The ArtScroll edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Menachot, daf samech-tet (folio 69). Today’s daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Ester and Rebbi Moshe ben Nora, ruach Hashem tenichem beGan Eden. We begin today’s daf on samech-tet, amud rishon (first side). We are on the second line.
Ba'i Rami bar Chama: shtei halechem, hanatzah sharya or chanatah sharya? The shtei halechem brought on Shavuot (Feast of Weeks) is matir (permits) the new crop—the new crop for the Beit HaMikdash. The question is: the crop has to be in the field already. How much of it has to grow? Does it have to reach the stage of hanatzah? Hanatzah is where it starts to bud. Or is chanatah sharya? Chanatah is already even before, Rashi says. Or chanatah, she'ein chanatah havi peri yoter mehanatzah. Rashi says the opposite: chanatah havi peri yoter mehanatzah. Hanatzah is earlier, and chanatah is later on. So at which stage of growth do we consider it grown, such that the shtei halechem will be matir it? Is it the earlier stage called hanatzah, or the later stage called chanatah? That is the Gemara’s question.
The Gemara asks, mai hanatzah u'mai chanatah? Good question. What is it? Ileima hanatzah depeira vechanatah depeira: if you are telling me it is talking about hanatzah of the peri—that is, the fruit—then this is discussing the stage of development of the fruit. Hashta hashrashah sharya, hanatzah vechanatah miba'ya? We know that by wheat, for example, the Gemara said earlier that the rooting is matir. Once it has rooted in the ground, it is already considered grown enough for the shtei halechem to be matir. So now we are discussing what level of development the fruit has to reach? It is already muttar from the hashrashah, from the rooting, from the roots, when it takes root.
Ela hanatzah de'alei vechanatah de'alei. You are right; we are not talking about the fruit. It is about an earlier stage, the development of the leaves, the alim. That is the Gemara’s question. By the time you get to the fruit, for sure it has already grown enough for the shtei halechem to be matir. We are discussing what development the earliest stage of the leaves has to reach: mi havya kehashrashah o lo? Are the leaves considered like hashrashah, like taking root, or not? The Gemara leaves that in a teiku. Good. By tevu'ah, it is when it takes root.
The Gemara wants to know about other fruit, because we learned that the bikkurim—the shtei halechem is not only matir the wheat; it is matir all the fruits, the zayin minim (seven species), for the Beit HaMikdash. So we want to know: by wheat, the cutoff point is that it was already in the ground before the shtei halechem and had taken root. What is the stage for the other fruits? Is it hanatzah or chanatah? The Gemara says that is teiku.
Od pa'am, they used to bring bikkurim on Shavuot, the first fruit. But you cannot bring the first fruit until you bring the shtei halechem. The shtei halechem is matir the first fruit to be brought. The question is: at what stage does the first fruit have to be when the shtei halechem is brought, in order to bring the bikkurim from them? Hanatzah or chanatah? Teiku.
Rabbah bar bar Chanan asks: chitin shezera'an beqarqa, omer matiran o ein omer matiran? Simple question. Chitin—you planted them in the ground. We bring the omer on the second day of Pesach. The omer is matir anything that is in the ground. The question in the Gemara is seemingly difficult to understand. Of course, if it is in the ground, the omer will be matir that product to eat, even for hedyot. So the Gemara asks, heichi damei? I de'ashrosh, if it already took root, so then tanina—we learned it already: it is mutar. As long as the wheat took root in the ground, the law is that the omer is matir it. I delo ashrosh, and if it did not take root, we also learned that. Detnan: im hishrishu kodem la'Omer, Omer matiram, ve'im lav asurin ad sheyavo Omer haba. Very simple. If it took root already, this omer is matir it. If it did not take root already, then the next omer is matir it.
So what is the she'eilah? You put the wheat in the ground—did it take root or not? A very simple discussion. What is the Gemara’s question? Lo tzricha, dechatzdinhu vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer ve'ata Omer vechalaf alayhu vekamiba'ya lan, mahu lemeinkat umeichal minayhu? It was in the ground already before the omer. It took root before the omer, too. But then you cut it. You cut the wheat and stored it in the ground. That is what they used to do; that is how they stored the wheat in those days: they would bury it back in the ground. Now, the new stuff did not take root before this omer, but the old stuff did. The Gemara’s question is: can we just say that it goes according to what it was, and therefore, since it took root in the original plant, now you are just storing it in the ground—you planted it again—and it is considered to have taken root, so this omer will be matir it? Or do we say no: now that you put it in the ground, the new stuff has not taken root yet; it is like you replanted it, and therefore you have to wait until next year’s omer?
Od pa'am, you had wheat that grew in the ground, took root, and everything was fine. You cut it. That is what you do with wheat: you cut it. Where did you put this wheat? In the ground again. Take the stalks and put them back in the ground. That’s how they stored them, like. So the question is: the new stuff did not take root, so maybe I have to wait for the new stuff until the next omer. Or do I say no, it is based on the original plant it came from? The original plant already took root. Therefore, what you are putting in the ground now is already rooted, basically, and this omer will be matir it.
The old one that is already in the ground is vadai (certainly) mutar, because it took root. But I cut it! Now I took wheat and put it back in the ground. It reroots, yes, sure. You put it back; it will reroot. That is what he does: he is storing it in the ground. He is storing it in the ground. Look at the Gemara; read it again. Lo tzricha—I’m reading it again—dechatzdinhu. Rashi says, dechatzdinhu vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer; Rashi says, delo sharinhu Omer de'ishtakad delo hishrishu besha'at Omer zeh. Right, they did not take root during this cycle of the omer.
So the Gemara gives a safek: vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer ve'ata Omer vechalaf alayhu vekamiba'ya lan mahu lemeinkat umeichal minayhu—could you eat from them? Why? What is the she'eilah? Keman deshadya bechada damya vesharinhu Omer? Do I say that putting it back in the ground is like putting it in a kli (vessel)? That means it is like you cut them up, and just because you put them in a kli in the ground, so what? It is like you put them in a basket, and therefore it is mutar. O dilma batilu legabei ar'a? Or do I say no: once you stored it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, and therefore you have to wait until it takes root again?
If I took the wheat and put it in a basket, everybody agrees it is mutar once I bring the omer; it already grew. The she'eilah is when you put it back in the ground. Do I say, “Mah ichpat”—putting it in the ground is like putting it in a basket? Or do I say no: once you put it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, and once it becomes batel to the ground, it has to take root again? That is the Gemara; that is Rashi. Keman deshadya bechada damya vesharinhu Omer deha de'amran ve'im lav asurin ad sheyavo Omer haba begiduleihen mai, o dilma batlinhu agav ar'a vechi lakit lehu kegidulin damei. The question is: do we have to wait for it to grow again or not?
Now, we have another rule. We have laws called ona'ah. You are not allowed to overcharge or misrepresent something when you are selling it, correct? We have a general rule: ein ona'ah becharka. When it comes to real estate, you can charge whatever you want. We do not say, “Oh, it was gouging; it was overpricing.” In real estate, people pay whatever they want. The laws of ona'ah apply to movables, tangibles. That is the law of ona'ah.
This question will apply here as well: when you put the wheat in the ground like this, do you consider the wheat to have become part of the ground, so there is no ona'ah in the transaction we will discuss? Or do you say no, the wheat you put back in the ground is still considered a movable, and therefore there will be ona'ah? Is this wheat that you replanted in the ground considered karka (land)? You just said it is batel to the karka. So, legabei ona'ah, will there be ona'ah or not? The Gemara asks: yesh lahen ona'ah o ein lahen ona'ah. Heichi damei? Rashi says, dekayma lan beBava Metzia ein ona'ah lekarka'ot.
Good. What is the case? Ileima de'amar leih shadai bah shita ve'atu sahadei ve'amri delo shada bah ela chamsha, veha'amar Rava kol davar shebemidah veshebemishkal veshebeminyan afilu pachot mikedei ona'ah chozer. Okay, what is the case? The rule in ona'ah is: if I tell a guy a number for how much I am selling him—“I’m selling you six”—and I only sell him five, even though percentage-wise I am off by only a sixth, which is okay for ona'ah—normally, as long as you are within a sixth of the price, you are okay. But that is only when you are selling generally. When I tell the guy, “I’m selling you six,” and I give him five, since I told him a number, that is a midah, that is a minyan. That is not called ona'ah; that is called mekach ta'ut, a total misrepresentation, and the sale is void even by karka.
That means that if the case is “I’m selling you six” and he gives him five, even if you want to tell me that this wheat is karka and there is no ona'ah, since he told him befirush a number, he has to give him that number. There is no room even to be off by a sixth. So that cannot be the case, because that would be called a mekach ta'ut vechozer, and the sale is nullified.
Ela de'amar leih—the case must be like this: shadai bah kideba'eila. The guy said, “I put enough wheat in the ground for it to produce, you know, kideba'eila.” Meaning, “I planted enough; you know, the proper amount.” Ve'atu sahadei ve'amri delo shada bah kideba'eila. Then the witnesses come along and say, “No, he didn’t put enough in the ground.” There was a certain amount that you normally plant. He did not give him a number. He said, “I want to sell you this wheat over here, and you should know I planted enough wheat, like it’s needed.” And the witnesses come along and say after, and then he bought it. The witnesses come along and say, “No, no, he fooled you. He didn’t plant enough accordingly.” And it was within that sixth ratio of error.
So the law is: that is ona'ah. If it is ona'ah, then you are able to return it and ask for your money back. If it is not ona'ah, okay, then there is no money back. So the question is: is it karka or not? If you consider putting the wheat back in the ground to make it karka, then there are no ona'ah rules here. I do not care if he underdid it or overdid it; it does not matter. There is no ona'ah. But if you say it has a din of wheat, then there is the regular law of ona'ah. So the Gemara says: yesh lahem ona'ah, dechema'an deshadi'a bekada damya veyesh lahem ona'ah. Like I told you, do we consider it like he took the wheat and, even though he put it in the ground, it is like he put it in a basket? If you put it in a basket, then it is still considered a tangible, a movable. O dilma batil hu legabei ar'a? Or you can say no, it is batel to the karka, and therefore there is no ona'ah. That is the Gemara’s question legabei ona'ah.
Okay, next question. “Yes, yeah. What, I put it in the ground, it’s a—” Well, is the wheat batel to the karka? A tree. A tree is karka. When I sell you a field with a tree on it, what is the tree, movable? The tree has roots in the ground. Very good! The wheat has land under it, also. “I’m selling you the tree.” Right? I’m selling you the tree, but the tree has a din of karka, because the tree is batel to the ground.
“Right. Is the wheat—” No, I’m selling you the wheat! I’m selling him the land also, but the question is legabei the wheat. That is why the ona'ah was in the wheat calculation. I said, “I planted enough wheat for this amount,” and then we find out that he did not plant enough wheat. So legabei the wheat, how do you consider it? If you consider that when you replant it, it is like you are just putting it in a basket, it is movable; there is ona'ah. If you consider that once you replant it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, now it is ground again. Ground again is karka.
We are talking about the movable in the ground. He is buying the ground as well, but the deal here—the ona'ah—was not on the ground part. The ona'ah was not on the ground. The ona'ah was on the wheat, because he is selling him the wheat too. He is telling him, “A certain shi'ur of wheat I’m selling you is this.” So the guy said, “Ah!” Not secondary. He wants to buy the field with wheat in it. Yes. So he is saying, “Listen, I’m buying—you know, I planted enough wheat in there according to the yield, whatever it’s supposed to yield. Don’t worry about it.” Okay, so the guy is buying wheat as well. So legabei the karka, you can’t take me to beit din and say, “You overcharged me; you doubled the price.” There is no ona'ah by karka.
“Okay, very good. But I bought this under the impression that there was enough wheat in the ground, so legabei the wheat, is there ona'ah?” “But why are you putting it into this scenario? If there’s enough, why do you say that the wheat is for $5 and usually this wheat sells for $4?” Again, because if it’s karka, I don’t care if you charge a thousand times the amount. I’m talking about the wheat. “I know, I’m talking about the wheat!” Because if the wheat is considered karka, if you charge a thousand times over the price, there’s no ona'ah.”
“Why are we going to a scenario where the witnesses said there’s enough, enough? Why don’t you say that he told—” That’s what it is! That’s what’s being said: “I sold you enough of this,” and he is saying, “You didn’t put enough wheat in the ground.” “Why not easier? I want $5 or $6.” No, no, no, because that is a mekach ta'ut. When you give numbers—“I’m selling you 5 lb,” and instead you give him 4 lb—that is a mekach ta'ut. “Not for the quantity, for the price! I’m selling it to you for $6, and this is selling in the market for $5.” Okay, so whether this case doesn’t make sense, this case—
“Why are you calling to is it witness, now not the same.” “How do you know? How do you know? In your case also you have to have witnesses, by the way. In your case, who’s proving the price?” “We know.” What do you mean, “We know”? In beit din you need witnesses, no “we know.” You’re trying to nullify my sale. “No, you’re trying to nullify my sale.” You’re just going to come to beit din and say, “We know”? So, okay, so we don’t know! We know, we don’t know. That’s why you have to have witnesses. Either way, you have to have witnesses. Witnesses always have to come and testify what the market price is, what the thing is. That’s for sure. Okay. Anyway, so that’s that dilemma as well.
Now, we have another law. Again, we are just getting into the details of how to consider this wheat that you replanted into the ground. The next detail is this: we have a law that sometimes, from the Torah, you swear. There is a Torah mandate to swear. For example, modeh bemiktzat: “You owe me a hundred.” I say, “I paid you 50.” So I’m modeh bemiktzat: “I paid you 50, but I owe you 50.” Ah, so beit din says I have to swear. But by karka there is no shevuah. It is only by movables.
So the Gemara asks: nishba'in aleihen o ein nishba'in aleihen? Kedei shedya bechada damya umetaltelei damu venishba'in aleihen, o dilma betilu agav ar'a uchimkark'ei damu ve'ein nishba'in aleihen? Teiku. The Gemara leaves that in a teiku as well.
Next question. Ba'ei Rami bar Chama: chitin shebigelelei vakar. There is wheat in the animal’s excrement, meaning it was not fully digested. It came out in the gelalim—either it came out in the bakar, or barley came out in the animal. Bottom line: wheat and barley that came out in the animal’s feces. Mahu? What is the din? What is the din legabei what? What are we asking here? What is mahu?
The Gemara says, lemai? For what halachah? Ileima letamuyei tumat ochlin: do we consider it food? Legabei if it receives tumah, does it have tumat ochlin, the special tumah called tumat ochlin? I can argue and say it is not food anymore. Once it went through the animal’s digestive system, it is considered excrement now. It does not have a din of food, and therefore it will not receive tumat ochlin. Or do I say no, bottom line, I can see it is still a piece of wheat. It obviously did not get digested, and therefore it has a din of tumat ochlin. Maybe that is the question.
The Gemara says, tanina: we know the answer to that question already. Chitin shebire'i vakar use'orim shebigelelei behemah. Clearly, the wheat and barley in the animal’s excrement: chashav aleihen la'achilah ein metamei tumat ochlin. If the guy saw the wheat there and just thought to himself, “You know what? I’m going to eat it,” the machashavah is not enough to put this back into the food situation. In this case, where it is in the excrement, saying, “You know what? I’m going to eat it,” does not turn it into ochel; the machashavah does not do that. You need a ma'aseh. However, liktan la'achilah—let’s say you plucked it out for the sake of eating it—once you have already done a ma'aseh, metamei tumat ochlin. That has a din of ochel.
So we know the answer to this question. If he plucked them out, he did not even clean them yet, but the kavanah is that you did a ma'aseh to eat it; it has a din of ochel. If he just said in his brain, “Hey, you know, I’m going to eat it,” it is not ochel yet. Yes, so that is the answer to that question.
The Gemara says, ela lemenachot. That is the she'eilah: can I bring this stuff for a minchah? You have to bring omer, no? There is barley. Or there is a minchah—forget about that, a regular minchah; I want to use it. The Gemara says, could that be a question? Lemenachot peshita dela. Of course you cannot bring this for a minchah. Why? Hakrivehu na lefichatecha hayirtzecha o hayisa fanecha? Go bring this to the governor as a gift. Will he accept it? Are you going to bring the Bore Olam this stuff? Bushah! It is disgusting! It is something you would not give to a governor or a mayor. Hayirtzecha? Is he going to receive it? Hayisa fanecha? Of course not. So you cannot bring it.
So what is the case? Lo, tzricha denaktinhu vezar'inhu. Ah, you plucked it out. Okay, and what did you do after you plucked it out? You replanted it. Okay, you replanted it, and it grew again. So what is the she'eilah? Deka ba'i le'atuye menachot minayhu. Ah, you want to bring a minchah from the new stuff, after you replanted it. What is the she'eilah? Mai, mishum dema'isuta hu vecheivan dezar'inhu azda leh ma'isutayhu? Exactly! The whole reason you could not use the original stuff was that it was ma'us. Now that you replanted it, it is not ma'us anymore; it is not disgusting anymore. So therefore it should be muttar.
O dilma mishum kechishuta hu vehashta nami kechisha? Or maybe the reason you cannot use it is that once the animal ate it and it was digested, the product is weak already. This wheat is not in its original potency. Kol sheken, when you took it from the gidulei behemah and replanted it, it became very inferior. Not because of ma'us; it is just weak, weakened. Bishlama, you take a fresh seed, put it in the ground, and grow fresh wheat; it is a strong product. This was eaten by the animal and already went through its digestive system, so the wheat is already compromised. Now you are replanting it, so kol sheken the product that comes out will be weak, and therefore you cannot use it! The Gemara says, teiku. The Gemara leaves that in a teiku.
Both of them, hakrivehu na. The question is: if you are telling me it is ma'us, that is not hakrivehu na anymore; it is not ma'us anymore. If the reason for hakrivehu na was that it was ma'us, it is not ma'us anymore. If you are telling me the reason for hakrivehu na is that it is kachush, kol sheken it is kachush! What is the problem here? If you are telling me it is disgusting, it is not disgusting anymore. If you are telling me, no, it was not the disgusting factor; it is an inferior product once the animal eats it, then this is inferior. Gemara—well, you are replanting it.
Ba'i Rami bar Chama. Okay, this is a case that can happen: pil shebala kefifah mitzrit, an elephant swallowed a basket made out of leaves, like those of a lulav. What is it? Palm fibers, exactly. A basket! He swallowed it alive, whole! Vechi ata derech beit hare'i, and it came out. Right, so it came out. Mahu? What is the din? What is the question? Lemai? Ileima lemafka tum'atah: it is a keli. Let’s say it was tamei. Let’s say it was tamei. Now the elephant ate it, so the question is: when it comes out, maybe it is not considered a keli anymore, meaning the tum'ah goes off! Normally, if you have a keli and it has tum'ah on it, once you take it out of the status of a keli, it loses its tum'ah. So that is the she'eilah: when it comes out of the animal, does it lose the status of a keli and therefore the tum'ah goes off?
The Gemara says we know the answer to that: tanina, kol hakelim yordin lidei tum'atan bemachashavah ve'ein olin mitum'atan ela beshinui ma'aseh. A keli becomes mekabel tum'ah bemachashavah. That means once you decide to use it as a keli, it has the din of a keli. When does the tum'ah come off? You have to make a shinui to the keli; you have to do something to the keli, kegon, you broke it. Mah she'ein ken, in this case, no shinui took place to the keli. It went into the animal and came out exactly the way it was. Therefore, it will remain betum'ah! So that cannot be the question.
The Gemara says: lo, tzricha devala hutzin. He did not swallow a basket. He swallowed the palm leaves themselves, ve'avdinhu kefifah mitzrit. Then, after the palm leaves came out, the guy made them into a basket. Now the question is like this: if you consider the palm leaves digested, then they do not have a din of palm leaves; they have a din of excrement. Therefore, basically, you made a basket out of excrement, and it will not receive the regular tum'ah. Or do you say no, it went in and came out the same way, so it has a din of wood and therefore the din of tum'ah of a wooden keli?
The Gemara asks: mihava ikul? If you say it is considered digested, even though it came out as is, but it was digested, havei leih kikli gelalei, kikli gelalim. It has a din of dungware, kikli adamah, or earthenware, and they do not receive tumah. De'amar mar: keli avanim, vechli gelalim, vechli adamah, ein mekabelin tumah, lo midevrei Torah velo midevrei Soferim (the Sages). O dilma, lo havei ikul? Or maybe you say no, it is not ikul. It went in and came out as is, so it has the regular din of the tree; it is keli eitz. That is the Gemara’s question.
The Gemara says, “Wait, I’ll give you the answer.” Tifshot leih meha, de'amar Ula mishum Rabi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: ma'aseh uval'u ze'evim shenei tinokot beEver HaYardein (the other side of the Jordan), bar minan. There were two wolves that swallowed two children on the other side of the Jordan. And what? Then the excrement of the animal came out, and the flesh of the children was in the excrement. Uva ma'aseh lifnei chachamim vetihoru et habasar. They said that once it went through the animal’s digestive system, it is not considered basar adam anymore, and therefore they were metaher. Normally, the basar of a meit is metamei. But this came out in the animal, and they said that even though there was basar there, it was tahor. So what do you see? What goes into the digestive system of the animal becomes digested. Therefore, say the same thing about the palm leaves!
The Gemara says, “No. Shani basar derakich.” No, because basar is soft. Since the basar of the tinokot is soft, for sure it gets digested. Here we are talking about hutzin, these leaves, which are harder. Do they become digested? So the Gemara says, “Oh, I’ll bring you a re'ayah. Vetifshot miseifa.” It says, vetim'u et ha'atzamot. The bones of those tinokot that were digested, the rabbis said, still have a din of tumah, even though they came out. Ah, so what do you see? Something hard does not become digested. The Gemara says, “Shani atzamot dekashyei tafei.” Bones are very hard. So we have no question about bones, which for sure are not digested, and no question about meat, which for sure is digested. Our she'eilah is hutzin: is it like basar or like atzamot? That is the Gemara’s question. Yes? The Gemara does not answer.
Ba'ei Rabi Zeira, next case: chitin sheyaredu be'avim mahu? Wheat that came out of the clouds. Normally wheat comes out of the ground. This wheat came out of the clouds. How did it come out of the clouds? Rashi. Rashi, second, third line: imah matar, with the rain. Kesheshatu avim be'Okyanos, the clouds receive water from the Okyanos, from the oceans. Bal'u sefinah meleiah chitin. The clouds swallowed a boat filled with wheat. “Tornado?” Very good, that’s exactly what happened: a tornado. The tornado lifted up the boat, put it in the clouds, and now it just came down again. So the wheat is coming from the clouds. It came from the boat, went into the clouds, and came back down again.
What is the she'eilah? Using it—what do you mean, mahu? Mahu for what? The Gemara says, “Lemai? What is the she'eilah? I lemenachot, if you want to use it for menachot, amai lo? Exactly, why can’t you use it? It’s wheat. What do I care if it went into the clouds? It’s not disgusting or anything like that. So of course, why can’t I use it for menachot?” Ela lishtei halechem. Oh, that is the question! Can you use it for Shavuot, the korban of Shavuot, shtei halechem?
Mai? Mimoshevoteichem amar Rachamana le'apukei dechutz la'aretz delo, aval de'avim shapir dami. It says mimoshevoteichem. You have to bring the wheat for the shtei halechem from your domain. Your domain, as opposed to chutz la'aretz, but it is not coming to exclude the clouds. Who cares if it came from the clouds? As long as it does not come from chutz la'aretz, it is okay. O dilma mimoshevoteichem davka ve'afilu de'avim nami lo? Or maybe mimoshevoteichem means from your dwellings, meaning from the normal place, from the ground, and not from the clouds. Since this is coming from the clouds, maybe it is no good. What does mimoshevoteichem mean? Is it coming to exclude chutz la'aretz, or is it coming to exclude the tornado?
The Gemara says: umi ika ki hai gavna? What do you mean, does this happen? In—yes, it does happen. Ki de'Adi, the guy was called Adi, taya'a, an Arab, nechita leh rum kizba chitei bitlata parsei. What happened? Rashi says, fourth line: shehayah karka karka'o orech gimmel parsa'ot, rum kizba tefachim kiskeifat guden. He had a field. Nechita leh rum kizba chitei. Yarad lo pa'am anan gova tefach chitim, ah? A tefach-thick layer of wheat came down on his field. He had a big field of shalosh parsa'ot, a humongous field. What happened? It was a tornado, and all of a sudden three inches thick of chitim came down on his field. So you see, sometimes chitim does rain down. How? He said that a windstorm lifts it up and brings it back down on somebody else’s field. So that is the she'eilah: could you use that wheat for the shtei halechem?
Okay, one more question. “Yeah, because that’s not a miracle. An animal can eat a basket, you know; that’s not elephant eating. Yeah, kids eat dollars, things, food—what do you call it, pennies—it comes out then.”
Ba'i Rabi Shimon ben Pazi, one more question: shibolet shehevi'ah shlish kodem la'Omer. A shibolet, a stalk, reached a third of its growth before you brought the korban ha'Omer. Rashi says, dachazya kedei shlish dechashiv gemar peri; after it reaches a third of its growth, it is considered grown. Meaning, you planted it in the ground, and it grew a third of its growth, which means it is complete for our purposes.
Now what did you do? Ve'akrah—you pulled it out of the ground—veshtalah le'achar, okay, veshtalah, and you replanted it, le'achar ha'Omer, after the omer. Rashi says, ve'akrah kodem la'Omer: you pulled it out before the omer; veshtalah le'achar ha'Omer vehosifah mashehu: after the omer, it was mosif, it grew a little more. Now, obviously, what is the she'eilah going to be? Do you go after the ikar item? If you go after the ikar item, then already the last omer was matir it. If you go after the hosafah, then now you have to wait for next omer to matir it. That is a simple question: do you go after the ikar or the hosafah?
Yes? Mahu batar ikara azlinan vesharya Omer o dilma batar tosefet azlinan ve'ad sheyavo Omer haba? Do you go after the ikar, so the last omer was matir it, or do you go after the tosefet, and you have to wait until next year? The question before was different: you cut it out of the ground and stored it back in the ground. The Gemara asks how to view storage. Do you view it like you put it in a keli, or do you say that when you put it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, so you have to start over again?
“This grew already!” No, the other one was rooted in the ground. Right, it did not grow more, exactly! Exactly! Exactly, it did not grow more in the other case. You just stuck it in the ground, and now you want to know, well, it grew already, so do I consider it wheat? But they know that once you put it back in the ground, it is like you replanted it from total, from scratch. Here it grew already, and the omer was brought on it already. So technically, what? You want the omer to matir it? Come on, matir it. Or do you say no, but there is tosefet now? Ah, tosefet—might you have to wait until next year?
The Gemara says, tifshot leh meha. I’ll answer your question. What is the question? De'amar, bo amar Rabi Yochanan, yaldah shesibchah bizkenah uvah peirot. Okay, let’s hear: what is a yaldah? A young tree, meaning less than three years old. What is the law of the first three years of a tree? Orlah. So yaldah is asurah. Zekenah is already a tree that is after three years, so the fruit is mutar. What did you do? You grafted a less-than-three-year-old tree into an old tree. Oh, so now there is a hybrid in there. The yaldah part of it is asurah because it is orlah; the zekenah part of it is okay.
So the din is: afilu hosif bematayim—even let’s say now that you put it in the old tree, it produced 200 times the amount of fruit that was there before. Which is—no, don’t say that. Let’s say you had a little fruit on the tree, orlah, yes? Now you added in the zekenah, and the fruit grew 200 times more than its previous size. So you can say it was batel, because now that it is in the old tree, the old tree is mutar, and therefore growing 200 times more is going to be mevatel the orlah shebo. What is the din? Asur still. And what do you see? You do not go after the tosefet; you go after the original.
Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani says in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: same story, batzal. What is batzal? Onion. Sheshetalo bekerem. You planted it in a kerem, a vineyard. That is a problem; it is kil'ayim. You can’t plant two seeds together. You plant onions next to the grapes, right? So, kil'ei hakerem. Ve'akar hakerem—and then you pulled out the grapes. It does not matter now. This onion here has already grown be'isur. Afilu hosif bematayim asur. Even if it grew 200 times more, it is still asur. Why? Because you go according to what it was. Since what it was was asur, when it grows more, it is not going to be mevatel it.
Ah, so this would answer our kushya. What is our question? When you have the wheat, and it grew and was done, and then the omer came—the omer was matir it—and now you stuck it in the ground and it was hosif. I don’t care about the hosafah. I go according to—Now, mind you, there is a big chiddush here, because in the case of the omer I’m taking this rule lehakel. In the case the Gemara brought, I’m using “go according to what it was” lechumra. I’m saying it is orlah. Here I’m saying what it was lehakel, to say that the omer lets me eat it. So I could argue and say, wait, maybe we take what it was only when it is a stringency, but who says we take what it was when it is a leniency? Maybe really I don’t know if you go according to what it was or according to what it is adding. So therefore I hedge: lechumra, go like this, and lechumra, go like that. That means whatever the chumra is, I’m going to take.
So the Gemara answers that. The Gemara says: hi gufa ka miba'ya leh. He says, “That is my question.” Mi peshita lehu lerabbanan devatar ikar azlinan? Is it pashut that you always go according to what it was, la shena lekula vela shena lechumra, whether it comes out lekula or lechumra? O dilma, sapukei mesapka lehu, or maybe that itself is a safek, ulechumra amrinan, lekula lo amrinan? The Gemara says, on that, teiku. Which means that exactly was my question. I know we have a statement that says you go according to what it was, but maybe that is a safek, and therefore you only go lechumra. But mah she'en ken, in this case, to go be'ikara would be a kula, and therefore maybe you go according to what it is now. That is why; that is my question.
The Gemara: Ba'i Rami bar Chama: shtei halechem, mahu sheyatiru shelo kesidran? I want to ask an interesting question. Shtei halechem was brought on Shavuot, two loaves of bread. The purpose of these two loaves of bread was to matir the new crop for use in the Beit HaMikdash. The crop that was in the field, what is called chadash, needs the shtei halechem to be brought so that this crop can now be used in the Beit HaMikdash. The omer is matir the crop for personal consumption, and the shtei halechem is matir the crop for the tzibbur, for the Mikdash.
The normal order is that the product was in the field before you brought the omer. The omer was matir that product for personal consumption, and then the shtei halechem was matir that product for Beit HaMikdash use. So it had to pass through the omer and the shtei halechem. You need two procedures to matir it for the Beit HaMikdash. The omer is matir it for personal consumption, but I still cannot use it for the Temple. Seven weeks later, after Pesach, on Shavuot, I bring the shtei halechem. Now that wheat, which was permissible for personal consumption, becomes permissible for Beit HaMikdash use. Yes? So basically, it had to pass through the omer and the shtei halechem: two procedures.
The Gemara asks: what if the shtei halechem procedure came before the omer? The reverse scenario. We will see exactly how that is possible, but hypothetically the Gemara’s question is: I understand that you need the omer and the shtei halechem in that order. What if the shtei halechem came first and then the omer was matir it? Would that work as well?
Ba'i Rami bar Chama: shtei halechem, mahu sheyatiru shelo kesidran? Bederech klal, tevu'ah nizra'at bachoref. That’s right, normally you plant in the winter. So if you plant in the winter, it will take root, and everything—so you have the omer at Pesach time, then shtei halechem at Shavuot time, so it goes in order. But let’s say you planted in the spring. You planted after the omer. So now, what hits this product first? The shtei halechem hits it first. That is matir-ing it for Beit HaMikdash consumption, and then the omer comes the next Pesach. So it is coming out of order. Will that be matir it or not? The Gemara will explain.
Do you need the omer at all? You need the omer to matir it for personal consumption. Maybe the other one covers it? No. Heichi damei, the Gemara says, what is the case? Kegon dizar'inhu bein ha'omer lishtei halechem. Exactly. You planted between the omer and the shtei halechem. For example, you planted it in Iyar (month of Iyar). Now this month is between the omer and the shtei halechem. Vechalif alayhu shtei halechem, and the shtei halechem passed. Ve'omer, and the omer of the next year. Mai? What is the din? Kesidran sharyan: maybe the shtei halechem is matir the chadash to the mizbe'ach only when it went in order—the omer and then the shtei halechem, according to the normal way. Shelo kesidran, however, when it is not in order, lo sharyan: the shtei halechem will not matir it, and therefore, when you bring the omer the following year, it will still not be mutar until you bring the Shavuot offering the following year.
O dilma shelo kesidran nami sharyan? Or do you say no, maybe shelo kesidran is okay? Maybe the point is that it just has to pass through an omer and a shtei halechem; I don’t care about the order. Are you following the question? Rava says: ta shema.
Now, we know the minchat ha'omer comes from which product? Barley. How do you know it comes from barley? From se'orim? You would think it is a befeirush pasuk in the Torah. It is not. So how do I know that the shtei halechem—wait, the minchat ha'omer comes from barley? The Gemara is going to bring some proofs now. We begin: ve'im takriv minchat bikurim. The shtei halechem is called minchat bikurim; it is the first minchah. Beminchat ha'omer hakatuv medaber—that is for minchat ha'omer, actually. Meheichan ba'ah? Where does that come from? Min hase'orim, from the barley. Ata omer min hase'orim, or eino ela min hachitim? Maybe it comes from the chitim, the wheat?
Rabbi Eliezer says: ne'emar aviv beMitzrayim (Egypt). When God brought the plague of barad, of hail, it says, which crop got smitten? It says, vehase'orah nukatah: the se'orah, the barley, got smitten, ki hase'orah aviv, because the se'orah ripens first. So the word aviv is used for barley by makat barad. Vene'emar aviv ledorot, and by the minchah it also says aviv. Mah aviv ha'amur beMitzrayim se'orim, af aviv ha'amur ledorot se'orim.
Okay, we are talking about minchat ha'omer, by the way. I’ll repeat: when is minchat ha'omer brought? On Pesach, the second day of Pesach. It is brought from barley. How do I know it was brought from barley? Because it says the word aviv there, and it says the word aviv by barad. Barad is the se'orah; this is se'orah.
Rabbi Akiva says: matzinu yachid shemeivi chovato min hachitim vechovato min hase'orim. We know an individual brings two types of menachot. Sometimes he brings a minchah from wheat, for example, a regular minchah of a sinner; sometimes he brings his minchah from barley, for example, a sotah (suspected adulteress). So a yachid has chitah sometimes and se'orah sometimes. Tzibbur shemeivi'in chovatan min hachitim: most of the time, when the tzibbur brings a minchah, it is made of wheat. For example, on Mussaf (additional prayer offering), on Rosh Chodesh (new month), all these menachot are wheat. So they must also bring a minchah from se'orim. Just as a yachid brings from chitah and se'orah, so too the tzibbur brings from chitim and se'orah. The tzibbur follows the same paradigm as the yachid. Ve'i amart ba min hachitin, lo matzinu tzibbur sheyavi chovato min hase'orim. Then you never see a case where the tzibbur brings from se'orim. Every minchah says the word solet. Solet, solet, solet is wheat. Therefore, it must be that the omer is from se'orim, so you can have the same paradigm: just as the yachid brings chitah and se'orah, so too the tzibbur brings chitah and se'orah.
Davar acher, another proof. Again, we are proving how you know that minchat ha'omer is brought from barley. Im ata omer omer ba min hachitin, ein shtei halechem bikurim. The Gemara is saying that on Shavuot you have to bring bikurim, the first crop. What do you bring? Wheat. But if you tell me that the omer is brought from wheat, then on Shavuot it is not the bikurim, because you already brought it on Pesach. How could you say that on Shavuot it is called bikurim, the first crop? You already brought that crop on Pesach. Ela, it must be that on Pesach you bring barley, and on Shavuot you bring wheat.
Ve'i ita deshtei halechem shelo kesidran sharyan, if you are going to say that shtei halechem can be brought shelo kesidran, that means that the wheat can pass through shtei halechem first and then the omer, and it will be mutar. If you tell me that is okay, mashkachat lah: we have a case where you could bring wheat on Pesach and still have it considered bikurim on Shavuot. How? Demakriv omer mehanach de'ashrush kodem lishtei halechem uvatar omer de'ishtakad. That means you are going to bring the omer from the wheat that took root before shtei halechem in Iyar, but after last year’s omer. You bring it; it grew in Iyar, exactly! It grew in Iyar, so it passed through shtei halechem first, but you cannot bring it for shtei halechem because it has not passed through the omer yet. So you are going to bring it for the omer. When you bring it for that omer, it becomes mutar, because it has passed through the—let’s assume it had passed Shavuot—and now it is brought for the omer.
Now, what do you bring the shtei halechem from? Umishtei halechem mehanach de'ashrush kodem la'omer dehashta, before this year’s omer, uvatar shtei halechem de'ishtakad, but after last year’s. That means it grew between last year’s shtei halechem and this year’s omer, in Tammuz (month of Tammuz) time, let’s say. It grew in Tammuz time. So what happened? You brought the omer first. The omer comes first, and then the shtei halechem. This shtei halechem is still considered bikurim, because what you brought for the omer that year was from the year before, from the Iyar crop. So you could still have a case where you can bring wheat on Pesach, and you can bring wheat on Shavu, on Pesach, and still it's going to be considered bikurim.
Therefore, the Gemara says, your original question was: can it go out of order? The Gemara says, I’ll prove to you that it cannot go out of order. If you are going to say that it can go out of order, what was the proof of the beraita, of the davar acher? The proof of the beraita wanted to show that the omer has to be from barley. Why does it have to be from barley? Because if it is brought from wheat, then it is not bikurim when Shavuot comes, since you already brought wheat. The Gemara says, wait! If you tell me you can go out of order, I can give you a case where you still brought the omer from wheat and it is still considered bikurim: kegon, you brought the omer from Iyar goods. That means the shtei halechem came first and then the omer came. Once the omer comes, it will be matir, no problem. You brought the shtei halechem from Tammuz goods. The Tammuz goods are new for that year’s product, for that. Therefore, it is shayach to say that you can bring wheat and wheat and still consider it bikurim.
Ela, it must be that you cannot go out of order. That is why the stuff that grew in Iyar will not be mutar through the omer, because since shtei halechem came first, it is not good. Therefore, this is a re'ayah: you do not have a scenario where you can bring wheat and wheat and have both considered bikurim. Rabbi Akiva’s re'ayah, therefore, was that if you are telling me there is wheat there, then it will not be bikurim, based on the assumption that you cannot go out of order. So we have a re'ayah.
The Gemara says: mi savart, bikurim lepira kaamrinan? Lemizbeach kaamrinan! Veha ka achil lemizbeach miperi dehai sha'ata. You thought that when we said in that beraita that it has to be bikurim, that it has to come from the first—you thought lepira kaamrinan? You thought we meant of the fruit, meaning this case of wheat? Because you already brought wheat, how could you bring wheat now on—You thought that was what we meant, and therefore you had this whole proof? No! Lemizbeach kaamrinan. We meant for the mizbe'ach.
What does that mean? Veha ka achil lemizbeach miperi dehai sha'ata. Rashi: bikurim lepira, lechittin hateluyim bahem, bikurim lemizbeach kaamrinan, shelo yo'chal mizbeach kodem lahem chittin chadashim, vehacha achal leh mizbeach omer miperi dehai sha'ata, demhai sha'ata ninhu devechada sha'ata gadlu beyachad, ve'omer shanu la'achilat adam, ushtei halechem shanu hava'at bikkurim mepeirot ha'ilan. That means one grew in Iyar and one grew in Tammuz. Now, that is basically the same year. It is all in the same 12 months. It is the same year: the stuff that grew in Iyar and the stuff that grew in Tammuz.
Originally, we thought that when you said it has to be bikurim, you meant lepira. What is lepira? Bikurim lepira kaamrinan: she'amarnu shetzrichot shtei halechem lihyot bikkurim lapeirot sheba'ot lehatir, dehainu lechittin she'adayin lo hutru beshtei halechem. We thought that it had to be bikurim, new wheat. The Gemara assumed you have a case where you can have wheat on Pesach and wheat on Shavuot, and it is still considered bikurim. That is not so, the Gemara says, because bottom line, the wheat brought on Shavuot is from the same year’s crop, Iyar and Tammuz. Therefore, it will not be considered bikurim. Even if you want to say you can go out of order, it still will not be considered bikurim, because bottom line, the product brought for the omer, which was Iyar product, and the product brought on Shavuot, which was Tammuz product, come from the same year’s crop.
We assumed earlier that it is called bikurim because it is coming to matir something that the other one was not, and therefore it is considered a new item. That means the Iyar stuff was matir everything from before that, and the later Tammuz stuff was coming to matir different parts of the crop, because it grew later. That is why I thought it was bikurim. It is considered new because it is matir something that the other one was not. Mah she'ein ken, now they say no, that is not the pshat of bikurim. Bikurim means it is coming in the same year, and these are coming in the same year. Therefore, lemizbeach kaamrinan.
And therefore, even if you want to tell me you can go out of order, you cannot bring me a question and say, “Oh, prove to me that they have to go in order, because if you go out of order, you have a case of bikurim.” No, you still do not have a case of bikurim, because since it is in the same year, it would still be a problem to bring the omer from Iyar and the shtei halechem from Tammuz.