ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 69
(a) Rami bar Chama asked whether the fruit (grapes and olives) that is
permitted by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (to be brought as Korbanos) must have
reached the stage of Hanatzah (blossoming) or Chanatah (budding, a later
stage than Hanatzah [see Shitah Mekubetzes 1]). This cannot be referring to
the blossoming and the budding of the fruit - because if, as we have already
learned, the Hashrashah (taking root) of the crops is the required stage for
them to become permitted, then it is obvious that one does not need to wait
for either the Chanatah or the Hanatzah of fruit to permit it.
(b) It must therefore refer to - the Hanatzah and Chanatah of the leaves.
(c) And the She'eilah is - which one of them is equivalent to the Hashrashah
of the crops (that permits it with the bringing of the Sh'tei ha'Lechem).
(d) The outcome of the She'eilah is 'Teiku'.
(a) Rava bar Rav Chanin asked whether the Omer will permit wheat that one
planted in the ground to be eaten. Initially, we dismiss this She'eilah on
the basis of the next Mishnah - which makes a clear distinction in this
regard between crops that took root before the Omer was brought and those
(b) We therefore establish the case - when the wheat had taken already root
before it was cut the first time.
(c) And the She'eilah is - whether the Omer will ...
1. ... permit it - because it did after all, take root before the Omer (and
replanting it in the ground is no different than placing it in a jar).
(d) He also asked whether that wheat would be subject to Ona'ah
(overcharging by more than a sixth) or not - since according to the second
side of the She'eilah, it has a Din of Karka, and Karka is not subject to
Ona'ah (as we learned in Bava Metzi'a).
2. ... not permit it - because when they replanted it, it became Bateil to
the ground and would therefore not be permitted until the following Omer.
(a) The She'eilah would not be valid if it referred to a case where the
seller planted only five Kur instead of six, since Rava ruled that 'Davar
she'ba'Midah, she'be'Mishkal, ve'she'ba'Minyan - Afilu Pachos mi'Chedei
Ona'ah Chozer' - because the concept of Mechilah (foregoing a small
discrepancy [the basis of a discrepancy of less than a sixth being fully
valid]) is simply inapplicable there where the parties stipulated exact
(b) Conseqently, the She'eilah would then be negated - seeing as the
purchaser stipulated an exact amount ...
(c) ... turning it into a case of Bitul Mekach (and not Ona'ah), which
applies to Karka no less than to Metaltelin.
(d) The case must therefore be - where the purchaser asked for the wheat to
be planted properly, but the seller distributed the seeds badly (thereby
devaluing the crops), and here too, the Halachah will depend upon whether
the wheat has the Din of Karka or Metaltelin, as we explained.
(a) The third She'eilah Rava bar Rav Chanin posed, also based on the
original question as to whether wheat that is cut before having taken root a
second time is considered Karka or Metaltelin is - whether it is subject to
a Shevu'ah (if the seller admits to selling part of the claim, or where
there is one witness to support the claim).
(b) The basis of this She'eilah is - the principle 'Ein Nishba'in al
ha'Karka'os' (as we also learned in Bava Metzi'a).
(c) Rami bar Chama then asks what the Din will be regarding grains of wheat
that one finds in animal's dung. He cannot be asking whether they are ...
1. ... subject to Tum'as Ochlin, due to a Beraisa which draws a distinction
between - whether the owner only *had in mind* to eat them (in which case
they are not subject to Tum'as Ochlin) or whether he actually removed them
(in which case they are).
(d) So we establish the case when the owner re-planted them, in which case
they are no longer disgusting. Nevertheless, they might not be eligible to
bring as a Minchah - because grains that have passed through the digestive
system of an animal are weak and do not grow well.
2. ... eligible to be brought as Menachos in their present form - because
based on the Pasuk in Malachi "Hakriveihu Na le'Pechasecha?" (Would you give
that to *your* king) - it would not be acceptable, whatever its status.
(e) The outcome of both this She'eilah and those of Rava bar Rav Chanin is -
(a) Rami bar Chama asked what the Din will be regarding an Egyptian
wickerwork basket that an elephant swallowed whole and then exuded by way of
its back-passage. The She'ilah cannot be whether the basket loses its Din of
Tum'ah, due to a Mishnah in Keilim, where the Tana rules ...
1. ... that Keilim can become subject to Tum'ah with Machshavah alone (such
a large piece of leather designated to make shoes, which the owner
subsequently decides to use as a table).
(b) So we establish the case - by an elephant that swallowed Lulav leaves,
and after it exuded them, a wickerwork basket was manufactured from them.
2. ... that they cannot lose their Tum'ah once they are already Tamei -
unless one actually effects a major change in them (e.g. by breaking them).
(c) And the She'eilah is whether it is ...
1. ... not subject even to Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan - because seeing as it
passed through the elephant's digestive system, it is called 'Ikul'
(digested), and is considered dung, which is one of the three things listed
in the Mishnah in Keilim that are not subject to Tum'ah (even
(d) The two other kinds of Keilim that are not subject to Tum'ah, even
mi'de'Rabbanan - are Keilim made of stone and of earth.
2. ... subject to Tum'ah (even mi'd'Oraysa) - because since (in spite of the
elephant's digestive system) the basket emerged unchanged, it is not called
'Ikul', and is therefore not considered dung, but wood, which is subject to
Tum'ah (as long as it is in the form of a receptacle).
(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a ruling of Ula quoting Rebbi
Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak regarding the story of two wolves - that swallowed
two children in Eiver ha'Yarden.
(b) The Chachamim (quoted by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak) ruled there -
that the Basar is Tahor (because it is called Ikul, even though the Basar
(c) We try to prove from this - that regarding our She'eilah too, this is
called 'Ikul', even though the leaves came out whole.
(d) We refute the proof
1. ... from there however, because 'Basar is different' - since (compared to
Lulav leaves) it is soft.
2. ... from the Seifa 've'Tim'u es ha'Atzamos' (a proof that it is not
considered 'Ikul') - because (again compared to Lulav leaves) bones are
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be regarding wheat that fell from
the clouds - which entered the clouds when they sucked up a boat
transporting wheat from the ocean (see also Tosfos DH 'Chitin').
(b) The She'eilah cannot be whether they are eligible to be used for
Menachos - since there is no reason why not.
(c) So we establish the She'eilah as to whether they are eligible to be used
for the Sh'tei ha'Lechem. Based on the Pasuk "mi'Moshvoseichem" ('la'Afukei
Chutz la'Aretz'), they might ...
1. ... nevertheless be eligible - because they did not come from Chutz
(d) In answer to the question whether such a thing is feasible, we answer
'In, bar Adi Tay'a Nechisa lei Rum Kizba Chiti bi'Telasa Parsi' - meaning
that it happened to bar Ada the Arab, who received a load of wheat measuring
three Parshah by one Tefach deep in this way.
2. ... be disqualified, too - since they did not come from Eretz Yisrael
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi asked what the Din will be if, before the Omer,
one uprooted stalks of wheat that were one third grown, and replanted them
after the Omer. If they had grown less than that - it would be considered
'Shachas' (which is only fit for animals and), which is not permitted by the
(b) The She'eilah now is whether the Omer ...
1. ... permits those - because one goes after the Ikar (the initial growth),
which grew before the Omer, or ...
(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rebbi Avahu Amar
Rebbi Yochanan in connection with Kil'ayim - which is normally Bateil in two
2. ... after the Tosefes (which grew afterwards), in which case, they are
not permitted until next year's Omer.
(a) Rebbi ...
1. ... Avahu rules in a case where one grafted a branch of Orlah with fruit
into an old tree, and the fruit increased by two hundred percent after it
was grafted - that the fruit nevertheless remains forbidden (because of
(b) The reason for these two rulings is - because we go after the Ikar (and
not after the Tosefes).
2. ... Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini Amar Rebbi Yonasan rules likewise, that in
the case of an baby onion that was planted in a vineyard, and that grew by
two hundred percent after the vineyard had been uprooted - the onion remains
(c) The Ikar is not Bateil in two hundred in this case - because they are
all part of the same of the same fruit.
(d) We refute the proof from there that we go after the Ikar (in which case
the stalks of wheat will be permitted - because we are not sure whether the
above Rabbanan go after the Ikar out of conviction (in which case they will
do the same in our case too, even though it means going le'Kula); or whether
they do so out of doubt (in wsich case they will go le'Chumra both ways, and
forbid the stalks in our case, in case we are supposed to go after the
(e) The outcome of the She'eilah is - 'Teiku'.