Menachos 70
Summary
- Today's learning in Menachos daf 70 resumes the Amoraic *ibei’os* about how the *Korban Omer* permits *chadash* in the *gevulin* and how later growth affects halachic status, with an added emphasis on *zera’im* questions tied mainly to the *Omer*. The daf then brings the Mishnah of the five grains and their laws of *challah*, combination for measures, and *chadash*, followed by derivations that only these grains qualify for *matzah* and *challah* because they can become *chametz*. The latter part expands into practical halachic history and controversy about *chadash* in *chutz la’aretz*, presenting the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling and major proposed justifications for widespread leniencies, contrasted sharply with the Vilna Gaon’s rejection of those justifications and his demand for full stringency.
- Today's daf is Menachos daf 70, starting 12 lines from the bottom of daf 69b at *Ba’i Rav Shimon ben Pazi*. Today's learning is as a *zechus refuah sheleimah* for חוה מרים בת מלכה פרידה, שלמה בן חיה לאה, ברוך יצחק בן שפרה מירל, and רחל בת העני. The learning continues in the sixth *perek* on the halachos of the *Korban Omer* and the *Shtei HaLechem* as the matirim of *chadash* when the *Beis HaMikdash* stands, with the *Omer* permitting in the *gevulin* and the *Shtei HaLechem* permitting in the *Beis HaMikdash*.
- The definition of *tevuah chadashah* depends on whether the crop was *hishrish* before the *Korban Omer* is brought, because whatever rooted beforehand is permitted by the *Omer* and whatever did not root must wait until the next year’s *Omer*. Rav Shimon ben Pazi asks about a *shibolet* that reached one-third growth before the *Omer*, was uprooted, replanted after the *Omer*, and then added growth, and he frames the doubt as whether the halacha follows the *ikar* so the *Omer* permits it or follows the later *tosefes* so it remains forbidden until the next *Omer*. Rashi explains the need for one-third growth by stating that otherwise it is *shachas* and not a proper *peri* for the *Omer* to be matir, while Tosafos in Pesachim explains the one-third as necessary because the *Omer* is only matir *tevuah* and *shachas* would not require the *Omer* at all, and Rashi adds that the case is where it increased only מעט. The Gemara attempts to resolve it from Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling of *yalda she’sibchah b’zekeinah* and from Rabbi Yonasan’s ruling about an onion planted in a vineyard, each teaching that even with *hosif b’masayim* the growth remains forbidden due to following the *ikar*, but it concludes that Rav Shimon ben Pazi’s doubt is whether that principle is definite both *l’kula* and *l’chumra* or only applied *l’chumra*. The sugya ends this first *ibei’a* with *teiku*.
- Rava asks how the same *ikar* versus *tosefes* framework applies to *maaser* in a case where one assessed and tithed produce, replanted it, and it then added growth. Abaye challenges the question by comparing it to ordinary wheat and barley, where one does not treat any part as already tithed after replanting, and Rava answers that his doubt is only in a case of *davar she’ein zar’o kaleh* rather than *davar she’zar’o kaleh*. The Gemara tries to resolve it from Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that *litra betzalim she’tiknah u’zera’ah mosifah lefi kulah*, which treats all subsequent growth as requiring tithing even though the original onion was already fixed, and it rejects the proof by distinguishing between normal planting (*hainu zeri’asah*) and an atypical mode (*lav hainu zeri’asah*). The sugya remains without a resolution for Rava’s question.
- Rav Chanina bar Manyumi asks Abaye about an *atzitz she’eino nakuv*, and Abaye interprets the intended case as one where it was later perforated so it becomes *nakuv* and continues growing, creating a transition from a *derabbanan* obligation to a *de’oraisa* obligation in *terumos u’ma’asros*. Abaye ties the question to Rava’s earlier doubt but distinguishes that here it is *chada zeri’ah hi* with the plant continuing as one growth, whereas Rava’s case involves *shtei zeri’os ninhu*. Abaye treats the perforation as a *chibbur* that creates the effective *hashrashah* and therefore does not allow splitting the produce into separate statuses as though they came from two plantings.
- Rav Abahu asks about ears of grain that underwent *miruach* in a vessel, were then replanted, and had *shem* of separation declared while still attached, with the doubt whether *miruach* already established full *tevel* so the later *kri’as shem* sanctifies it or whether replanting removes the *tevel* status. The Rabbis challenge Abaye that this would imply *matzinu terumah b’mechubar la’karka* even though the tradition states *lo matzinu terumah b’mechubar la’karka*. Abaye answers that *lo matzinu* refers to liability for *misah* and *chomesh* when a non-kohen eats it, because bending and eating while it remains attached is *batlah da’ato אצל כל אדם*, while detaching and eating could still trigger liability. The Gemara contrasts this with the *pinkasa d’Ailfa* case of an egg of *nevelas of tahor* that is partly inside and partly outside, and it answers that people do eat detached items that way while they do not eat produce attached to the ground that way.
- Shmuel, as reported by Rav Taviyumi bar Kisna, rules that one who plants *kilayim* in an *atzitz she’eino nakuv* produces something forbidden. Abaye says that if the statement means *lokeh malkus mardus derabbanan* it is a chiddush, but if it only means *assur* it seems obvious because a Mishnah already establishes that producing and separating from an *eino nakuv* has halachic standing as *terumah* at least *derabbanan*, requiring one to separate again due to *min ha’patur al ha’chiyuv*. Abaye treats that Mishnah as proof that planting in an *eino nakuv* counts as a meaningful *zeri’ah* on a rabbinic level.
- The Mishnah lists *chittin, se’orim, kusmin, shibolet shu’al,* and *shippon* as the five grains that are obligated in *challah*, combine with one another to complete the required measure, and are forbidden as *chadash* until the *Omer*, with a related restriction on harvesting before Pesach. The Mishnah states that if they rooted before the *Omer* then the *Omer* permits them, and if not then they remain forbidden until the next *Omer*. A baraisa classifies *kusmin* as a type of wheat and *shibolet shu’al* and *shippon* as types of barley and gives identifications: *kusmin* is גולבא, *shippon* is דישרא, and *shibolet shu’al* is שיבולי תעלא.
- The Gemara infers that these five are included and *orez* and *dochan* are excluded, and it asks for the source that only these grains generate *challah*. Reish Lakish derives *lechem lechem* from *matzah*, linking *והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ* to *לחם עוני*. The Gemara then derives the five-grain requirement for *matzah* itself from the juxtaposition of *chametz* and *matzah*, establishing that only substances that can become *chimutz* qualify, while those that do not become *chametz* but only spoil are excluded.
- A baraisa teaches that *tevuah*, *kemachim*, and *betzakos* combine with each other, and Amoraim apply this combination to different halachos, including *chadash*, *chametz b’Pesach*, *maaser sheni* outside the wall, and *tum’as ochlin*. Rava explains that for *tum’ah* the *tevuah* and *kemach* must be like the dough in being *ochel b’einei* and not merely waste, excluding barley husks and bran from counting toward the *k’beitza* measure. A supporting baraisa distinguishes wheat, which combines whether peeled or not, from barley, which combines only when peeled, and the Gemara challenges this from a teaching in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that seed becomes susceptible to tum’ah in the normal planting state, including barley in its husk. The Gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing between *lachus* and *yaveshus*, treating the husk as a *shomer* only when moist.
- The Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh De’ah 293:2 rules that *issur chadash* applies in Eretz Yisrael and *chutz la’aretz* for Jewish and non-Jewish grain, and the major Rishonim led by the Rambam, Rif, and Rosh treat it as *de’oraisa* even in *chutz la’aretz*. The daf’s recap frames the primary Tannaic presentation as a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Chachamim in Kiddushin about whether *chadash* is one of the mitzvos that applies outside the land, while other sources complicate the picture by aligning Rabbi Akiva’s reading of *moshvos* with Rabbi Eliezer and by citing Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s statement that *chadash, orlah,* and *kilayim* apply both in and out of the land. The narrative cites a *stam Mishnah* in Orlah stating *החדש אסור מן התורה בכל מקום* and contrasts it with a *stam Mishnah* in Menachos 83b indicating that the *Omer* and *Shtei HaLechem* require *chadash* and therefore must come from Eretz Yisrael, implying no *chadash* *de’oraisa* in *chutz la’aretz*. The sugya in Menachos 68b is used to show differing Babylonian practices, with Rav Pappa and Rav Huna brei d’Rav Yehoshua treating it as *derabbanan* and the *Rabbanei d’bei Rav Ashi* treating it as *de’oraisa*, and it notes the conceptual difficulty of a *derabbanan* model when the Tannaic dispute seems binary.
- The Rema offers a *sfek sfeika* to permit *stam tevuah* after Pesach by doubting whether it is last year’s crop and, even if from this year, whether it rooted before the *Omer*, while warning that in places where planting is certainly after Pesach one should be stringent after harvest unless supply primarily comes from regions planted earlier. The Taz proposes that the Rishonim treated the issue as a safek of whether the *stam* and the *machlokes* in the Mishnayos come in one order or the other and therefore ruled stringently, allowing leniency only in *sha’as hadchak*. The Magen Avraham cites Rabbeinu Baruch that *chadash* in *chutz la’aretz* is *derabbanan* and applies only in regions near Eretz Yisrael to avoid confusion with produce of the land. The Bach asserts that *chadash* outside the land applies only to Jewish-owned grain and that this justifies the widespread custom, while also declaring that one should not publicly rule against the established permissive practice and limiting private stringency to recognized *chassidim*.
- The Vilna Gaon rejects the proposed justifications, stating about the Bach that *כבר היכו על קדקדו כל האחרונים* and that it would have been better not to cite his view, and he calls the Magen Avraham’s defense of *Sefer HaTerumah* very forced and not even adequate to justify the custom. The account cites *Ma’aseh Rav* that the Gra holds *חדש נוהג בזמן הזה בחוץ לארץ*, treats mixtures as forbidden *b’mino assur b’mashehu*, applies the prohibition equally to eating and drinking, restricts medicinal use to less than a shiur, and forbids instructing a Jew to buy items known to be *chadash* due to *lifnei iver*. The narrative also reports from *Kesser Rosh* that Rav Chaim Volozhiner intensifies stringency even regarding utensils of *chadash*, reflecting how severely the Gra’s beis midrash treats the issue.
- The Polish chassidish practice is attributed to testimony that the Chozeh of Lublin was lenient on *chadash*, and the *Avnei Nezer* (Choshen Mishpat 119) is cited as stating clearly that Polish chassidim’s lack of vigilance in *chadash* grew from the Chozeh’s table practice, which he justified by saying his ancestor the Bach permitted it. The same *Avnei Nezer* uses this to undermine proofs from the Chozeh’s praise of a questionable esrog, suggesting his behavior may follow the Bach’s permissive rulings rather than *ruach hakodesh* about the object’s status. A chassidish story is presented that the Baal Shem Tov initially was stringent, performed a dream inquiry, learned that Gehinnom was cooled for the Bach’s honor, and then became lenient, and a story from the end of *Megaleh Amukos al haTorah* depicts heavenly honors for the Bach and links them to his permission of *chadash*. The overall contrast is drawn between the Gra’s approach of treating *chadash* like any other fully binding prohibition and the chassidish approach of relying primarily on the Bach’s power of heter and the inherited minhag, with the continuation deferred to “the beis midrash of the Chasam Sofer.”
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions