ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 71
MENACHOS 71 - Dedicated in honor of the 80th Birthday of Jean Turkel
Rafalowicz by the Turkel/Linzer Family. Mazal Tov on reaching this
milestone. May you be Zocheh to continue to see Nachas from your children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren until 120 years!
(a) Rebbi Elazar asked Rebbi Yashiyah who lived in his generation not to sit
down until he explained to him from where we know that the Omer permits all
crops that have taken root. We add the words 'who lived in his generation'
to preclude - Rebbi Yashiyah the Tana, who lived a few generations earlier.
(b) "Aviv" means - ripe.
(c) Based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "Aviv Kaluy ba'Eish", Rebbi Yashiyah's
initial reaction to Rebbi Elazar's was - that the mere fact that the Torah
writes "Aviv Kaluy ba'Eish" (with regard to the Omer) - indicates that there
are other crops that are considered Chadash that have not yet reached the
stage of Aviv, which presumably refers to the stage after Hashrashah.
(a) We refute Rebbi Yashiyah's suggestion however - on the grounds that
"Aviv" does not preclude corn that took root - but corn that has grown one
third of its full potential.
(b) Shmuel makes the same inference from "me'Hachel Chermesh ba'Kamah"
('La'av mi'Chelal de'Ika de'La'av bar Chermesh'). We refute that too
however, by precluding (not corn that has reached the stage of Hashrashah,
but) the stage of 'Shachas' (that did not grow well, and is only fit for
(c) And Rebbi Yitzchak makes the same inference from "Kamah" ('La'av
mi'Chelal de'Ika de'La'av bar Kamah'). Again, we refute this - by
establishing the stage that is precluded from the Omer as 'Agam' (that has
grown to the height that one can bend one stalk to touch the root of the one
next to it).
(a) Rava finally learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Chag ha'Katzir Bikurei
Ma'asecha *Asher Tizra*" (implying from the time of planting), which
pertains to the Omer as well as to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, because the latter
only permits the same crops to the Mizbe'ach as the Omer already permitted
to the Hedyot.
(b) Rav Papa asked Rava why the Omer does not then permit the crops from the
time of planting - to which he replied "ba'Sadeh" K'siv, meaning that,
besides the planting, it also needs to have become part of the field.
(c) He referred to Rav Papa as 'Sudni', perhaps based on the Pasuk "Sod
Hashem li'Yere'av". Alternatively, he might have called him that - because
he was a beer-manufacturer (which is what 'Sudni' means).
(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah, which permits harvesting a Sadeh
Beis Hashalachin in the valley, provided one does not make a hay-stack out
of it - which is precisely what the men of Yericho used to do.
(b) The Chachamim - gave their consent to the harvesting of the crops, but
not to the fact that they made haystacks out of it.
(c) The Tana permits - cutting Shachas to feed one's animals before the
(a) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the Tana's previous statement - by permitting
this even after the crops have grown one third, provided he began harvesting
prior to that.
(b) Rebbi Shimon is more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah. He permits - even to
begin cutting the crops to feed one's animals, even after they have grown
(c) Our Mishnah also permits cutting the crops before the Omer because of
1. ... saplings. This might be due to the Isur of Kil'ayim. Alternatively -
it is because crops that grow in a field of trees are not eligible to be
used for the Omer (in which case they are not subject to the Isur of cutting
before the Omer either).
(d) The Tana only permits that however - on condition that one arranges the
cut corn into loose untied sheaves.
2. ... u'Mipnei Beis ha'Aveil u'Mipnei Bitul Beis-Hamedrash' - meaning in
order to make room to eulogize a Meis, or to seat the Talmidim who have no
room to learn.
(a) The Tana permits bringing the Omer from sheaves that have already been
cut - Bedieved. Lechatchilah, however, they must be cut for the sake of the
Omer, as the Torah writes "me'Hachel Chermesh ba'Kamah".
(b) He also permits Bedieved the Omer from ...
1. ... dry produce - though Lechatchilah, it should be fresh (since the
Torah writes "Carmel", as we learned earlier).
2. ... produce that was cut by day - though Lechatchilah, it should be cut
at night-time (to coincide with "Temimos", as we learned earlier).
(a) The Pesukim "u'Ketzartem es Ketzirah Va'haveisem es Omer") and "Reishis
Ketzirchem el ha'Kohen" appear to contradict each other - because the former
seems to permit harvesting the crops before the Omer, whereas the latter
implies that the Omer must be the first crops to be harvested.
(b) Rebbi Binyamin in a Beraisa reconcile them - by establishing the former
in a location whose crops are not eligible to be brought as the Omer, and
the latter in one whose crops are.
(c) We query this however, on the grounds that - perhaps it is a *species*
that is not eligible to be brought as the Omer that is permitted (and not a
(d) And we refute this on the basis of Rebbi Yochanan, who Darshened on the
previous Amud from "Reishis" "Reishis" that the Isur of cutting the crops
before the Omer incorporates all five kinds of grain (even though the Omer
may only be brought from barley).
(a) We learned in a Beraisa that the men of Yericho did six things.
According to Rebbi Meir, the significance of ...
1. ... the first group, who grafted date-palms all day (on Erev Pesach),
were 'Korchin al Shema' and harvested their crops before the Omer' is - that
they did so with the consent of the Chachamim.
(b) 'Korchin al Sh'ma' means - that they read the Sh'ma without making a
break (see Tosfos DH 've'Korchin').
2. ... the second group, who made haystacks from the crops before the Omer,
permitted the branches of carob and Shikmah (a sort of fig-tree)-trees of
Hekdesh that grew after the declaration of Hekdesh, and who, in years of
drought, made breaches in their gardens and orchards to feed the fruit that
fell from the trees to feed the poor on Shabbos and Yom-tov' (even though
they were Muktzah or because one might climb the tree to and pick more) is -
that they did this without the Chachamim's consent.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah objects to Rebbi Meir's version of the distinction between
the two groups on the grounds that - if the Chachamim gave their consent to
the first three things, then why did only *they* perform them and nobody
(b) Rebbi Yehudah therefore distinguishes between the two groups - in that
the Chachamim did not verbally protest to the actions of the first group
(even though they did not agree with what they did), whereas they did, to
the actions of the second.
(c) However, he combines harvesting and making haystacks in the first
group - adding 'Nosnin Pe'ah la'Yerek' (leading the poor to believe that it
was Patur from Ma'aser) to the second.
(a) Based on this Beraisa, the author of the Reisha of our Mishnah must be
Rebbi Yehudah - because it speaks of the Chachamim not protesting about
making haystacks (and he is the one who enters into 'Miychu' and 'Lo Miychu'
in the Beraisa).
(b) That leaves us with a discrepancy between our Rebbi Yehudah in our
Mishnah, which lists 'Kotzrin' among the things that the Chachamim consented
to, and Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, who only lists those things to which
the Chachamim did not consent to, yet it includes 'Kotzrin'.
(c) We first counter this by pointing out a discrepancy in the Beraisa
itself - which presents a list containing six things that the men of Yericho
did, and then goes on to list seven.
(d) So we kill two birds with one stone, and answer both questions with one
fell swoop - by omitting 'Kotzrin' from the Beraisa altogether.
(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Pe'ah that a Nachal, a Shelulis, a public
and private road and a public and private path divide a field in two with
regard to Pe'ah. The definition of ...
1. ... 'a Nachal' is - a valley of hard virgin soil (like the Nachal Eisan
in the Parshah of Eglah Arufah).
2. ... 'a Shelulis' is - a pool of rain water.
1. A private road is at least four Amos wide - whereas a private one is at
(c) A private path divides between two fields, provided it is used in winter
as well as in summer. The significance of the fact that it is used in winter
too is - that otherwise, it is an indication that it is too narrow, and is
therefore not Chashuv.
2. A road (Derech) is for traffic - whereas a path (Sh'vil) is for walking.
(a) Finally, the Tana inserts a Sadeh Bur, a Sadeh Nir, Zera Acher and,
according to Rebbi Meir, Kotzer la'Shachas to the list. 'Zera Acher' means
a field between two wheat-fields for example, that is growing lentils. A
'Sadeh Bur' is - a field that has been left fallow, and a 'Sadeh Nir' - one
that has been plowed.
(b) According to the Chachamim, 'Kotzer la'Shachas' only divides the field
if one subsequently plowed it - because cutting the corn for animals is
considered to be the beginning of the harvest (in which case, it is all
still considered one field).
(c) Rebbi Meir holds - that 'Kotzer la'Shachas' is not considered a harvest
at all (in which case the middle field is not part of the two fields that
(d) When Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan equates Rebbi Meir with
Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, he means - that the latter too, does not
consider Kotzer la'Shachas to be a harvest, which is why he gives a blanket
Heter to do so before the Omer.
(a) When Rabah repeated Rebbi Yochanan's statement, Rav Acha bar Huna
queried it from a Beraisa (in connection with Pe'ah) which discusses 'Achlah
Chagav, Karsemuhah Nemalim Shavraso ha'Ru'ach'. The Tana uses the expression
'Achlah' in connection with the locusts and 'Karsemuhah' in connection with
the ants - because it is the way of locusts to attack the corn from the top,
whereas the ants severs the stalks from the bottom.
(b) The Tana concludes - 'Divrei ha'Kol Charash, Mafsik, Lo Charash, Eino
Mafsik'. 'Divrei ha'Kol' obviously refer to Rebbi Meir (who argues with the
Rabbanan in the Mishnah in Pe'ah).
(a) To explain why Rebbi Meir concedes to the Rabbanan in the latter, Rav
Acha bar Huna therefore establishes the Mishnah in Pe'ah - when it has not
grown a third, and the Beraisa - when it has (and he considers Kotzer
la'Shachas to be a harvest, once the crops have grown a third [like Rebbi
(b) Otherwise, asks Rav Acha bar Huna, (according to Rebbi Yochanan, who
equates Rebbi Meir with Rebbi Shimon), if the Mishnah is speaking about
produce that has grown a third, and it is not considered a harvest when
performed by a man, how much more so when it is performed by an animal (so
why does he say in the Beraisa 'Lo Charash, Eino Mafsik')?
(c) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Meir is speaking about cutting the corn for
human consumption, the problem with equating him with Rebbi Yehudah in our
Mishnah (as we then suggest) is that if Rebbi Yehudah holds that Kotzer
la'Shachas is not considered a harvest even then - he will be arguing with
the Tana Kama (who only says this in connection with cutting it for animal
consumption), creating three opinions in the Mishnah, when in fact, we know
that he really agrees with the Tana Kama ...
(d) ... because whenever Rebbi uses the term 'Eimasai', he is coming to
qualify and not to argue.
(a) So when Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he established Rebbi Meir
like Rebbi Akiva his Rebbe, who argues with the Chachamim in a Mishnah in
Pe'ah with regard to 'ha'Menamer Sadeihu Ve'shiyer bo Kelachim Lachim',
which means - that someone harvests one of every two rows in his field,
leaving every alternate row of fresh corn uncut.
(b) Rabbi Akiva holds 'Ha'menamer Sadeh ... Pe'ah le'Chol Echad ve'Echad' -
because what he harvests is not considered part of the harvest of the field,
though if the corn was fully grown, he would concede that what he cut is
considered part of the harvest ...
(c) ... like the Chachamim, who say - 'me'Echad al ha'Kol, even if the
produce is not fully ripe.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel confines Rebbi Akiva's previous ruling to
'Menamer li'Kelayos' (which is comparable to corn that has not yet reached a
third), - whereas by 'Menamer le'Otzar', which is fully ripe, he too, will
hold 'me'Echad al ha'Kol'.
(b) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. In his opinion - Rebbi Akiva's
opinion extends to 'Menamer le'Otzar' (even that is not considered a
(c) This clashes with Rebbi Meir, who says - that once the corn is a third
grown, it is considered a harvest (as we saw in the Beraisa of 'Achlah
(d) So we conclude - that, regarding even with regard to cutting for human
consumption, Rebbi Meir concurs with Rebbi Akiva, at least as far as where
the crops have not yet grown one third is concerned (but once they have, he
considers it a harvest, even though Rebbi Akiva doesn't).