Menachot 64aמנחות ס״ד א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 64a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
64aס״ד א

אימא לך כרבנן סבירא ליה

I could say to you that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that the entire animal should be flayed.

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא התם אלא דאיתעביד ליה צורך גבוה ולא צריך אחולי שבת אבל הכא דלא איתעביד ליה צורך גבוה וצריך לאחולי שבת אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

Alternatively, it is possible that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, states his ruling only there, in the case of the Paschal offering, where the requirements for the Most High, i.e., the Temple service, have been fulfilled, and therefore there is no need to desecrate the Shabbat. But here, where the community must bring a select tenth of an ephah and therefore the requirements for the Most High have not been fulfilled, and it is necessary to desecrate the Shabbat, say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one reaps the same amount of barley on Shabbat as during the week.

אלא אמר רבה ר' ישמעאל ורבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אמרו דבר אחד דתנן רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר בשבת נקצר ביחיד במגל אחד ובקופה אחת ובחול בשלשה בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות וחכמים אומרים אחד שבת ואחד חול בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות

Rather, Rabba said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said the same thing. As we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual with one sickle and with one basket into which the barley was placed; and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and with three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, it was reaped by three people with three baskets and with three sickles.

מי לא קאמר ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים התם כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן הכא נמי כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן

The Gemara explains Rabba’s comparison: Doesn’t Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, say there, with regard to the process of gathering the barley, that since it is possible to reap by means of one person, we do not exert ourselves to reap it by means of three? Here, too, Rabbi Yishmael maintains that since it is possible to bring the omer meal offering from three se’a of barley, we do not exert ourselves on Shabbat to bring it from five se’a.

ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' ישמעאל הכא אלא דליכא פרסומי מילתא אבל התם דאיכא פרסומי מילתא אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

The Gemara rejects this comparison: From where is this conclusion reached? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states his ruling only here, because there is no greater publicity of the event achieved by using five se’a rather than three. But there, in the case of reaping the barley, where there is greater publicity of the event through the involvement of more people, one can say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר ר' חנינא סגן הכהנים התם דאי בחד אי בשלשה צורך גבוה מיתעביד כהלכתו אבל הכא דלא איתעביד כהלכתו צורך גבוה אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

Alternatively, perhaps Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, states his ruling only there, as whether one individual or three people reap, the rite is still being performed in its proper manner for the requirement of the Most High. But here, when only three se’a are used, and the rite is not being performed in its proper manner for the requirement of the Most High, as five se’a are usually needed, say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that on Shabbat the mitzva is performed in the same manner as on a weekday.

אלא אמר רב אשי רבי ישמעאל ורבי יוסי אמרו דבר אחד דתנן בין שנראה בעליל ובין שלא נראה בעליל מחללין עליו את השבת רבי יוסי אומר אם נראה בעליל אין מחללין עליו את השבת

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yosei said the same thing. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 21b): Whether the new moon was seen clearly [ba’alil] by everyone or whether it was not seen clearly, one may desecrate the Shabbat in order to testify about its appearance. Rabbi Yosei says: If the moon was clearly seen, witnesses may not desecrate the Shabbat for it, as other witnesses located nearer to the court will certainly testify. If these distant witnesses go to court to testify, they will desecrate Shabbat unnecessarily.

מי לא אמר ר' יוסי התם כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן הכא נמי כיון דאפשר לא טרחינן

The Gemara explains Rav Ashi’s comparison: Didn’t Rabbi Yosei say there: Since it is possible to receive testimony about the new moon without further witnesses, we do not exert ourselves and travel on Shabbat? Here, too, Rabbi Yishmael holds that since it is possible to bring the omer meal offering from three se’a of barley, we do not exert ourselves on Shabbat to bring it from five se’a.

ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי ישמעאל הכא אלא דליכא נמצאת אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבא אבל התם דנמצאת אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבא אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

The Gemara rejects this comparison: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Yishmael states only here that three se’a are brought on Shabbat, as there is no concern that ultimately you will cause people to stumble in the future and refrain from bringing the omer offering. But there, in the case of witnesses testifying about the new moon, he concedes that all potential witnesses may travel on Shabbat because if not, you will cause them to stumble in the future. People will say: Why should we go to such trouble, as our testimony is unnecessary? Yet at some point they will be needed, and no witnesses will come to the court. Therefore, in that case one can say that Rabbi Yishmael agrees with this reasoning and holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם אלא דליכא צורך גבוה ולא ניתנה שבת לדחות אבל הכא דאיכא צורך גבוה וניתנה שבת לדחות אימא כרבנן סבירא ליה

Alternatively, it is possible that Rabbi Yosei states his ruling only there, with regard to the new moon, as this is not a requirement for the Most High, and therefore Shabbat may not be desecrated. But here, as the omer meal offering is a requirement for the Most High, and therefore Shabbat may be desecrated for it, say that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that on Shabbat the mitzva is performed in the same manner as on a weekday.

איתמר שחט שתי חטאות של ציבור ואינו צריך אלא אחת אמר רבה ואיתימא רבי אמי חייב על השניה ופטור על הראשונה ואפילו נתכפר לו בשניה ואפילו נמצאת ראשונה כחושה

§ It was stated in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 5:7): If one mistakenly slaughtered two communal sin offerings, e.g., the goat offerings of a Festival, on a Festival that occurred on Shabbat, and only one was required, Rabba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ami who said: He is liable for the second, superfluous communal sin offering, but is exempt for the first. And this is the halakha even if he achieved atonement with the second offering, e.g., if the blood of the first offering was spilled after the slaughter of the second. And this is the halakha even if the first offering was found to be gauntand thereby disqualified as an offering, which meant that only the second offering was fit.

ומי אמר רבה הכי והא אמר רבה היו לפניו שתי חטאות אחת שמינה ואחת כחושה שחט שמינה ואח"כ שחט כחושה חייב כחושה ואח"כ שמינה פטור ולא עוד אלא שאומרים לו הבא שמינה לכתחלה ושחוט

The Gemara asks: And in a case where the first animal was found to be gaunt, did Rabba really say this? But doesn’t Rabba say that if one had before him two communal sin offerings on Shabbat, one choice animal and one gaunt, and he slaughtered the choice one and then slaughtered the gaunt one, he is liable for the gaunt animal, as it should not have been slaughtered. But if he first slaughtered the gaunt one and subsequently slaughtered the choice animal, he is exempt for slaughtering the choice animal. And moreover, members of the court say to him after he slaughtered the gaunt animal: Bring the choice animal and slaughter it ab initio. If so, in a case where the first animal was found to be gaunt, he certainly should not be liable for slaughtering the second.

איבעית אימא סמי כחושה מקמייתא ואיבעית אימא ההיא רבי אמי אמרה

The Gemara answers: If you wish, say: Remove [semei] the clause with regard to the gaunt animal from the first statement of Rabba. In other words, Rabba merely said that he is exempt for the slaughter of the first animal; he did not state a ruling about the second animal. And if you wish, say instead that the ruling that he is liable for the slaughter of the second animal was stated by Rabbi Ami, not Rabba.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי נמצאת הראשונה כחושה בבני מעיין מהו בתר מחשבתו אזלינן וגברא לאיסורא קא מיכוין או דלמא בתר מעשיו אזלינן

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If the first offering is found to be gaunt, i.e., weakened, in its intestines after it was slaughtered, what is the halakha? Do we follow his intention and hold him accountable, and this man, who was unaware at the time of its slaughter that the first animal was gaunt, intended to transgress the Shabbat prohibition by slaughtering the second offering? Or perhaps we follow his actions and exempt him from liability, as the first offering had been disqualified when he brought the second.

א"ל לאו היינו דרבה ורבא דאיתמר שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים חייב להעלות דגים והעלה דגים ותינוק רבא אמר חייב ורבה אמר פטור

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Isn’t this the same as a case subject to a disagreement between Rabba and Rava, and in fact both agree that in this case he is liable? As it was stated: If one heard that a child was drowning at sea, and he spread a net to raise fish and the result was that he raised only fish, he is liable for transgressing the Shabbat prohibition of trapping. If he intended to raise fish, and he raised both fish and the child, Rava says: He is liable, as his intention was to transgress a prohibition, and Rabba says: He is exempt, as his act saved a life and was therefore permitted on Shabbat.

ועד כאן רבה לא קא פטר אלא כיון דשמע אמרינן נמי דעתיה אתינוק אבל לא שמע לא

The Gemara explains why everyone would agree that one is liable in the case involving two offerings. And Rabba deemed him exempt only there, since the one who spread the net heard that a child had fallen in, and therefore we say that his intention in spreading the net was also to save the child. But had he not heard that the child had fallen in, he would not be exempt. This is comparable to the case of two offerings, where he could not have known before its slaughter that the first animal had weak intestines.

ואיכא דאמרי אמר ליה היינו פלוגתייהו דרבה ורבא דאיתמר שמע שטבע תינוק בים ופרש מצודה להעלות דגים והעלה דגים חייב להעלות דגים והעלה תינוק ודגים רבה אמר פטור ורבא אמר חייב רבה אמר פטור זיל בתר מעשיו ורבא אמר חייב זיל בתר מחשבתו

And there are those who say that Rav Ashi said to Ravina conclusively: This is subject to the disagreement between Rabba and Rava. As it was stated: If one heard that a child was drowning at sea, and he spread a net to raise fish and the result was that he raised only fish, he is liable for transgressing the Shabbat prohibition of trapping. If he intended to raise fish, and he raised both fish and the child, Rava says: He is liable, and Rabba says: He is exempt. Rav Ashi adds that Rabba did not exempt him because he heard that a child was drowning. Rather, Rabba says that he is exempt because one follows his actions, whereas Rava says that he is liable because one follows his intention. Consequently, the same dispute applies to the case of two offerings.

אמר רבה חולה שאמדוהו לגרוגרת אחת ורצו עשרה בני אדם והביאו עשרה גרוגרות בבת אחת פטורין אפילו בזה אחר זה אפילו קדם והבריא בראשונה

§ The Gemara continues its discussion concerning performing extra prohibited labor on Shabbat in extenuating circumstances where the desecration of Shabbat is allowed. Rabba says: With regard to a dangerously ill person on Shabbat whom the doctors evaluated as needing to eat one fig to regain his health, and ten men ran and each cut and brought ten figs simultaneously, one each, they are all exempt from liability for transgressing the prohibition of reaping on Shabbat. This applies even in a case where the ten come one after the other, and even if the ill person had already recovered his health by eating the first fig.

בעי רבא חולה שאמדוהו לשתי גרוגרות ויש שתי גרוגרות בשתי עוקצין ושלש בעוקץ אחת הי מינייהו מייתינן שתים מייתינן דחזו ליה או דלמא שלש מייתינן דקא ממעטא קצירה

Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of a dangerously ill person on Shabbat whom the doctors evaluated as needing to eat two figs to regain his health, and there are two figs attached to a tree by two stems [okatzin] and another three figs attached to the tree by one stem, which one of them do we bring? Do we bring two figs, as that is the amount that is fit for him, i.e., this is the number of figs the ill person needs? Or perhaps we bring the three figs, as although he requires only two, this serves to limit the labor of reaping, as the three figs are attached to the tree by a single stem.

פשיטא שלש מייתינן

The Gemara answers: It is obvious that we bring the three figs,