Menachot, daf (page) samech-tet (sixty-nine). Today’s daf is being studied le'ilui nishmat Avraham ben Ester and Rebbi Moshe ben Nurah, ruach Hashem tenuchem b'Gan Eden. We begin today’s daf on samech-tet, amud rishon (first side), on the second line.
Ba'i Rami bar Chama: shtei halechem (the two loaves), hanatzah or chanatah? The shtei halechem brought on Shavuot (Festival of Weeks) is matir (permits) the new crop for the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple). The crop has to already be in the field. How much of it has to have grown? Does it have to reach the stage of hanatzah? Hanatzah is where it starts to bud. Or does chanatah have to occur? Chanatah is even earlier, according to Rashi. 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.
At which stage of growth do we consider the crop grown enough for the shtei halechem to be matir 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?” (What are hanatzah and chanatah?) Good question. What does that mean? “Ileima hanatzah depeira vechanatah depeira” (If you say it means the hanatzah and chanatah of the fruit), the Gemara says: if this is talking about hanatzah of the peri (fruit), then it is discussing the stages of the fruit’s development. “Hashta hashrashah sharya, hanatzah vechanatah miba'ya?” (Now that taking root permits it, do we need to ask about hanatzah and chanatah?)
We know that with wheat, for example, the Gemara said earlier that taking root is what is matir it. Once it has taken root in the ground, it is already considered grown enough for the shtei halechem to be matir it. So why are we discussing the level of development of the fruit? It is already permitted from the hashrashah (taking root), from the roots, when it takes root. Rather, “hanatzah de'alei vechanatah de'alei” (hanatzah of the leaves and chanatah of the leaves). You are right: we are not talking about the fruit. It is an earlier stage, the development of the leaves, the alim. By the time you get to the fruit, it is certainly already grown enough for the shtei halechem to be matir it. The question here is what development the earliest stage of the leaves must reach: “mi havya kehashrashah o lo?” (Is it considered like taking root or not?) The Gemara leaves that as a teiku (unresolved).
For tevu'ah (produce), it is when it takes root. The Gemara wants to know about other fruit, because we learned that the shtei halechem is matir not only the wheat, but all the fruits, the zayin minim (seven species), for the Beit HaMikdash. With 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 a teiku.
Once again, they used to bring bikkurim (first fruits) 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. So what stage does the first fruit have to be at when the shtei halechem is brought, in order to bring bikkurim from it: hanatzah or chanatah? Teiku.
Rabbah bar bar Chanah asks: “chitin shezera'an bekar'ah, omer matiran o ein omer matiran?” (If wheat was planted in the ground, does the omer offering permit it, or not?) You planted wheat in the ground. We bring the omer (omer offering) on the second day of Pesach (Passover). The omer is matir anything that is in the ground. The Gemara’s question seems difficult to understand. Of course, if it is in the ground, the omer will be matir that product to eat, even for a hedyot (ordinary person).
The Gemara asks, “heichi damei?” (What is the case?) If it took root, then tanina (we learned it already): it is permitted as long as the wheat took root in the ground, because the omer is matir it. If it did not take root, we learned that too. “Detnan: im hishrishu kodem la'Omer, Omer matiram, ve'im lav asurin ad sheyavo Omer haba” (If they took root before the omer, the omer permits them; if not, they are forbidden until the next omer comes). Very simple: if it had already taken root, this omer permits it. If it had not taken root, the next omer permits it. So what is the question? You put the wheat in the ground; are you asking whether it took root or not? That is a very simple discussion. What is the Gemara asking?
“Lo tzricha, dechatzdinhu vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer ve'ata Omer vechalaf alayhu vekamiba'ya lan, mahu lemeinkat umeichal minayhu?” (No, it is necessary in a case where they were cut and planted before the omer, and then the omer passed over them; the question is whether they may be uprooted and eaten.) They were already in the ground before the omer, and had taken root before the omer. But then you cut them and stored them in the ground. That is how they used to store wheat in those days: they buried it back in the ground. Now the new wheat did not take root before this omer, but the old wheat had taken root.
The Gemara’s question is whether we say that it follows what it was: since it took root in the original plant, and now you are just storing it in the ground, it is considered to have taken root, so this omer will be matir it. Or do we say no: now you put it in the ground, the new wheat has not taken root yet, and it is as though you replanted it, so you have to wait until next year’s omer?
Once again, the wheat grows in the ground, takes root, and everything is fine. You cut it—that is what you do with wheat—and where do you put it? Back in the ground. You take the stalks and put them back in the ground. That is how they stored it. The question is whether the new growth has not taken root, so perhaps you have to wait until the next omer, or whether it is based on the original plant it came from. The original plant already took root, so what you are putting in the ground now is basically already rooted, and this omer will be matir it. The old wheat in the ground is certainly permitted, 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, and it will reroot. That is what he is doing: storing it in the ground.
Look at the Gemara and read it again: “lo tzricha,” I am reading it again, “dechatzdinhu.” Rashi says, “dechatzdinhu vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer,” and explains that the omer did not permit them the previous year because they had not taken root at the time of that omer. The Gemara presents a safek (doubt): “vezar'inhu kodem la'Omer ve'ata Omer vechalaf alayhu vekamiba'ya lan mahu lemeinkat umeichal minayhu”—can you eat from them? Why? What is the she'eilah (question)?
“Keman deshadya bechada damya vesharinhu Omer?” (Is it as though he put it in a basket, and the omer permits it?) Do I say that putting it back in the ground is like putting it in a kli (vessel)? In other words, it is like you cut them up, and just because you put them in a vessel in the ground, what does that change? It is like putting them in a basket, and therefore they are permitted. Or perhaps they are batel (nullified) to the ground: once you stored them in the ground, they become part of the ground, so you have to wait until they take root again.
If I took the wheat and put it in a basket, everyone agrees it is permitted once I bring the omer; it has already grown. The question is what happens 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 that once you put it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, and then it has to take root again? That is the Gemara, and 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 whether we have to wait for it to grow again or not.
Now we have another rule. We have laws called ona'ah (overcharging): you are not allowed to overcharge or misrepresent something when you sell it. We have a general rule: “ein ona'ah becharka.” When it comes to karka (land), you can charge whatever you want. We do not say, “That was gouging; it was overpriced.” In real estate, people pay whatever they want. The laws of ona'ah apply to movables, to tangible items.
This question will also be about whether, when you put the wheat in the ground like this, the wheat becomes part of the ground, so there is no ona'ah in the transaction we will discuss, or whether the wheat you put back in the ground is still considered movable property, and therefore there is ona'ah. Is the wheat you replanted in the ground considered karka? You just said it is batel to the karka. So, regarding ona'ah, will there be ona'ah or not? The Gemara asks, “yesh lahen ona'ah o ein lahen ona'ah?” (Is there ona'ah for them, or not?) What is the case? Rashi says we know from Bava Metzia (the Talmud tractate Bava Metzia) that there is no ona'ah for land.
What is the case? If he said to him, “Plant six measures in it,” and witnesses came and said that he planted only five, Rava says, “kol davar shebemidah veshebemishkal veshebeminyan afilu pachot mikedei ona'ah chozer.” (For anything sold by measure, weight, or number, even a shortfall smaller than the amount of ona'ah can void the sale.)
Here is the rule in ona'ah: if I tell someone a number for how much I am selling him—“I am selling you six”—and I give him only five, even though percentage-wise I am off by only a sixth, which is normally allowed for ona'ah as long as you are within a sixth of the price, that applies when you are selling generally. But if I tell him, “I am selling you six,” and give him five, since I told him a number, that is a midah (measure), a minyan (count); that is not called ona'ah. It is a mekach ta'ut (mistaken transaction). That is a total misrepresentation, and the sale is void even with karka.
So even if you want to tell me this wheat is karka and there is no ona'ah, if the case is, “I am selling you six,” and he gives him five, since he explicitly gave him a number, he has to give him that number. There is no room even for being off by a sixth. That cannot be the case, because that would be called a mekach ta'ut, and the sale would be void.
Rather, the case must be: “shadai bah kideba'eila.” (Plant enough in it for it to produce.) The seller said, “I put enough wheat in the ground for it to produce,” meaning, “I planted the proper amount.” Witnesses then come and say, “He did not put enough in the ground.” There is a certain amount that you normally plant. He did not give him a number; he said, “I want to sell you this wheat, and you should know I planted enough, as needed.” After he bought it, witnesses came and said, “No, he fooled you. He did not plant enough.” The shortfall was within that sixth ratio of error. So the law is: that is ona'ah. If it is ona'ah, you can return it and ask for your money back. If it is not ona'ah, then there is no money back.
The question is whether it is karka or not. If you consider that when you put the wheat back in the ground, it is karka, then there are no ona'ah rules here. It does not matter if he planted too little or too much; there is no ona'ah. But if you say it has the status of wheat, then the regular law of ona'ah applies. The Gemara says, “yesh lahen ona'ah dechema'an deshadi'a bekada damya veyesh lahen ona'ah.” (There is ona'ah for them, because it is as though he put it in a basket, and there is ona'ah.) As I told you, do we consider the wheat, even though he put it in the ground, as though he put it in a basket? If it is in a basket, it is still considered a tangible movable. Or perhaps it is batel to the karka, and therefore there is no ona'ah. That is the Gemara’s question regarding ona'ah.
“Okay, next question.” “Yes, yeah. What, I put it in the ground, it’s a—” Is the wheat batel to the karka? A tree is karka. When I sell you a field with a tree on it, is the tree movable? The tree has roots in the ground. Very good! The wheat has land under it, too. “I’m selling you the tree.” Right, I’m selling you the tree, but the tree has a din of karka because it is batel to the ground.
“Is the wheat—” No, I’m selling you the wheat! I’m selling him the land too, but the question is about the wheat. That is why the ona'ah was calculated in the wheat. I said, “I planted enough wheat for this amount,” and then we find out that he did not plant enough. Regarding the wheat, how do you consider it? If you consider that when you replant it, it is like putting it in a basket, then it is movable and there is ona'ah. If you say that once you replant it in the ground, it becomes batel to the ground, then it is ground again.
We are talking about the movable item 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 on the wheat, because he is selling him the wheat too. He is telling him, “I am selling you a certain shi'ur (measure) of wheat; it is this much.” “Ah!” Not secondary. He wants to buy the field with wheat in it. “Yes.” So he is saying, “Listen, I planted enough wheat in there according to the yield, whatever it is supposed to yield. Don’t worry about it.” Okay, so the buyer is buying wheat as well.
Regarding the karka, you cannot take me to a beit din (rabbinical court) for overcharging you; 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 regarding the wheat, is there ona'ah?” “But why are you putting it into this scenario? If there is enough, why do you say the wheat is for $5 when this wheat usually sells for $4?” Again, because if it is karka, I do not care if you charge a thousand times the amount. I am talking about the wheat. “I know, I’m talking about the wheat!” Because if the wheat is considered karka, even if you charge a thousand times the price, there is no ona'ah.
“Why are we going to a scenario where witnesses say there is enough?” That is what it is! That is what is being said: “I sold you enough of this,” and he says, “You did not put enough wheat in the ground.” “Why not make it easier? I want $5 or $6—” No, no, no, because that is a mekach ta'ut. When you give numbers—“I am selling you five pounds”—and instead you give him four pounds, 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 this case does not make sense—this case—“Why are you calling to—is it witnesses, now not the same—” How do you know? In your case, too, you need witnesses, by the way. In your case, who is proving the price? “We know.” What do you mean, “We know”? In beit din you need witnesses; there is no “we know.” You are trying to void my sale. “No, you’re trying to void my sale.” You are just going to come to beit din and say, “We know”? So, okay, we do not know! We know, we do not know. That is why you need witnesses. Either way, you need witnesses. Witnesses always have to come and testify about what the market price is and what the thing is. That is for sure. Anyway, that is that dilemma as well.
Now we have another law. Again, we are getting into the details of how to consider this wheat that you replanted in the ground. The next detail is a law that sometimes the Torah requires you to swear. There is a Torah mandate to swear. For example, modeh bemiktzat (one who partially admits). You owe me a hundred. I say, “I paid you 50.” So I am modeh bemiktzat: “I paid you 50, but I owe you 50.” Beit din says I have to swear. But by karka there is no shevuah (oath); it applies only to movables.
The Gemara asks, “nishba'in aleihen o ein nishba'in aleihen?” (Do they swear about them, or not?) “Keman deshadya bechada damya umetaltelei damu venishba'in aleihen, o dilma betilu agav ar'a uchimkark'ei damu ve'ein nishba'in aleihen?” (Is it as though they were put in a basket and are considered movable property, so one swears about them, or are they nullified to the ground and considered land, so one does not swear about them?) The Gemara leaves that as a teiku as well.
Next question. Ba'ei Rami bar Chama: wheat that is in the animal’s excrement—meaning it was not fully digested and came out in the gelalim—or barley that came out in the animal’s excrement. Bottom line: wheat and barley that came out in the animal’s feces. What is the din (status)? What is the din regarding? What are we asking here? What is the question? The Gemara says, “lemai?” (For what purpose?) If the question is whether to make it subject to tumat ochlin (impurity of food), do we consider it food? I can argue that it is no longer food. Once it went through the animal’s digestive system, it is considered excrement. It does not have the din of food, so it will not receive tumat ochlin. Or do I say, bottom line, I can see that it is still a piece of wheat. It obviously was not digested, so it has the din of tumat ochlin?
Maybe that is the question. The Gemara says, “tanina”: we already know the answer. “Chitin shebirei vakar use'orim shebigelelei behemah, chashav aleihen la'achilah ein metamei tumat ochlin.” If someone sees the wheat or barley in the animal’s excrement and thinks, “You know what? I’m going to eat it,” that thought is not enough to put it back into the status of food. In this case, saying, “You know what? I’m going to eat it,” does not turn it into ochel (food). The machashavah (thought) is not enough; you need a ma'aseh (act). But if you pick it out to eat, once you have done an act, it is metamei tumat ochlin. It has the status of food. So we know the answer: if he plucked it out, even before he cleaned it, his intention was to eat it, and he did an act; it has the status of food. If he only said in his mind, “Hey, I’m going to eat it,” it is not yet food. Yes, so that is the answer to that question.
The Gemara says, “ela lemenachot.” That is the she'eilah: can I bring this for a minchah (meal offering)? Do I have to bring an omer? There is barley. Or there is a minchah—forget about that; a regular minchah. I want to use it. The Gemara asks, 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 this stuff to the Bore Olam (Creator of the world)? Shameful! It is disgusting. It is something you would not give to a governor or a mayor. “Hayirtzecha?” Will he accept it? “Hayisa fanecha?” Of course not. So you cannot bring it. What is the case?
“Lo tzricha denaktinhu vezar'inhu.” Ah, you plucked it out. What did you do after you plucked it out? You replanted it, and it grew again. So what is the she'eilah? “Deka ba'i le'atuye menachot minayhu.” You want to bring a minchah from the new growth after you replanted it. What is the question? Is it because it is disgusting, and once you have replanted it, it is no longer disgusting? Then it should be permitted. Or is it because it is weak, and even now it is still weak?
Perhaps the reason you cannot use the original produce is that it was ma'us (disgusting). Now that you replanted it, it is no longer disgusting, so it should be permitted. Or perhaps the reason you cannot use it is that once the animal ate it, the product became weak. The wheat is no longer in its original potency. All the more so when you take it from the animal’s excrement and replant it: it becomes very inferior. The problem is not that it is disgusting; it is that it is weak. If 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 went through its digestive system, so the wheat is already compromised. Now you are replanting it, so all the more so the product that comes out will be weak, and therefore you cannot use it. The Gemara says, teiku. The Gemara leaves that unresolved.
Both are included in “hakrivehu na.” The question is: if you are telling me it is disgusting, it is no longer disgusting. If the reason for “hakrivehu na” is that it is disgusting, it is no longer disgusting. If you are telling me the reason is that it is weak, all the more so it is weak. What is the problem here? If you are telling me it is disgusting, it is no longer disgusting. If you are telling me it is not the disgusting factor, but that it is an inferior product once the animal eats it, then it is inferior. The Gemara leaves the question. “Well, you’re replanting it.”
Ba'i Rami bar Chama: here is a case that can happen: “pil shebala kefifah mitzrit,” an elephant swallowed a basket made out of leaves, like a lulav (palm frond). What is it? Palm fibers. A basket! He swallowed it whole, alive! “Vechi ata derech beit hare'i,” and it came out. What is the din? What is the question? “Lemai?” If the question is whether it loses its impurity, it is a keli. Let us say it was tamei (ritually impure). The elephant ate it, so perhaps when it comes out, it is no longer considered a keli, and the tumah goes off. Normally, if a keli has tumah, once you take it out of the status of a keli, it loses its tumah. So the question is whether, when it comes out of the animal, it loses the status of a keli, and therefore the tumah goes off.
The Gemara says we already know the answer: “kol hakelim yordin lidei tum'atan bemachashavah ve'ein olin mitum'atan ela beshinui ma'aseh” (All vessels become susceptible to impurity through thought, but leave their status only through a physical change). The rule is that a keli becomes mekabel tum'ah through thought. Once you decide to use it as a keli, it has the din of a keli. When does the tumah come off? You have to make a shinui ma'aseh (physical alteration) to the keli; you have to do something to it, for example, break it. But in this case, no shinui took place to the keli. It went into the animal and came out exactly as it was. Therefore, it remains 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, and then, after the palm leaves came out, the person made them into a basket. Now the question is this: if you consider the palm leaves digested, then they do not have the status of palm leaves; they have the status of excrement. So you basically made a basket out of excrement, and it will not receive the regular tumah. Or do you say no: it went in and came out the same way, so it has the status of wood and therefore the tumah of a wooden keli?
The Gemara asks, “mihava ikul?” (Is it considered digestion?) If you say it is considered digested, even though it came out as it was, it becomes like a keli gelalim (dung vessel) or keli adamah (earthenware vessel), and those do not become ritually impure. The Master said: “keli avanim, vechli gelalim, vechli adamah, ein mekabelin tumah, lo midevrei Torah velo midevrei Soferim” (Stone vessels, dung vessels, and earthenware vessels do not become ritually impure, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law). Or perhaps it was not digested. It went in and came out as it was, so it has the regular status of a tree; it is a keli eitz (wooden vessel). That is the Gemara’s question.
The Gemara says, “Wait, I’ll give you the answer.” Resolve it from what Ulla said in the name of Rabi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: “ma'aseh, uval'u ze'evim shenei tinokot be'Ever HaYardein, bar minan.” There was a case where wolves swallowed two children across the Jordan, may we be spared. What happened? The animal’s excrement came out, and the children’s flesh was in it. A case came before the Sages, and they declared the flesh pure. Once it went through the animal’s digestive system, it was no longer considered basar adam (human flesh), and therefore they declared it pure. Normally the flesh of a dead person is metamei. But although there was flesh in what came out of the animal, they said it was tahor (ritually pure). So what do you see? What goes into the animal’s digestive system becomes digested. Therefore, say the same thing about the palm leaves.
The Gemara says, no: “Shani basar derakich.” Flesh is different because it is soft. Since the children’s flesh is soft, it certainly gets digested. Here we are talking about hutzin (palm fibers), which are harder. Do they get digested? The Gemara says, “I’ll bring you a re'ayah (proof). Vetifshot miseifa.” It says, “vetim'u et ha'atzamot.” The bones of those children were also discussed, and the rabbis said they still had the status of tumah even though they came out. So you see that something hard does not become digested.
The Gemara says, “Shani atzamot dekashyei tafei.” Bones are very hard. So we do not have a question about bones, which are certainly not digested, or about meat, which is certainly digested. Our she'eilah is about hutzin: are they like flesh or like bones? That is the Gemara’s question. Yes? The Gemara does not answer.
Ba'ei Rabi Zeira, the next case: “chitin sheyaredu be'avim mahu?” (What is the status of wheat that came down in the clouds?) Normally, wheat comes from the ground. This wheat came from the clouds. How did it come from the clouds? Rashi says, “imah matar,” with the rain. “Kesheshatu avim be'Okyanos,” the clouds get their water from the Okyanos (ocean), from the waters of the oceans. “Bal'u sefinah meleiah chitin.” The clouds swallowed a boat full of wheat. A tornado? Very good, that is exactly what happened: a tornado lifted the boat into the clouds, and now it came down again. The wheat came from the boat, went into the clouds, and came back down.
What is the she'eilah? “Using it, what do you mean, mahu? Mahu for what?” The Gemara says, “lemai?” What is the question? If it is for menachot, why not use it? It is wheat. What do I care if it went into the clouds? It is not disgusting or anything like that. Of course, why can’t I use it for menachot? Rather, it is for shtei halechem. Can you use it for Shavuot, for the korban of Shavuot, the shtei halechem? What is the ruling?
“Mimoshevoteichem amar Rachamana, le'apukei dechutz la'aretz delo, aval de'avim shapir dami.” (The Merciful One said “from your settlements” to exclude outside the Land of Israel, but wheat from the clouds is fine.) It says mimoshevoteichem (from your settlements). You have to bring the wheat for the shtei halechem from your domain. Your domain, as opposed to chutz la'aretz (outside the Land of Israel), but that does not exclude the clouds. Who cares if it came from the clouds? As long as it did not come from chutz la'aretz, it is okay. Or perhaps “mimoshevoteichem” means specifically from your dwellings, from the normal place, from the ground, and not from the clouds. Since this is coming from the clouds, perhaps it is no good. What does mimoshevoteichem mean? Is it coming to exclude chutz la'aretz, or to exclude the tornado?
The Gemara says, “umi ika ki hai gavna?” (Does something like this happen?) Yes, it does. “Ki de'Adi,” when there was someone named Adi, a taya'a (Arab merchant): “nechita leh rum kizba chitei bitlata parsei.” What happened? Rashi says that he had a field three parasangs long, and rum kizba was a handbreadth thick. A handbreadth-thick layer of wheat came down on his field. He had a huge field, three parasangs long. What happened? A tornado came, and all of a sudden three inches of wheat fell thickly over his field. So you see that sometimes wheat rains down. How? A windstorm lifts it up and brings it down on someone 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 an elephant eating. Yeah, kids eat dollars, things, food—what do you call it, pennies—and it comes out, then.”
Ba'i Rabi Shimon ben Pazi, one more question: “shibolet shehevi'ah shlish kodem la'Omer.” A shibolet (stalk) reached a third of its growth before you brought the korban ha'Omer (omer offering). Rashi says that once it reaches a third of its growth, it is considered fully developed for this purpose. 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 ha'Omer”—you replanted it after the omer.
Rashi says: “ve'akrah kodem la'Omer,” you pulled it out before the omer; “veshtalah le'achar ha'Omer vehosifah mashehu,” and after the omer it grew a little more. What is the she'eilah? Do you go after the ikar (main part)? If you go after the ikar, then the last omer was already matir it. If you go after the hosafah (addition), now you have to wait for the next omer to be matir it. It is a simple question: do you go after the ikar or the hosafah? “Mahu batar ikara azlinan vesharya Omer o dilma batar tosefet azlinan ve'ad sheyavo Omer haba?” (Do we follow the main part, and the omer permits it, or do we follow the addition and wait until the next omer comes?)
The question before was different. Before, you cut it out of the ground and stored it back in the ground. The Gemara asks how to view storage: is it like putting it in a keli, or does putting it in the ground make it batel to the ground, so you have to start over? This one already grew! No, the other one was rooted in the ground. Right, it did not grow more, exactly! Exactly! In the other case, it did not grow more. You just stuck it in the ground. Now you want to know: it already grew, so do I consider it wheat? Or do we know that once you put it back in the ground, it is like replanting it from scratch? Here it already grew, and the omer was brought over it already.
So technically, what? You want the omer to be matir it? Come on, matir it. Or do you say, no, but there is tosefet now? Ah, the tosefet might mean you have to wait until next year. The Gemara says, “tifshot leh meha”—I will answer your question. What is the question? “De'amar, bo amar Rabi Yochanan, yaldah shesibchah bizkenah uvah peirot.”
Let us hear: what is a yaldah (young tree)? A young tree, meaning less than three years old. What is the law of the first three years of a tree? Orlah (fruit of a tree’s first three years). A yaldah is asurah (forbidden). A zekenah (old tree) is a tree that is past three years, so its fruit is permitted. What did you do? You grafted a tree less than three years old onto an old tree. The old tree now has a hybrid in it. The yaldah part is forbidden because it is orlah; the zekenah part is permitted.
The ruling is, “afilu hosif bematayim”—even if, after you put it into the old tree, it produced 200 times the amount of fruit that was there before. No, do not say that. Say there was a little fruit on the tree, and it was orlah. Now you added the old tree, and the fruit grew to 200 times its previous size. You could say it was batel, because now it is in the old tree, which is permitted, and therefore the fruit that grew 200 times more would nullify the orlah in it. What is the ruling? It is forbidden. What do you see? You do not follow the tosefet; you follow the original.
Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: the same story with a batzal (onion). What is a batzal? An onion. “Sheshetalo bekerem.” You planted it in a kerem (vineyard). That is a problem; it is kil'ei hakerem (mixed planting in a vineyard). You cannot plant two seeds together. You plant onions next to the grapes, right? So it is kil'ei hakerem. “Ve'akar hakerem”—then you pulled out the grapes. It does not matter now: this onion has already grown in a forbidden way.
“Afilu hosif bematayim asur.” Even if it grew 200 times more, it is still forbidden. Why? Because you go according to what it was. Since it was forbidden, its additional growth will not nullify it. So this would answer our kushya. What was our question? You have wheat that grew and was finished, and then the omer came and was matir it. Now you put it in the ground, and it added growth. I do not care about the hosafah; I go according to what it was.
Mind you, there is a big chiddush (novel point) here, because in the case of the omer I am taking this rule lehakel (to be lenient). In the case the Gemara brought, I am using “go according to what it was” lechumra (to be stringent): I am saying it is orlah. Here, I am saying what it was, to be lenient and say the omer permits me to eat it. I could argue: maybe we follow what it was only when that is stringent, but who says we follow what it was when that is lenient? Maybe we do not know whether to follow what it was or what it added. So I hedge: lechumra, I go one way, and lechumra, I go the other way. In other words, whatever the chumra (stringency) is, I take it.
The Gemara answers: “hi gufa ka miba'ya leh” (that itself is what he is asking). “Mi peshita lehu lerabbanan devatar ikar azlinan? La shena lekula vela shena lechumra? O dilma, sapukei mesapka lehu, ulechumra amrinan, lekula la amrinan?” (Is it obvious to the rabbis that we always follow the main part, whether the result is lenient or stringent? Or are they uncertain, and we rule stringently, but not leniently?) The Gemara says teiku. That is exactly my question. I know we have a statement that says you follow what it was, but maybe that is a safek, and therefore you do so only lechumra. But in this case, following the ikar would be a kula (leniency), so perhaps you follow what it is now. That is why it is my question.
The Gemara asks: Ba'i Rami bar Chama, “shtei halechem, mahu sheyatiru shelo kesidran?” (Can the shtei halechem permit it when they are not in order?) An interesting question. The 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 in the field, called chadash (new produce), requires the shtei halechem so that it can 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 (community), 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 it for Beit HaMikdash use. So it had to pass through the omer and the shtei halechem. You need two procedures to be 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 the wheat that was permitted for personal consumption becomes permitted for Beit HaMikdash use. 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? Reverse the scenario. We will see exactly how that is possible, but hypothetically the question is: I understand that you need the omer and shtei halechem in that order. What if the shtei halechem came first, and then the omer was matir it? Would that work as well?
Normally, tevu'ah is planted in the winter. If you plant in the winter, it takes root, and everything goes in order: the omer at Pesach time, then the shtei halechem at Shavuot. But let us say you planted in the spring, after the omer. Now what reaches this product first? The shtei halechem. That permits it for Beit HaMikdash consumption, and then, the following Pesach, the omer comes. So it comes out of order. Will that be matir it or not? Do you need the omer at all? You need the omer to be matir it for personal consumption. Maybe the other one covers it? No.
The Gemara says, what is the case? “Kegon dizar'inhu bein ha'omer lishtei halechem.” Exactly: you planted it between the omer and the shtei halechem, for example in Iyar. This month is between the omer and the shtei halechem. The shtei halechem passed over it, and then the omer of the next year came. What is the din? Perhaps the shtei halechem is matir the chadash for the mizbe'ach (altar) only when it comes in order, first the omer and then the shtei halechem. When it is not in order, it does not permit it, and therefore, when you bring the omer the following year, it is still not permitted until you bring the Shavuot offering the following year. Or perhaps it is also permitted when it is not in order. Maybe it simply has to pass through an omer and a shtei halechem; I do not care in what order. Are you following the question?
Rava says, “ta shema” (come and hear). We know that the minchat ha'omer comes from which crop? Barley. How do you know it comes from barley? From se'orim. You might think that this is stated explicitly in a verse in the Torah. It is not. So how do I know that the minchat ha'omer comes from barley? The Gemara will bring some proofs.
“Ve'im takriv minchat bikurim.” The shtei halechem is called minchat bikurim, the first minchah. “Beminchat ha'omer hakatuv medaber.” That is actually referring to the minchat ha'omer. Where does it come from? “Min hase'orim,” from barley. You say it comes from barley, or perhaps it comes from wheat? Rabbi Eliezer says: “ne'emar aviv beMitzrayim.” When God brought the plague of barad (hail), it says, which crop was struck? “Vehase'orah nukatah ki hase'orah aviv.” The barley was struck because the barley was in the ear. The barley, the se'orah, was struck because it ripens first. So the word aviv is said about the barley in the plague of makat barad (plague of hail). “Vene'emar aviv ledorot,” and aviv is also said about the offering for future generations. “Mah aviv ha'amur beMitzrayim se'orim, af aviv ha'amur ledorot se'orim.” Just as the aviv mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, so the aviv mentioned for future generations refers to barley.
That is the minchat ha'omer we are talking about, by the way. I repeat: when is the minchat ha'omer brought? On Pesach, the second day of Pesach. It is brought from barley. How do I know it is brought from barley? Because the word aviv is said there, and the word aviv is said about barad. Barad is se'orah; this is se'orah.
Rabbi Akiva says: “matzinu yachid shemeivi chovato min hachitim vechovato min hase'orim.” We find that an individual brings his obligation from wheat and his obligation from barley. An individual sometimes brings a minchah from wheat, for example, a regular minchah of a sinner, or sometimes a minchah from barley, for example, a sotah (suspected adulteress). So an individual brings from wheat sometimes and from barley sometimes.
“Tzibbur shemeivi'in chovatan min hachitim.” The community brings its obligation from wheat. Most of the time, when the community brings a minchah, it is made out of wheat. For example, the menachot on Mussaf (additional offering), on Rosh Chodesh (new month), and all these offerings are wheat. “Meivi'in chovatan min hase'orim”: they must also bring a minchah from barley. Just as an individual brings from wheat and barley, and we know that the community also brings from wheat, there must also be a minchah that the community brings from barley. The community follows the same pattern as the individual.
“Ve'i amart ba min hachitin, lo matzinu tzibbur sheyavi chovato min hase'orim.” If you say the omer comes from wheat, then you never find a case where the community brings its obligation from barley. Every minchah says the word solet (fine flour). Solet, solet, solet is wheat. Therefore, the omer must be barley, so that the pattern is the same: just as an individual brings from wheat and barley, so the community brings from wheat and barley.
Another proof. Again, we are proving how we know that the minchat ha'omer is brought from barley. If you say the omer comes from wheat, then the shtei halechem are not bikurim. On Shavuot, you have to bring bikurim, the first crop. What do you bring? Wheat. But if the omer is brought from wheat, then you brought it already on Pesach. How can you say that on Shavuot it is called bikurim, the first crop, if you already brought that crop on Pesach? Rather, on Pesach you bring barley, and on Shavuot you bring wheat.
If you say the shtei halechem can be brought shelo kesidran (not in their order), that means the wheat can pass through the shtei halechem first and then the omer, and still be permitted. If you say that is okay, we find 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.” You would bring the omer from wheat that took root before the shtei halechem in Iyar, but after last year’s omer. It grew in Iyar, exactly! It grew in Iyar, so it passed through the shtei halechem first, but you cannot bring it for the shtei halechem because it has not yet passed through the omer. So you bring it for the omer. Once you bring it for that omer, it becomes permitted, because it has passed through Shavuot, let us assume.
Now what do you bring the shtei halechem from? “Umishtei halechem mehanach de'ashrush kodem la'omer dehashta,” you bring the shtei halechem from wheat that took root before this year’s omer, “uvatar shtei halechem de'ishtakad,” but after last year’s shtei halechem. That means it grew between last year’s shtei halechem and this year’s omer, let us say around Tammuz. So what happened? First the omer comes, and then the shtei halechem. This shtei halechem is still considered bikurim, because what you brought for the omer that year was from the previous year, from the Iyar crop.
So you could have a case where you bring wheat on Pesach and wheat on Shavuot, and it is still considered bikurim. Therefore, the Gemara says, your original question was whether it can go out of order. The Gemara says: I will prove to you that it cannot go out of order. If you say it can go out of order, what was the proof of the baraita (early rabbinic teaching), the “davar acher”? The baraita wanted to show that the omer must come from barley. Why? 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. For example, you brought the omer from the Iyar crop. That means the shtei halechem came first, and then the omer. Once the omer comes, it is matir; no problem. You brought the shtei halechem from the Tammuz crop. The Tammuz crop is new produce for that year. Therefore, it is relevant to say that you can bring wheat and wheat and still consider them bikurim.
Rather, the Gemara says, you cannot go out of order. That is why the produce that grew in Iyar cannot be permitted by the omer: since the shtei halechem came first, it is no good. Therefore, this is a re'ayah (proof), and there is no scenario where you can bring wheat and wheat and have both considered bikurim. Rabbi Akiva’s re'ayah is that if the omer were wheat, then it would 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, bikkurim lepira kaamrinan? Lemizbeach kaamrinan! Veha ka achil lemizbeach miperi dehai sha'ata.” (Do you think we are speaking of first fruits for the produce? We are speaking of first fruits for the altar! But the altar is eating from the produce of this year.) You thought that when we said in that baraita that it has to be bikurim, it had to come from the first produce. You thought we meant the fruit, meaning the wheat in this case. Because you already brought wheat, how could you bring wheat again on Shavuot? You thought that is what we meant, and therefore you had this whole proof. No: we are speaking of first fruits for the altar.
What does that mean? Rashi explains: “bikkurim lepira, lechittin hateluyim bahem, bikkurim 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.” One grew in Iyar and one grew in Tammuz. That is basically the same year; it is all within the same 12 months. The produce that grew in Iyar and the produce that grew in Tammuz are from the same year.
Originally, when we heard that it had to be bikurim, we thought it meant “bikkurim lepira kaamrinan”: first fruits for the produce, the new wheat. The Gemara assumed you could have wheat on Pesach and wheat on Shavuot, and it would still be 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 would not be considered bikurim.
So even if you want to say that you can go out of order, it still would not be considered bikurim, because the product brought for the omer, the Iyar product, and the product brought for Shavuot, the Tammuz product, come from the same year. We had assumed earlier that it was called bikurim because it was coming to be matir something the other one was not, and therefore it was considered a new item. The Iyar produce was matir everything before it, and the Tammuz produce, which grew later, came to be matir different parts of the crop because it grew later. That is why I thought it was bikurim, considered new because it was matir something the other one was not.
But that is not the pshat (plain meaning) of bikurim. Bikurim means it is coming in the same year, and these are coming in the same year. Therefore, “lemizbeach kaamrinan.” Even if you want to tell me you can go out of order, you cannot bring me a question and say, “Proof that they have to go in order, because if they 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.