Menachos 84 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on מסכת מנחות דף פ"ד begins on דף פ"ג עמוד ב' and frames the earlier debate about *chadash* versus *yashan* as separate from the question of whether the עומר and שתי הלחם must come specifically from grain grown in ארץ ישראל. The גמרא presents an assumption that everyone requires מן הארץ, challenges it with רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה who allows the עומר אף מחוץ לארץ, and ties that view to whether *chadash* applies בחוץ לארץ דאורייתא. The *shiur* then turns to how the עומר is brought in שמיטה from ספיחים with paid guards, how burning the קומץ interacts with “לאכלה ולא לשרפה,” and why last year’s grain or hydroponic growth does not solve the requirement of כרמל at the time of הקרבה. The later חלק develops the barley source of the עומר, the precedence of שתי הלחם over other “new” offerings and ביכורים, and the dispute whether inferior-quality ביכורים become קדוש בדיעבד, alongside cases of growth on roofs, ruins, pots, and boats, and an aggadic exchange of יוחנן וממרא with משה.
- Today's *shiur* opens by stating that earlier analysis centers on whether the עומר and שתי הלחם must be brought from *chadash* or may be brought from *yashan*, while the source-location of the grain was not addressed. The גמרא says that until now the focus is only on חדש, but regarding מן הארץ everyone agrees that the עומר and שתי הלחם must come from ארץ ישראל and not from חוץ לארץ, and the קרן אורה takes the silence about location as evidence that no one argues. The גמרא then says this assumption is דלא כהאי תנא because רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה says the עומר may come even מחוץ לארץ and reads כי תבאו אל הארץ as teaching only that they were not obligated קודם שבאו לארץ. The explanation given is that since the דין of *chadash* applies in חוץ לארץ, and the מנחת עומר permits eating *chadash*, it follows that one could bring the עומר from חוץ לארץ.
- The רמב"ן is presented as limiting the חוץ לארץ allowance to the מנחת עומר because it directly functions to permit *chadash*, while the שתי הלחם is not strictly limited to that role. The קרן אורה and other ראשונים and אחרונים disagree by asserting that the עומר is stricter and more powerful than the שתי הלחם because before the עומר there is neither eating *chadash* nor bringing the שתי הלחם, while after the עומר eating becomes permitted even though offering from *chadash* remains restricted until the שתי הלחם. The שפת אמת explains כי תבאו אל הארץ as teaching that the איסור of *chadash* in חוץ לארץ remains tied to and becomes permitted through what happens in ארץ ישראל, even though רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה still holds *chadash* applies in חוץ לארץ. The *shiur* adds that even רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה agrees it is not לכתחילה to bring the עומר from חוץ לארץ because the מצוה of קצירת העומר is particularly in ארץ ישראל and because כרמל is defined as moist grain, which cannot practically be maintained with distant transport.
- The גמרא attributes רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה’s position to the verse חוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם, understood as “wherever we live” the דין of *chadash* applies, and reads כי תבואו אל הארץ as זמן ביאו for when the obligation begins. The גמרא reasons that if *chadash* is דאורייתא in חוץ לארץ then the grain status of חדש and ישן applies there as well, and therefore the grain can be used for the עומר. The ערוך השולחן explains this as the straightforward approach that the הלכות of bringing the קרבן עומר and the הלכות of חדש וישן travel together. The שאגת אריה is presented as rejecting the necessity of that linkage by allowing that *chadash* could be אסור בחוץ לארץ מדאורייתא without implying that the קרבן עומר may be brought from חוץ לארץ.
- The גמרא shifts to the שמיטה-year problem of sourcing barley for the קרבן עומר when planting and guarding fields are normally prohibited and produce is הפקר. A משנה in מסכת שקלים is cited that שומרי ספיחים בשביעית are appointed and are paid from תרומת הלשכה, meaning public funds from the מחצית השקל support guarding the ספיחים so they remain available for the ציבור offering. The *shiur* raises the difficulty that the עומר is called קצירכם and is expounded as קצירכם של ישראל, so a question arises how הפקר produce fits. The טורי אבן is cited as explaining either that קצירכם excludes only קצירכם של נכרי or that the תורה’s insistence that the עומר be brought even in שמיטה implies that normal restrictions are waived for this צורך מצוה. The זכר יצחק (רבי יצחק אלחנן) explains that הפקר and שמיטה are not synonymous because פירות שביעית are not ownerless but belong to every Jew, so קצירכם is not violated.
- The גמרא challenges the שקלים teaching by citing והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה, understood as forbidding wasting שביעית produce, including “ולא לשרפה,” and asks how the קומץ of the מנחת העומר may be burned on the מזבח. רב חסדא answers that רחמנא commands the עומר as חקת עולם לדורותיכם, so the מצוה remains and does not get canceled, and the *shiur* states that the עומר service supersedes the שמיטה restriction for this purpose.
- The *shiur* raises hydroponic growth as a possible way around שמיטה applicability, and reports two approaches from the הר צבי: one that hydroponic growth would still share the same status as ground growth for these purposes, and another that even if hydroponics avoids שמיטה it still fails because the תורה requires קצירכם and hydroponic harvesting is not in the category of קצירכם. The גמרא asks why not bring last year’s grain, and answers that כרמל is required and is lacking. The discussion presses further with “וליתי מכרמל דאשתקד,” and the גמרא answers from כרמל תקריב that כרמל must exist בשעת הקרבה, not merely that it once was moist.
- The *shiur* notes תוספות’ question that if רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה allows חוץ לארץ grain, the גמרא should avoid שמיטה by using it. The רש"ש explains that תוספות answers the שקלים משנה is not following רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה and does not permit חוץ לארץ grain, and the רש"ש further suggests that even if permitted it is not לכתחילה, so the גמרא does not propose it.
- The ראשונים’ question is raised whether the leniency for the עומר implies that other mitzvah-items like an אתרוג of שמיטה are similarly exempt from restrictions. The מגן אברהם in חלק א' סימן קמ"ו is cited as seeing a ראיה from the גמרא that לצורך מצוה the restrictions do not apply, while others disagree and treat the עומר as a special case and note the אתרוג requirement of לכם and “ממשקה ישראל.” The חזון איש is described as appearing first more lenient and later more מחמיר, and the מנחת יצחק reports that despite a written leniency, the מנהג in ירושלים was not to rely on it for אתרוג.
- The גמרא records an *itmar* where רבי יוחנן derives the need for this-year moist grain from כרמל תקריב, and רבי אלעזר derives it from ראשית קצירך and excludes “ולא ספיח קצירך,” meaning not last year’s growth. A ברייתא is brought from ואם תקריב מנחת ביכורים as referring to the מנחת העומר, asking its source and establishing it as מן השעורים.
- The ברייתא presents רבי אלעזר’s derivation by linking אביב in מצרים, where the verse says כי השעורה אביב, to אביב לדורות and concludes the עומר is only from barley. רבי עקיבא argues by analogy that a יחיד brings a חטאת-related מנחה from wheat (עולה ויורד when impoverished) and another from barley (מנחת סוטה), so the ציבור should similarly have a counterpart barley offering, identified as the עומר. The text adds that if the עומר were wheat then the שתי הלחם would not be “ביכורים,” because wheat would already have appeared as a ציבור grain-offering that season.
- A משנה in מסכת ביכורים is cited that ביכורים are brought only from the שבעת המינים, and not from inferior dates in the mountains or produce of the valley, with עולא stating that if one brought such inferior bיכורים they are not קדוש. The שיטה מקובצת explains that the standards for עומר and שתי הלחם are separate from bיכורים because they rest on different verses, so בדיעבד validity differs. A teaching is then brought that the שתי הלחם are “שתי ראשית לכל המנחות” and that “מנחה חדשה” appears twice to include both wheat and barley systems, so barley offerings require the עומר and wheat offerings require the שתי הלחם before they become permitted as “new.”
- The גמרא confronts a contradiction where one source implies items growing on roofs, in ruins, in pots, and on boats can be brought after the שתי הלחם, while earlier teachings deny validity for inferior-quality bיכורים. The גמרא answers that the later line refers to מנחות, where different quality may be used, while bיכורים require the best. רב פפא challenges this by citing “כל טהור בביתך יאכל אותו,” which fits bיכורים (eaten by the כהן’s household) rather than מנחות (eaten only by male כהנים), and רב אשי answers with two verses distinguishing bיכורים from מנחות. רב אשי also offers that the verse may be applied to מנחות via לחמי תודה, where a כהן’s family may eat the breads.
- The ספר טהרת הקודש ties the stricter bיכורים requirements to their inherent limitation to ארץ ישראל, contrasting with the earlier point that according to רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה the עומר may even come from חוץ לארץ. The explanation states that because bיכורים are limited in origin, the תורה also insists on high quality, while מנחות have broader acceptability.
- The גמרא presents a dispute: רבי יוחנן rules that if one brought inferior-quality bיכורים, לא קידש, while ריש לקיש rules קידש and treats them like קדשים where one ideally brings the best but בדיעבד an offering may be effective. The *shiur* adds a qualification found in ראשונים and אחרונים about when a poor-quality animal offering becomes acceptable, with one approach tying acceptance to having already done זריקת הדם and another allowing completion once הקרבה has begun. רבי אלעזר attributes his explanation of רבי יוחנן to a dream of רבי יוחנן, and the text notes the tension with לא בשמים היא while explaining that רבי אלעזר, not רבי יוחנן, must articulate the reasoning. רבי אלעזר derives רבי יוחנן’s view from ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה, reading “מראשית ולא כל ראשית” and “מארצך ולא כל ארצך” as excluding inferior quality.
- The גמרא asks how ריש לקיש interprets מארצך and answers that it is needed for a דרשה comparing “ארץ” in bיכורים with “ארץ” in the שבעת המינים, teaching שבח ארץ ישראל. רבי יוחנן is said to learn “ארץ מארץ,” while ריש לקיש does not accept that linkage.
- Two ברייתות are brought: one says such produce is brought and read over, and another says it is brought but not read. The גמרא reconciles these for ריש לקיש by distinguishing גג דמערה from גג דבית, חורבה עבודה from חורבה שאינה עבודה, עציץ נקוב from עציץ שאינו נקוב, and a ספינה of wood from a ספינה of earthenware. For רבי יוחנן, the גמרא answers that the permissibility is תנאי היא, and cites a ברייתא allowing גג and חורבה with reading but excluding עציץ and ספינה entirely, aligning רבי יוחנן with that view.
- The text cites that “וכולן אינן באות אלא מן המובחר” and identifies עפריים בבקעה as a paradigm of superior quality. The גמרא then connects to the story of יוחנן וממרא telling משה “תבן אתה מכניס לעפריים” to mock his signs in a place saturated with כשפים, and משה responds with the proverb “למתא ירקא ירק שקול,” meaning one brings goods to the marketplace that values them. The interpretation given is that משה implies the experts of מצרים would recognize that his acts are not כשוף because they cannot duplicate them.
- The *shiur* applies the sugya’s categories to practical הלכה about berachos for grain grown in a flower pot and for hydroponic produce. The חיי אדם is cited as saying one cannot say “המוציא לחם מן הארץ” on grain not grown from the ground, though one would still be able to *bentsh*. The דעת נוטה is presented as more lenient for “בורא פרי האדמה” on hydroponic vegetables because the wording refers to what the ground normally produces, even if this specimen did not grow directly in soil, while some are מחמיר and would not say “בורא פרי האדמה” even on hydroponic vegetables.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions