began before the crop reached הביא שליש, and רש״י explains that once cutting begins under that condition it may continue even if it later reaches a third. Rabbi Shimon permits cutting and feeding in all circumstances even when it reached הביא שליש as רש״י reads it, while the ראב״ד permits cutting even for human consumption but distinguishes that animals may be fed while humans may not eat until after חודש.
- The משנה permits early cutting מפני הנטיעות to prevent damage to young trees, מפני בית האבל for the סעודת הבראה and ברכת אבלים held outdoors as a צורך מצוה, and מפני ביטול בית המדרש when space constraints require outdoor learning. The תוספות יום טוב explains that “בית” can refer to a group or domain rather than an indoor structure, as in וישמע בית פרעה and בית ישראל. Rashi explains that these permissions are for קציר מצוה rather than personal harvesting, and the שפת אמת explains that the leniency applies because the cutting is not for eating and therefore does not trigger the strict חדש framework in the same way. The משנה still forbids making כריכות and allows only צבתים so the produce is not processed normally and the חדש concern remains visible.
- The משנה states that the עומר ideally comes מן הקמה and if unavailable may come מן העמרים, ideally מן הלח and if unavailable may be יבש, and ideally is cut בלילה though if cut ביום it is כשר. The שפת אמת asks why daytime cutting needs to be stated since pre‑cut bundles are already usable, and he answers that cutting ביום still fulfills the מצוה of קצירה and not only the bringing. The משנה teaches that the קצירה of the עומר דוחה את השבת when the second day of פסח falls on שבת, and it raises whether only כהנים or anyone may cut. The sugya brings the question of harvesting in חוץ לארץ, with the רמב״ם permitting harvesting there because חדש is an איסור אכילה even if it applies, while the משכנות יעקב maintains that harvesting חדש in ארץ ישראל remains forbidden even בזמן הזה despite the absence of the קרבן. The רש״ש argues that the איסור קצירה depends on ראשית קצירכם and therefore does not apply without a בית המקדש and קרבן עומר, while the שפת אמת urges refraining in ארץ ישראל because of אחכה לו בכל יום שיבא and the expectation that the קרבן may become applicable.
- A ברייתא quotes רבי בנימין that one פסוק implies cutting precedes bringing the עומר, while ראשית קצירכם אל הכהן implies the first cutting must be for the עומר. רבי בנימין reconciles by ruling that במקום שאתם מביאים אי אתם קוצרים and במקום שאי אתם מביאים אתם קוצרים. The גמרא proposes instead that the distinction is by species, permitting harvesting from grain types not used for the עומר, and it rejects this based on רבי יוחנן’s teaching that just as חלה applies to all five grains, the איסור of עומר applies to all five grains as well.
- A ברייתא lists ששה דברים עשו אנשי יריחו with three ברצון חכמים and three שלא ברצון חכמים, including מרכיבים דקלים כל היום on ערב פסח as work they deemed not מלאכה חשובה. The ברייתא includes כורכין שמע with multiple interpretations, including רבי מאיר’s view that they joined שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד directly to ואהבת, other explanations about punctuation implying “answer us,” רבי יהודה’s view that they omitted ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, and additional explanations about enunciation and כוונה including the ירושלמי and רבינו יונה. The explanation for why חכמים did not protest includes the principle מוטב שיהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין, and the שם משמואל adds that when people believe they are acting correctly and will not change, refraining from protest is warranted. רבי יהודה responds that all their actions are שלא ברצון חכמים, but חכמים protested in three cases and did not protest in three cases, including protest over מתירין גמזיות של הקדש, פורצים פרצות to feed the poor on שבת and יום טוב, and giving פאה to ירק because it leads to exemption from תרומות ומעשרות based on a debate about הפקר לעניים versus הפקר לעניים ולעשירים. The גמרא resolves an internal count problem in the ברייתא by saying סמי מכאן קוצרים, removing “cutting before the עומר” from the list because the משנה permits cutting under certain circumstances.
- The גמרא cites a משנה in מסכת פאה listing dividers for פאה such as הנחל, השלולית, דרך היחיד, דרך הרבים, שביל הרבים, שביל היחיד הקבוע בימות החמה ובימות הגשמים, והבור, וניר, וזרע אחר, and it records that רבי מאיר holds הקוצר לשחת מפסיק while חכמים hold אין מפסיק unless he plowed. Rabba bar bar Chana quotes רבי יוחנן that רבי מאיר’s view is בשיטת רבי שמעון אמר, because רבי שמעון’s leniency about קוצר לשחת before פסח implies it is not considered standard קצירה and thus acts as a separator. Rav Acha bar Huna challenges from a ברייתא about damage by grasshoppers, ants, or wind, where everyone agrees that חרש מפסיק and לא חרש אינו מפסיק, and the sugya uses this to test whether the earlier case concerns הביא שליש or not. The conclusion shifts to say that רמיא follows רבי יהודה’s third‑growth framework and then rejects that because of the implications of אימתי as explanatory language, leading to רב דימי’s report that רמיא follows רבי עקיבא רבו in distinguishing whether it reached הביא שליש. The גמרא brings רבי עקיבא’s דין in פאה about המנמר שדהו and spotty cutting, with שמואל limiting רבי עקיבא’s liability to מנמר לחיות, while רבין reports רבי יוחנן that רבי עקיבא also requires liability in מנמר לאוצר. The sugya concludes that רמיא agrees with רבי עקיבא in one aspect and disagrees in another, stating סבר לה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions