Menachot 68aמנחות ס״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 68a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
68aס״ח א

מתוך שלא היתרתה לו אלא על ידי קיטוף זכור הוא

Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and not in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. With regard to searching for leaven, there is no reminder.

אמר ליה אביי תינח קצירה טחינה והרקדה מאי איכא למימר

Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to picking the grain. But with regard to grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern that one may eat the grain at that stage?

הא לא קשיא טחינה בריחיא דידא הרקדה על גבי נפה

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed unusually, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern that one might eat the grain.

בית השלחין דשריא קצירה דתנן קוצרין בית השלחין שבעמקים אבל לא גודשין מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara raises another difficulty from the case of a field that requires irrigation, where typical harvesting is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (71a): One may harvest grain from an irrigated field and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce. The use of the term: One may harvest, indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand. In this case, what can be said? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest someone eat from the new grain?

אלא אמר אביי חדש בדיל מיניה חמץ לא בדיל מיניה

Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that one distances himself from new grain, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is sacrificed. By contrast, one does not distance himself from leavened bread, as eating it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to eat leavened bread unwittingly.

אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא

Rava said: Does the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda pose a difficulty, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis does not pose a difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.

אלא אמר רבא דר' יהודה אדר' יהודה לא קשיא כדשנינן דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא הוא עצמו מחזר עליו לשורפו מיכל אכיל מיניה

Rather, Rava said that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it previously. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after it becomes prohibited, as with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven specifically in order to burn it, will he eat from it? By contrast, in the case of new grain he is processing the grain and preparing it for consumption. Consequently, there is a concern that he might eat it unwittingly.

רב אשי אמר דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה לא קשיא קמח קלי תנן

Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in another manner. As we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour of parched grain. It is permitted to prepare only such foods before the omer, as they are not eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.

והא דרב אשי ברותא היא תינח מקלי ואילך עד קלי מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: And this statement of Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as this suggestion can easily be refuted: That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that it was processed into flour of parched grain and forward, as there is no concern that perhaps one will come to eat it. But with regard to its status initially, until it became parched grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into parched grain. Why is there no concern that one might eat the kernels at this earlier stage?

וכי תימא הכא נמי ע"י קיטוף וכדרבה בית השלחין דשריא קצירה מאי איכא למימר אלא הא דרב אשי ברותא היא:

And if you would say that here too the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, through picking by hand, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rabba, nevertheless with regard to the difficulty raised to Rabba’s opinion from the case of an irrigated field, which is permitted to be harvested in the typical manner, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that this statement of Rav Ashi is an error.

מתני׳ משקרב העומר הותר חדש מיד הרחוקים מותרין מחצות היום ולהלן משחרב בהמ"ק התקין ר' יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא יום הנף כולו אסור

MISHNA: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. For those distant from Jerusalem, the new crop is permitted from midday and beyond. From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited, i.e., one may partake of the new crop only the next day.

אמר ר' יהודה והלא מן התורה הוא אסור שנאמר (ויקרא כג, יד) עד עצם היום הזה מפני מה הרחוקים מותרין מחצות היום ולהלן מפני שהן יודעין שאין ב"ד מתעצלין בו:

Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn’t it forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14)? This means that the new crop is prohibited on the day of the waving unless permitted by sacrifice of the offering. And if so, for what reason is it permitted for those distant to eat the new crop from midday and beyond, when the Temple is standing? It is due to the fact that they know that the members of the court are not indolent in its sacrifice, and certainly by midday the sacrifice of the omer offering has been completed.

גמ׳ רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים עומר מתיר בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים האיר מזרח מתיר

GEMARA: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as presented in the mishna, is that after the destruction of the Temple the new crop is prohibited throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law. With regard to the dissenting opinion that the new crop is permitted on the sixteenth of Nisan, Rav and Shmuel both say: When the Temple is standing, the sacrifice of the omer offering permits the new crop. When the Temple is not standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon on the sixteenth of Nisan permits it.

מאי טעמא תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב (ויקרא כג, יד) עד (יום) הביאכם וכתיב עד עצם היום הזה הא כיצד

The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Two verses are written with regard to the new crop. More precisely, there are two clauses in the same verse: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14). It is written that the new crop is prohibited “until you have brought the offering,” and it is also written that the new crop is prohibited only “until the selfsame day.” How so? How can these clauses be reconciled?

כאן בזמן שבית המקדש קיים כאן בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים

The Gemara answers: Here, when the verse permits the new crop only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, it is referring to the period when the Temple is standing. There, when the verse permits the new crop immediately upon the sixteenth of Nisan, it is speaking of the period when the Temple is not standing.

ר' יוחנן וריש לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו בזמן שבית המקדש קיים האיר מזרח מתיר והכתיב עד הביאכם למצוה

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: Even when the Temple is standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon permits the new crop. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Until you have brought the offering,” which indicates that the new crop is not permitted at daybreak, but only after the omer offering is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the omer offering is brought ab initio, in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but nevertheless it is permitted at daybreak.

משקרב העומר הותר חדש מיד למצוה

The Gemara raises another difficulty. The mishna states: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. This indicates that the new crop is not permitted at the illumination of the eastern horizon. The Gemara again answers that the mishna means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but it is permitted at daybreak.

העומר היה מתיר במדינה ושתי הלחם במקדש למצוה

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty from the next mishna (68b): Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country [bamedina] outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering permitted the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. Here, too, the Gemara answers: One should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion.