Menachos Daf 85 - Ideal Flour and Wine
Summary
- A contradiction arises between *beraitot* about bringing *bikkurim* from produce grown in unusual places such as a roof, ruin, flowerpot, or boat, and the *Gemara* aligns and challenges these sources within the frameworks of Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. A parable about Moshe Rabbeinu in Mitzrayim connects the idea of bringing something to the place where it is most common in order to prove its quality. The *Mishnayot* then set standards for the best grain for the *korban omer* and *shtei halechem*, detail the agricultural process to maximize flour quality, and define disqualifications such as worminess for both grain and donated wood. The discussion closes with standards for the best oil for *menachot*, centered on Tekoa, and a narrative linking abundant olive oil with wisdom and with the wealth of the region.
- A sponsorship is stated for the *shiur* by Dr. David Landman and his wife and children לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום. A blessing is given הנשמה שתהא לה עליה.
- A *beraita* teaches that produce grown on a roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, or in a boat is brought as *bikkurim* and the *mikra bikkurim* is recited. A second *beraita* teaches that the same produce is brought but the reading is not recited, because it is not considered *me’artzecha*. The נתיבות הקודש challenges how one can ever be “מביא ואינו קורא” if the lack of *karka* should exclude it even from “מביא,” since bringing into the *azarah* without obligation raises a concern of *chullin la’azarah*.
- The *Gemara* states that according to Reish Lakish the *beraitot* can be reconciled by distinguishing sub-cases within each category. A roof case splits between a cave roof, treated like ground and therefore “מביא וקורא,” and a house roof, treated as not *me’artzecha* and therefore “מביא ואינו קורא,” with this presented as the explanation in Rashi’s כתב יד. The רא״ש in תשובות הרא״ש כלל ב סימן ד treats even a house roof as connected to the ground and explains “מביא ואינו קורא” as lacking *ikar artzecha* quality, like *temarim shebaharim*, and he supports this by the later case of חורבה שאינה עבודה which is ground yet still “מביא ואינו קורא.”
- A ruin case splits between חורבה עבודה, which yields “מביא וקורא,” and חורבה שאינה עבודה, which yields “מביא ואינו קורא.” A flowerpot case splits between an עציץ נקוב, which is considered connected to the ground and yields “מביא וקורא,” and an עציץ שאינו נקוב, which yields “מביא ואינו קורא,” with reference to the rule in *Masechet Demai* for *mitzvot hateluyot ba’aretz*. A boat case splits between a wooden boat producing “מביא ואינו קורא” and a clay boat producing “מביא וקורא,” with Rashi explaining the clay boat as being of earth.
- Tosafot notes an inconsistency in how the *Gemara* assigns “כאן” to the first or second *beraita*, because the boat case reverses the earlier pattern. Tosafot cites a radically different reading from Rabbeinu Tam.
- The *Gemara* says Rabbi Yochanan has difficulty because he holds that inferior produce does not receive *kedushat bikkurim*, making even “מביא ואינו קורא” problematic. The *Gemara* resolves by stating תנאי היא and brings a *beraita* where roof and ruin are “מביא וקורא,” while produce from a flowerpot or boat is “אינו מביא כל עיקר.” The rule is stated that all *bikkurim* come only מן המובחר.
- Yוחנא וממרא taunt Moshe Rabbeinu with the phrase תבן אתה מכניס לעפרים, comparing Moshe’s *otot* in Mitzrayim to bringing straw to a place full of grain. Moshe answers with the proverb אמרי אינשי למתא ירקא ירקא שקול, framing the idea that one brings goods specifically to the market where that good is abundant because that is where the buyers are. The שפתי חכמים explains this as marketplace logic, while the מיוחס לרש״י frames Moshe’s reply as responding to *leitzanut* with *leitzanut*. A teaching from דרשות הר״ן explains that Moshe comes to the center of supposed “quality” in order for the superiority of Hashem’s *otot* over human *chochmah* to be recognized by comparison.
- The *Mishnah* states that grain is not brought from בית הזבלים, בית השלחים, or בית האילן, but בדיעבד אם הביא כשר. Tosafot in *Pesachim* דף י״א explains that even *dinim min haTorah* can be non-me’akev without *shanah alav le’akev*. The *Mishnah* prescribes plowing in the first year without planting and then planting in the second year seventy days before Pesach, on the fifth of Shevat, to produce abundant fine flour.
- The *Mishnah* describes the treasurer’s test by placing a hand into the flour and disqualifying it if אבק clings until it is sifted again. The *Mishnah* rules that if the flour becomes wormy it is פסולה. The Rambam in פירוש המשניות derives the need for flawlessness from תמימים יהיו לכם ונסכיהם, applying תמימים to the *nesachim* materials such as flour, oil, and wine.
- The *Gemara* questions whether the second year includes plowing before planting or whether planting occurs without another plowing. A *beraita* describes southern, sun-exposed fields and states that in the second year one plows again and even plows twice, חורש ושונה, then plants seventy days before Pesach on חמשה בשבט, producing large stalks and ears. The *Gemara* challenges using the *beraita* as proof because the *Mishnah* does not say “שונה,” and it suggests an *ukimta* distinguishing fields that were already worked versus those that were not, while acknowledging the strain in that reading.
- A further *beraita* describes a method of plowing half and planting half, then reversing in the second year, indicating only a single plowing prior to planting for each half. Rabbi Yochanan states that the *omer* comes only from southern fields of Eretz Yisrael with maximal sun exposure, where the sun both rises and sets over them. A supporting *beraita* cites Abba Shaul that the *omer* came from בקעת בית מכלה, describing it as שדה מרומשיתה with that sunlight pattern and using the same alternating-half method.
- Rav Chelki bar Tovi applies the alternating method on a corner of land and the field yields double. He becomes known for selling wheat suitable for fine flour to wealthy buyers seeking the best quality.
- A *beraita* teaches that flour is disqualified when most of it is wormy, and wheat is disqualified when most is wormy. Rabbi Yirmiyah asks whether “most” refers to רוב חטה or רוב סאה, and the *Gemara* leaves it as תיקו. Rava asks whether one who sanctifies wormy grain receives lashes for *ba’al mum*, weighing whether פסול items are like *ba’al mum* or whether *ba’al mum* applies only to animals, and the *Gemara* leaves it as תיקו.
- A *Mishnah* in *Middot* states that any wood found with a worm is disqualified for the *mizbeach*. The קרית ספר explains this as needing wood ראוי לביעור based on ובער עליה הכהן עצים. The רדב״ז in הלכות איסורי מזבח distinguishes grain from wood by visibility, stating that worminess in wood is evident even in small amounts, unlike flour where it may be hard to detect unless extensive. Shmuel limits the disqualification to moist wood and allows dry wood to be scraped and then used. A further question asks whether sanctifying such wood triggers lashes as *ba’al mum*, and the *Gemara* again leaves it as תיקו, with the מנחת חינוך framing the doubt as specific to donated wood as a *korban* rather than standard *etzei hama’arachah*.
- A later halachic application is raised about whether a mouse bite makes wheat become *chametz* via saliva, with the Tur citing Rabbeinu Peretz about a practice of sorting wheat for matzah and a dispute whether saliva is מחמיץ. The שירי כנסת הגדולה suggests a concern that wormy wheat might also involve *chימוץ* through the worms’ saliva. The חיד״א questions this from the allowance of פת הדראה, explained by the ר״ן and רמב״ן as פת מתולעת, and the חזון איש argues that the פסול of wormy flour in the *sugya* is משום הקריבהו נא לפחתך and not because it becomes *chametz*, especially since מנחת העומר must be *matzah*.
- The *Mishnah* states תקוע אלפא לשמן and Abba Shaul says second is רגב בעבר הירדן, while all lands are technically fit though these are preferred. The *Mishnah* excludes oil from בית הזבלים, בית השלחים, or trees with other plantings between them, while בדיעבד it is כשר. The *Mishnah* excludes אנפקטון but validates it בדיעבד, and it disqualifies oil from olives soaked in water, pickled olives, or cooked olives, ruling ואם הביא פסול.
- A verse is cited וישלח יואב תקועה ויקח משם אשה חכמה, and the question is asked why Tekoa is chosen. The Maharsha infers that the verse implies Tekoa is known as a place to find a wise woman rather than pointing to one known individual. Rabbi Yochanan states that because they are accustomed to olive oil, wisdom is found among them. A *beraita* expounds וטבל בשמן רגלו as the blessing of Asher, describing oil flowing like a spring, and tells of אנשי לודקיא seeking oil and being sent from Yerushalayim to צור and then to גוש חלב. A field worker who appears poor ultimately provides מאה ריבוא of oil and even extends credit for an additional eight hundred thousand, fulfilling וטבל בשמן רגלו when a servant brings a golden vessel of oil for dipping hands and feet, and concluding with the saying יש מתעשר ואין כל מתרושש והון רב.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions