Menachos 72 - Cycle 14
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת מנחות דף ע״ב עמוד א explains why the משנה permits cutting grain before the second day of פסח in limited cases and how the גמרא derives the boundaries of that היתר from *omer reishit ketzirchem* and the word *takriv*. A distinction is drawn between personal harvesting that remains restricted until the עומר and *ketzir mitzvah* that permits limited cutting, while additional limits such as not making bundles are framed as minimizing visible weekday labor. The sugya develops multiple *drashot* of *takriv* to validate bringing the עומר from standing or piled grain, from moist or dry grain, from night or day cutting, from distant locations, and even *betumah*, and it connects the שבת aspect of קצירת העומר to the broader debate of רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא about *machshirei milah*. A major focus is the tension between רבי and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון regarding whether daytime cutting invalidates the עומר and how that interacts with whether the cutting itself is דוחה שבת, followed by a transition to the next משנה listing which מנחות require קמיצה and how רבי שמעון treats מנחת חוטא של כהנים and the count of מנחות.
- An English-letter explanation is given that the משנה allows cutting before the second day of פסח in cases of מפני הנטיות, מפני בית האבות, and מפני בית המדרש. An English-letter citation of the גמרא derives the general restriction from *omer reishit ketzirchem*, meaning cutting for personal purposes is restricted until after the עומר, while a *ketzir mitzvah* is permitted earlier. An English-letter attribution states that רש״י explains בית האבות and בית המדרש as creating an open area for mourners to gather after a לויה and for learning.
- An English-letter statement reports that רש״י gives a separate explanation for מפני הנטיות, that if the grain cannot be used for the עומר then the איסור of cutting does not apply there. An English-letter statement adds that רש״י also explains the case as כלאיים, and cutting is permitted to uproot the כלאיים. An English-letter attribution presents the שפת אמת as reading *ketzirchem* as limiting the prohibition to cutting for personal need, while other purposes fall outside that restriction, and the חזון יחזקאל as explaining that *ketzir mitzvah* removes the violation of *ketzirchem*.
- An English-letter narrative states that even when cutting is allowed under those circumstances the משנה prohibits making bundles and requires leaving the cut grain as צבתים in the field. An English-letter explanation attributes to the גמרא the rule דכמה דאפשר לא טרחינן, and attributes to the קרן אורה that קצירה is fundamentally אסור and only becomes מותר in defined cases, so reducing labor and changing the appearance prevents observers from misunderstanding the act as ordinary harvesting.
- An English-letter statement records the משנה that מצות העומר is to bring מן הקמה, and the ברייתא derives from the phrase *ve’im takriv minchat bikurim* that the default is attached standing grain. An English-letter continuation states that *takriv* teaches that if one cannot find attached grain one may bring מן העומרים, and a further reading of *takriv* teaches that the ideal is מן הלח but if moist grain is unavailable one may bring מן היבש.
- An English-letter statement reports that another teaching from *takriv* sets the מצוה to cut the עומר בלילה, and רש״י ties it to *sheva shabbatot temimot tihyenah* by beginning the count at the start of the night. An English-letter continuation states that the ברייתא also teaches that if it was cut by day it remains כשר and that it is דוחה שבת. An English-letter attribution presents the קרן אורה’s question that bringing from עומרים already implies daytime cutting, and his answer that the earlier allowance only proves acceptability if it was cut by day before ט״ז בניסן, while *takriv* is needed to validate cutting on ט״ז בניסן by day despite the concern for losing *temimot*.
- An English-letter statement reports that *takriv mikol makom* allows taking the עומר even from distant places and even from עומרים. An English-letter explanation states that מפרשים infer that the earlier preference to cut near ירושלים rests not only on אין מעבירין על המצוות but on ensuring the grain is moist, and this sugya shows that lack of moisture does not invalidate. An English-letter statement adds that *takriv* teaches bringing the עומר אפילו בטומאה.
- An English-letter section attributes to תוספות a connection to the מחלוקת in מסכת שבת פרק רבי אליעזר דמילה between רבי אליעזר and רבי עקיבא over whether *machshirei milah* that could have been done before שבת may be done on שבת. An English-letter statement notes the difficulty that if the עומר can be cut before, רבי עקיבא’s rule that anything possible *me’ete-mol* does not override שבת should block cutting on שבת, yet the רמב״ם holds that an עומר cut earlier is valid and still requires cutting on שבת. An English-letter attribution to the שפת אמת explains the רמב״ם as distinguishing between the validity of having grain for הקרבת העומר and the separate fulfillment of מצות קצירת העומר, which exists only on ט״ז בניסן, so it is not categorized as something that could be done earlier.
- An English-letter narrative cites the משנה in מסכת מגילה that *kol halaylah kasher* for קצירת העומר and the general rule that what is daytime-only is valid all day and what is nighttime-only is valid all night, leading to the question why נקצר ביום is כשר. An English-letter answer attributes to רבא that the permissive view follows רבי while the stricter framing aligns with רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון. An English-letter proof brings the ברייתא of מנחת העומר that became טמא on ט״ז בניסן, where רבי says to bring another if available and otherwise proceed quietly because *tumah hutrah betzibbur*, while רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון says to bring it regardless because any עומר not cut כמצותו is פסול.
- An English-letter statement reports the expression הוי פיקח ושתוק and ties it to the idea that sometimes silence is preferable. An English-letter citation connects this to מסכת שבת דף קד עמוד א about two forms of the letter פ, implying times to speak and times to refrain. An English-letter attribution to חשוקי חמד frames the decision to speak as requiring discernment about halachic repercussions and the risk of embarrassing people.
- An English-letter statement attributes to רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן that רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון’s stance follows רבי עקיבא, and it cites רבי עקיבא’s כלל that any מלאכה possible before שבת does not override שבת. An English-letter continuation states that the sugya also aligns him with רבי ישמעאל that קצירת העומר is a מצוה that is דוחה שבת, based on the דרשה from *becharish uvekatzir tishbot* that only discretionary harvesting is barred while קציר עומר is excluded as a mitzvah. An English-letter argument states that if improper cutting were still כשר then there would be no reason to override שבת, so the fact it overrides שבת implies that cutting שלא כמצותו is not acceptable and that the required time matters.
- An English-letter statement quotes the רמ״א in יורה דעה סימן רס״ב סעיף א׳ that if a ברית was done by night one must do הטפת דם ברית. An English-letter attribution states that the ש״ך argues from this sugya that a bris done before the eighth day should be invalid, because otherwise it would undermine performing מילה on שבת under רבי עקיבא’s principle. An English-letter continuation records a differentiation that קצירת העומר can be corrected by cutting again at the proper time, while a premature מילה cannot be redone and הטפת דם ברית is not a full מילה.
- An English-letter question is raised that רבי was also a תלמיד of רבי שמעון, supported by the ברייתא about carrying oil and a towel in תקוע according to רבי שמעון’s view of shared רשות, so he should follow רבי עקיבא’s rule. An English-letter answer states that רבי adopts a different teaching of רבי שמעון, *bo u’re’eh kama chavivah mitzvah bish’atah*, illustrated by burning fats and limbs on שבת rather than waiting despite being valid all night. An English-letter continuation records the challenge that רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון should also know this principle and the sugya’s distinction that burning fats follows a process already involving שבת slaughter, whereas daytime cutting lacks the same framing.
- An English-letter conclusion states that the גמרא ultimately presents רבי as holding קצירת העומר does not override שבת because it can be done earlier, while the משנה’s phrase דוחה שבת is read as referring to the הקרבה of the עומר rather than the cutting. An English-letter challenge cites multiple earlier mishnayot in the פרק describing the public cutting procedure on שבת, and the sugya answers each as דלא כרבי. An English-letter proof from a ברייתא on *vayedaber Moshe et mo’adei Hashem* derives that all קרבנות ציבור, including העומר and the lamb with it and the שתי הלחם with כבשי עצרת, are fixed to one מועד and override שבת and טומאה, and the sugya clarifies that this teaches for שתי הלחם the permissibility of grinding and sifting on שבת, while for the עומר it teaches only the permissibility of הקרבה, not קצירה.
- An English-letter statement reports the resolution that רבי allows baking the שתי הלחם on שבת because he holds תנור מקדש as a כלי שרת, so baking before יום טוב would render them פסול בלינה. An English-letter question challenges whether רבי truly holds תנור מקדש, citing the ברייתא that כבשי עצרת do not sanctify the bread except through שחיטה and the subsequent details of לשמן and שלא לשמן, including רבי’s formulation הלחם קדוש ואינו קדוש. An English-letter answer attributes to רב פפא that the ברייתא means הוקבע לא הוקבע, indicating the slaughter and sprinkling determine fixation, while the overall essential process still prevents early baking, unlike the עומר where early cutting is acceptable and therefore, for רבי, does not justify חילול שבת.
- An English-letter transition preserves הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל, הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל, הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל. An English-letter statement quotes the next משנה that lists the מנחות that are נקמצות and whose שיריים go to the כהנים, including מנחת סולת, מחבת, מרחשת, חלות, רקיקין, מנחת עובדי כוכבים, מנחת נשים, מנחת העומר, and מנחת חוטא. An English-letter clarification notes a reported מחלוקת how to read מנחת סולת regarding whether קמיצה is taken while still flour or as dough not yet baked.
- An English-letter narrative defines מנחת חוטא as brought for specific sins when one cannot afford animals or birds, and states that for a כהן it is entirely burnt according to the baseline rule presented. An English-letter statement reports רבי שמעון’s view that מנחת חוטא של כהנים is also נקמצת, with the קומץ offered and the שיריים offered separately. An English-letter continuation presents the uncertainty whether “separately” means on a different spot on the מזבח or on the תפוח, and records the בריסקר רב’s difficulty that ash does not burn and his suggestion, as conveyed, that there was fire at the תפוח area.
- An English-letter statement reports פפא’s rule that when a משנה says מנחת it refers to ten, and the sugya explains it excludes רבי שמעון who permits mixing half חלות and half רקיקין, which would create an additional type beyond ten. An English-letter ending records an alternate גרסה that frames the teaching as always bringing ten loaves of a single type, while רבי שמעון’s combination would not yield ten of one category.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions