Menachos 85 - Cycle 14
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכת מנחות דף פה עמוד א from the משנה, presents that the מנחת העומר and the שתי הלחם require high-quality grain and that certain inferior sources are not used לכתחילה even though they are כשר בדיעבד, and then develops related גמרות and ברייתות about how the grain is grown, checked, and processed, what disqualifies flour as wormy, and whether פסולים in מנחה-items generate מלקות like a בעל מום. The text then shifts to olive oil for the מקדש, identifies תקוע and other locations as preferred, lists inferior oils that are כשר only בדיעבד or absolutely פסול, connects תקוע to חכמה and to themes of חנוכה, brings a story about שבט אשר and extraordinary oil wealth hidden beneath a frugal exterior, and ends with a contemporary question from חשוקי חמד about whether a maid who became wealthy may quit before פסח when her employer would suffer loss.
- The משנה rules that one does not bring grain לכתחילה לא מבית הזבלים, not from a field requiring constant manure fertilization, and some explain the concern as poor-quality grain from unreliable fertilization while others explain that חז״ל avoid grain associated with a bad smell. The משנה also rules לא מבית השלחין, a field that needs constant irrigation because it lacks sufficient rainwater, and this too is treated as not producing the desired high-quality grain. The משנה rules ולא מבית האילן, grain grown among trees, because trees draw nutrients and reduce grain quality, and the שפת אמת says that even non-fruit trees still diminish the grain’s quality. The משנה concludes that in all these cases אם הביא כשר, so בדיעבד the offering remains valid.
- The text records a מחלוקת ראשונים about whether the restriction applies only to the עומר and שתי הלחם as implied by רש״י or to all קרבנות as held by תוספות. The text brings תוספות’ question from an earlier משנה that permits קוצרין בית השלחין before the עומר, and it presents רש״י’s reasons that early cutting prevents spoilage and that the cutting prohibition applies only to grain that could be used for the קרבן עומר. The text then raises that according to the current משנה, בית השלחין grain is usable בדיעבד, so cutting it early could remove potentially usable grain, and it answers either by distinguishing different types of בית השלחין, including a type unusable even בדיעבד, or by framing the earlier permission as relying on the fact that בית השלחין is not a לכתחילה source for the עומר even if it could work בדיעבד.
- The משנה describes a procedure for producing superior grain by plowing in the first year and leaving the field fallow, then plowing again and planting 70 days before פסח so that the stronger sun improves taste and/or soil fertility, producing זוהי סולת מרובה. The גמרא questions the exact meaning of the second-year plowing and whether there is one plowing right before sowing or an additional early-second-year plowing followed by another before sowing. A ברייתא in רבי יוסי’s name states that wheat from כרזיים וכפר אחום would be ideal אלמלי סמוכות לירושלים היו, and it sets that the עומר comes only from השדות המודרמות and from fields prepared so that sunlight is strong all day ובהן חמה זורחת ובהן חמה שוקעת. The ברייתא states explicitly that in the second year they plow twice, חורש ושונה, and plant 70 days before פסח so that the crop is סמוכה לחמה and produces thick stalks and large ears.
- The משנה states that the גזבר tests flour by putting his hand into it, and if אבק rises it is פסולה עד שינפנה because it needs additional sifting. The text notes a question from the fact that the עומר flour is sifted 13 times, and it answers that אבק can still remain even after extensive sifting and that the פסוק תמימים יהיו is used to require absolute perfection in the flour. The text adds an explanation that the Torah’s demand for a full שיעור leads to a מחלוקת ראשונים whether the requirement applies to the entire amount or specifically to the קומץ, and dust mixed in undermines the proper שיעור. The ברייתא adds that the administrator tells the supplier to resift, and in רבי נתן’s view the גזבר smears his hand with oil and inserts it until all dust adheres and is removed.
- The גמרא challenges the inference from the ברייתא because the משנה’s language differs, and it resolves by distinguishing a field בעבודה, previously plowed, from one שאינה עבודה, not previously worked, which needs additional plowing for adequate preparation. The גמרא then brings a further ברייתא that describes plowing the entire field in the first year but planting only half, leaving the other half fallow, and in the second year plowing the other half and planting the half that lay fallow, so the area intended for the עומר is plowed once in its year of planting besides the normal pre-sowing plowing. רבי יוחנן states that the עומר is brought only from southern fields in ארץ ישראל with maximal sunlight exposure, and a ברייתא supports this with אבא שאול’s tradition that the עומר came from בקעת בית מקלא with abundant yield and the same sunlight criteria. The גמרא relates that רב חילקא בי אדא טובי used the half-field procedure on corner property and produced double yield, and the שפת אמת reads this as increasing both quantity and quality.
- The משנה rules that wormy grain is פסולה for the מנחת עומר, and a ברייתא specifies that if most of the flour or most of the wheat is wormy it is פסול. רבי ירמיה asks whether “most” is measured per-grain or by the overall volume, and the גמרא leaves it תיקו. The text cites a discussion among פוסקים about wormy grain for מצה and brings שלחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תנ״ג סעיף ג׳ that failing to check wheat from אכילת עכבר does not invalidate, with משנה ברורה and ביאור הלכה limiting this to בדיעבד and requiring checking לכתחילה.
- רבא asks whether one who הקדיש wormy flour receives מלקות משום בעל מום, based on the model that an animal בעל מום triggers five לאוין for consecration and subsequent service actions. The גמרא frames the ספק as whether פסול items are כבעל מום דמי or whether בעל מום applies only to בהמה, and it remains תיקו. The גמרא cites a משנה in מידות that any wood with a worm is פסול for the מזבח and explains the summer cutting practice through ט״ו באב to avoid worm infestation, deriving from וביער עליה הכהן עצים that only non-wormy wood qualifies as עצים. The רדב״ז explains why wood is not evaluated by רוב as flour is, because wood-worm damage is noticeable immediately while flour may not reveal infestation unless it is substantial, and שמואל distinguishes moist wood as disqualified while dry wood can be scraped and becomes כשר. רבא repeats the בעל מום ספק for consecrating wormy wood and the גמרא again concludes תיקו, and the מנחת חינוך limits the question to קרבן עצים while treating ordinary fuel wood as outside the בעל מום framework. The מנחת חינוך also suggests the same conceptual question for an עוף that is מחוסר איבר.
- The משנה states that תקוע דהוה בארץ ישראל is the best place for oil, and אבא שאול names רגב בעבר הירדן as second best, while all lands are כשרות but these are preferred sources. The משנה applies the same lכתחילה exclusions to oil, including not bringing from בית הזבלים, בית השלחין, or olives grown with other growths among them, yet ואם הביא כשר. The משנה adds that oil called אפקטין is not brought and yet is כשר בדיעבד, and it then lists oils that are פסול even if brought, including oil from olives soaked in water, כבושים, or השלוקים, because acceptable oil must be כתוש rather than degraded by processing that ruins quality. The גמרא raises a contradiction from a ברייתא that declares אפקטין פסול because it is שרוף, and רב יוסף resolves it as a dispute between רבי חייא who discards it and רבי שמעון ברבי who benefits from it, with the memory-sign עשירים מקמצנים.
- The text brings the בני יששכר’s idea that the נס of חנוכה aligns with תקוע because תקוע is presented as eight days away from ירושלים, so the miracle sustains the menorah until new oil arrives, and the בני יששכר explains that the “eight days” includes שבת travel constraints. The גמרא derives from וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה that תקוע is chosen because מתוך שרגילין שמן זית חכמה מצויה בהם. The בני יששכר links olive oil to חכמת התורה and frames the Greek attack as “אין לכם חלק בתורת ישראל,” making the oil miracle an emblem of restoring Torah wisdom, and he further connects oil to שבט אשר and to דלי and to אין מים אלא תורה as a thematic alignment of water, Torah, and oil.
- A ברייתא interprets וטובל בשמן רגלו as referring to אשר whose portion draws oil like a spring. The גמרא tells of אנשי לודקיא who need oil and send an agent with funds to purchase a vast amount, who is redirected from ירושלים to צור and then to גוש חלב to a man working under his olive trees. The man appears poor and works carefully, but at home his maid brings hot water and then a gold bowl of oil in which he dips hands and feet, fulfilling וטובל בשמן רגלו, and the תורה תמימה connects this to רב חנינא’s statement that חמין ושמן שסכתני אמי מנעורותי עמדו לי בזקנותי. The man supplies additional oil on credit, massive transport is hired across ארץ ישראל, and the agent insists that praise belongs to the supplier who is still owed for the extra oil, teaching יש מתעשר ואין כל ומתרושש והון רב and portraying appearances as deceptive and wealth as compatible with frugality.
- The גמרא asks about ששה חדשים בשמן המר and records definitions including סטכתא and שמן זית שלא הביא שליש, and a ברייתא in רבי יהודה’s view identifies אנפיקנון as oil from olives that have not reached one-third growth. The text states that this oil is used because it removes hair and refines the skin, שמשיר את השיער ומעדן את הבשר. The text reiterates that oils from כבוש, שלוק, שרוי, שמרים, or ריח רע are not brought and are פסול even if brought.
- Rבא asks whether one who consecrates these פסול oils receives מלקות משום בעל מום, on the same logic of כבעל מום דמי versus limiting בעל מום to בהמה, and the גמרא concludes תיקו.
- The חשוקי חמד presents a case of a poor woman who agreed to work as a cleaning maid but then won the lottery and seeks to quit because she no longer needs income and her family objects to the job’s lack of prominence. The employer insists she stay because it is before פסח and her departure would cause serious difficulty, and the text cites the principle כי לי בני ישראל עבדים that normally allows leaving employment while also recognizing that causing irreparable damage can restrict quitting. The חשוקי חמד uses the story of the frugal wealthy oil owner to argue that sudden wealth does not require displaying status and that it can be proper to continue acting modestly even after becoming wealthy.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions