Menachos 85
Summary
- An ongoing *shiur* on Menachos 85 continues the *perek* of “kol korbanos tzibbur v’yachid,” moving from the geographic rules of where *menachos* and *bikkurim* come from into broader methodological issues about how to read *Gemara* and how much weight dreams and *simanim min haShamayim* can carry in *psak*. The presentation links the *sugya* of *bikkurim* brought from inferior growing situations to the question of whether such produce attains *kedushas bikkurim*, contrasts the approaches of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish, and then pivots to the *Mishnah*’s concrete standards for producing the finest *omer* flour and oil. Along the way, the shiur integrates *Rishonim* and *Acharonim* on “דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין,” stories about changing practice based on dreams, and *aggadic* teachings about why Tekoa is associated with both olive oil and wisdom.
- A prior *machlokes* between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish leaves open Rabbi Yochanan’s reasoning, and Rabbi Elazar reports the phrase חזאי בחלום מילתא מעליא סאמינא with uncertainty about where the comma belongs. A reading like חזאי בחלום, מילתא מעליא, אמינא treats the dream as carrying a “good” teaching to report, while a reading like חזאי בחלום, מילתא מעליא סאמינא treats the dream as a *siman* that what he is about to say will be good. A question about why the *Gemara* lacks punctuation frames the idea that the absence of נקודות preserves interpretive openness, paralleling the Radbaz’s explanation for why a *Sefer Torah* has no punctuation as a vehicle for שבעים פנים לתורה and as part of how הקדוש ברוך הוא structured Torah study.
- A broader *sugya* appears about learning *halachos* from dreams, anchored in Sanhedrin 30 where “דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין” allows one to disregard dream-claims that would otherwise restrict money as *maaser sheni* or as belonging to someone else. The Ran explains the *hava amina* that a dream might be believed because it is אחד מששים בנבואה, and still concludes that even so it does not create *issur* or monetary prohibition. The Ran applies this to a dream-*neder* by stating that a *neder* made in a dream does not require *hatarah*, while a dream-*nidui* does require release because it may be “מן השמיא נידוהו,” and he records that his *rebbe* the Rashba requires *hatarah* even for a dream-*neder*.
- A case from the *Or Zarua* (cited via *Hagahos Ashri*) describes Rabbeinu Ephraim of Regensburg permitting *balbuta* fish and then dreaming of being served a bowl of *sheratzim*, after which he breaks his *keilim* and forbids it, raising the question of whether *chumra* based on a dream is legitimate and what would happen if a dream pushed toward a *kula*. The Noda BiYehuda rejects the straightforward reading that a clear *psak* was reversed solely by a dream, and reinterprets the event as hinging on an underlying doubt about whether the fish truly has *kaskasim*. The shiur connects these dream-stories to a wider debate about *simanim min haShamayim*, including stories about the Chasam Sofer and the *sugya* of “לא בשמים היא,” and contrasts them with the sanctioned divine mechanism of the *Urim v’Tumim*, noting the Ramban in *Tetzaveh* that the letters light up without automatically spelling the answer, leaving room for human initiative.
- A *machlokes* between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish turns on whether inferior fruits can generate *kedushas bikkurim* and thus whether one who brings them is able to recite the *mikra bikkurim*. A pair of *baraisos* conflict about produce from a roof, a ruin, a flowerpot, and a boat, with one saying מביא וקורא and the other saying מביא ואינו קורא. Reish Lakish resolves the contradiction by splitting each category into higher and lower cases, distinguishing גג דמערה from גג דבית, חורבה עבודה from חורבה שאינה עבודה, עציץ נקוב from עציץ שאינו נקוב, and ספינה של חרס from ספינה של עץ, so that both *baraisos* can stand depending on whether the growing situation is treated as connected enough to land to warrant *kriah*.
- Rabbi Yochanan cannot harmonize the *baraisos* within his view that inferior produce does not attain *kedushah*, and the resolution becomes תנאי היא, with Rabbi Yochanan aligned to a *tanna* who holds that roof and ruin can still be cases of מביא וקורא, while a pot and a boat yield אינו מביא כל עיקר. A line from the earlier *Mishnah* that “וכולם אינם באים אלא מן המובחר” frames the broader standard that these offerings must be brought only from the best sources.
- The *Mishnah*’s standard that offerings come only מן המובחר includes identifying premier regions for *solet*, with Michmas and Zanoach described as אלפא לסולת and Efrayim in the valley as second tier. An *aggadic* exchange is tied to this, in which Yochna and Mamre say to Moshe “תבן אתה מביא לעפריים?” and Moshe responds “אמרי אינשי למתא ירקא ירקא שקול,” framing his activity as bringing goods to the market where they are valued.
- The *Be’er Yosef* (Rav Yosef of Salant) interprets the staff-to-snake sign as a moral message about Egyptian culpability: the Egyptians were meant to be only a מטה אלקים executing a divine decree, but they became like a נחש by adding cruelty beyond what was decreed, paralleling the Rambam’s and Ramban’s different explanations for why Egypt was punished despite *Bris Bein HaBesarim*. The *Be’er Yosef* connects this to the *Chazal* about animals confronting the snake for biting without benefit, portraying gratuitous harm as the snake’s defining trait. The *Margoliyos HaShas* highlights Rashi’s note that Moshe’s answer to Yochna and Mamre is “דברי ליצנות” in kind, teaching in the name of Rav Shimon Yosef Miller (cited via *Biurei Tzerichim*) that when mockers are not open to truth, direct theological argument will not change them and a response “בעניינם” is sometimes all that is possible.
- The *Mishnah* rules that the *omer* is not brought from a fertilized dump-field, from an irrigated field, or from a field with trees, though בדיעבד such an *omer* is valid. The field preparation is described as ניר שנה ראשונה and then in the second year sowing seventy days before Pesach to produce abundant *solet*, and the *gizbar* tests the flour by placing a hand into it so that dust indicates פסולה עד שינפנה, while worminess renders it פסולה. The *Gemara* questions whether the *Mishnah* requires plowing again in the second year, and a *baraisa* cited in the name of Rabbi Yosi describes specially prepared southern-exposure fields, including “חורש ושונה,” and details the full sequence of processing through harvesting, threshing, winnowing, separating, grinding, and sifting, with an added view in the name of Rabbi Nosson that the *gizbar* oils his hand so dust will adhere.
- The apparent discrepancy between the *Mishnah* and *baraisa* about repeated plowing is resolved by distinguishing cultivated fields from those not cultivated, and a further *baraisa* about alternating half a field each year, ניר חציה וזורע חציה, supports the notion that not every second-year sowing is preceded by additional plowing. Rashi explains that the land cannot sustain full planting annually and needs alternating rest, and the shiur links this to the Rambam in *Moreh Nevuchim* who gives an agricultural strengthening rationale for *shemittah*, alongside the *Kli Yakar* who records objections that exile for violating *shemittah* implies a “שבת לה'” beyond agronomy and brings other themes such as *maaseh bereishis*, divine ownership, and *bitachon* and *emunah*.
- Rabbi Yochanan states that the *omer* is brought only from southern-exposure fields in *Eretz Yisrael* where the sun rises and sets upon them, and a *baraisa* records Abba Shaul’s tradition that it came from Bik’as Beis Makleh, a field of about three *se’ah* prepared with alternating halves. A story about Rav Chelkiah bar Tovi applying the alternating-half practice reports that his yield doubled and produced superior wheat.
- The *Gemara* distinguishes between wormy flour and wormy wheat, declaring פסול when רוב is wormy, and Rabbi Yirmiyah asks whether “majority” refers to רוב חיטה or רוב סאה, leaving the question as תיקו. Rava asks whether one who consecrates wormy flour receives *malkus* משום בעל מום, weighing whether פסul items are treated “כבעל מום” or whether *ba’al mum* applies only to animals, and the question remains תיקו, with a note that the Rambam treats the unresolved case as a ספק with מכת מרדות in *Hilchos Issurei Mizbe’ach*.
- A parallel *Mishnah* rules that any wormy wood is invalid for the *mizbeach*, and Shmuel limits the disqualification to moist wood while permitting dry wood to be scraped and peeled clean. Rava repeats the *ba’al mum* question for consecrated wormy wood, and the repetition is explained in the Radbaz as reflecting different steps of similarity to a *korban*, where one might have distinguished wood from *menachos* even if both are ultimately unresolved in the *Gemara*.
- A new *Mishnah* section states that Tekoa is אלפא לשמן and that Abba Shaul names Regav in *Ever HaYarden* as second, while also stating that all lands are *kosher* but these places were preferred. The *Mishnah* disqualifies oil from olives grown in dump-fields, irrigated fields, or where seed was planted among them, though בדיעבד it is valid, and it permits *b’dieved* oil called *anpakton*. The *Mishnah* invalidates oil made from olives that fell into water, pickled olives, or cooked/boiled olives, even בדיעבד.
- The *Gemara* asks why Yoav sent to Tekoa to find a wise woman for David and explains in Rabbi Yochanan’s name that since they are רגילים בשמן זית, חכמה מצויה בהן, treating oil as associated with wisdom. A *baraisa* expounds “וטובל בשמן רגלו” as Asher’s portion, where oil flows like a spring, and a story describes people from Ludkia sending an agent to procure an immense quantity of oil. The agent is directed from Jerusalem to Tzur to Gush Chalav and then to a man found working his own land, who appears poor while clearing stones and carrying tools, yet returns home to wash with hot water and then dip hands and feet into oil from a golden vessel, fulfilling “וטובל בשמן רגלו,” and supplies the requested oil with even more available on credit. The story concludes with the moral verse “יש מתעשר ואין כל ומתרושש והון רב,” portraying hidden wealth beneath simple appearance.
- A closing remark attributes to the Ran in *Shabbos* an explanation for Chanukah’s eight days that it took four days to travel to Tekoa and four days to return with oil. The shiur ends with a note that the *parsha shiur* is up and with mention of a *minhag* around Erev Rosh Chodesh Nisan to say the prayer of the Shelah HaKadosh, preserved as stated: ערב ראש חודש סיון.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions