Menachot 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

he holds

Rabbi Meir

in accordance with him

Rabbi Akiva

in one respect

with regard to grain that has not reached one-third of its ripeness: even for a person, its cutting is not considered harvesting,

but he disagrees with him in one respect

with regard to grain that has reached one-third of its ripeness. For Rabbi Akiva maintains that even in this case its cutting is not considered harvesting, whereas Rabbi Meir disagrees with him in this regard, maintaining that even when it is for an animal, and is performed by means of an animal, it is considered harvesting. We learned in the Mishna:

One may harvest on account of saplings, on account of a house of mourning, and on account of the beit-midrash.

a. According to Rashi y who explains that “gleaning for storage” means grain that has fully ripened, one must wonder: If it is grain that has fully ripened and one harvests it for a person, then it is certainly the beginning of harvesting. How, then, did Rabbi Akiva say that even gleaning for storage is not considered harvesting? This difficulty was already noted by the Keren Ora [and the Keren Ora raised a similar difficulty concerning Tosafot, as explained in the note above]. And in Taharat HaKodesh he wrote: Although this is certainly harvesting, one must say that Rabbi Akiva holds that whenever the harvesting did not begin with the intention of harvesting his entire field—for example, here, where the rest of the stalks were still moist—it constitutes an interruption, and afterward he must give pe'a from each and every stalk. Nevertheless, according to this it is somewhat difficult: What does it mean that “he holds in accordance with him in one respect,” namely, that when the grain has not reached one-third of its ripeness, even for a person it is not harvesting? This is not at all evident from Rabbi Akiva’s words, since it is possible that he holds that when it is harvested for a person it is properly called harvesting, and nevertheless it constitutes an interruption, as it is no better than gleaning for storage. This can be resolved; ; and:

What is the reason

that one may harvest on account of a house of mourning and on account of the beit-midrash?

Because the Merciful One said,

“your harvest”

in the verse

so that your harvest may not precede the Omer,

but not a harvest performed for a mitzva

which is permitted before the Omer.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not make them into bundles; rather, he leaves them in small stacks.

What is the reason

that one may not make them into bundles?

For

whenever

it is possible, we do not trouble ourselves

[we do not undertake the effort], since there is no need for him to make bundles.

We learned in the Mishna:

The mitzva of the Omer is to bring it from standing grain,

if he did not find standing grain, he brings it from sheaves; its mitzva is that it come from moist grain, and if he did not find any, he brings it from dry grain; its mitzva is to harvest it at night, but if it was harvested during the day it is valid, and it overrides Shabbat:

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“And if you bring a meal-offering of first fruits

to the Lord.” And

what does the verse teach

by stating “you shall bring” here, when “you shall bring” has already been stated later in the verse: “Aviv roasted in fire, crushed grain of the fresh ear, you shall bring as the meal-offering of your God”?

Since the mitzva of the Omer is to bring it from standing grain,

as it is stated: “When you begin to reap the standing grain [once the Omer, which is the beginning of the harvest, has been harvested], you shall begin to count seven weeks,”

from where

do we know that if he did not find standing grain

he should bring it from sheaves

that were harvested not for the sake of the Omer?

The verse states

“you shall bring.”

Alternatively,

that is, we derive another law from the apparently superfluous word

“you shall bring”:

The word “you shall bring” here appears superfluous, since the beraita concludes: “The verse states: ‘you shall bring.’”

Since the mitzva is to bring it from moist grain,

as it is stated: “fresh grain you shall bring,”

from where do we know that if he did not find moist grain, he should bring it from dry grain? The verse states

“you shall bring.”

Alternatively,

that is, we derive yet another law from “you shall bring”:

Since its mitzva is to harvest it at night,

as explained above, on page 66a,

from where do we know that if it was harvested during the day it is valid,

and that it overrides Shabbat —

the verse states:

“you shall bring.”

a. In the editions before us the text here reads, “The verse states: ‘you shall bring,’” and it was placed in parentheses; the Shita Mekubetzet also deleted it. b. The Keren Ora raised a difficulty here concerning the Mishna and the beraita: Since we already know that if he did not find standing grain he brings it from sheaves, evidently harvesting at night is not indispensable. If so, why is it necessary to state that if it was harvested during the day it is valid? And the Sefat Emet [in his comments on the Mishna] likewise raised a difficulty: The two statements appear unnecessary. “From sheaves” also means grain that was harvested not for the sake of the mitzva, and even if it was harvested at night, since it was not harvested for the sake of the mitzva, it is equivalent to grain harvested during the day. ; and:

And from the word “you shall bring” we learn all of these laws:

“You shall bring” any amount,

even from sheaves.

“You shall bring” from anywhere,

even from far away from Jerusalem, where it is not moist, since by the time he brings it to Jerusalem it will dry on the way.

“You shall bring,” even on Shabbat.

The tanna did not repeat “you shall bring, even during the day”; see Taharat HaKodesh on this matter.

“You shall bring,” even in a state of ritual impurity.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it was harvested during the day, it is valid.

And we raise an objection:

But didn’t we learn

in tractate Megilla, 20b: The entire day is suitable for reading the Megilla, reading the Hallel, sounding the shofar, and the purification of a leper—

The entire night is suitable for harvesting the Omer and burning the fats and limbs

of the offerings that were sacrificed during the day and placed upon the altar but fell off it, which he returns to the altar throughout the entire night.

This is the general rule: Anything whose mitzva is during the day

is

valid throughout the entire day; anything whose mitzva is during the night

is

valid throughout the entire night.

So explained Rashi here ; and the Ra’avad in Megilla there explained that the reference is to the remnants of the afternoon tamid offering, as it is written concerning them: “It is the burnt offering upon the pyre upon the altar all night.” ; and:

It follows that

the night is taught as analogous to the day—

that is, what the Mishna stated, that their mitzva is throughout the entire night, is analogous to what the Mishna stated, that their mitzva is throughout the entire day—

Just as with the day—

not at night; so with the night—

not during the day either

[as in: “also, not during the day”]. Thus we have learned that the mitzva of harvesting the Omer is at night and not during the day!?

Rabba said: This is not difficult: This

—the statement in our Mishna that if it was harvested during the day it is valid—

is

Rabbi’s opinion.

And that

—the statement that we learned in Megilla, that if it was harvested during the day it is not valid—

is

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon’s, opinion,

as it was taught:

Tosafot wrote in Megilla 20b: Rabbeinu Tam says that if one forgot to recite the blessing over counting the Omer at night, he should not recite it during the day, as is indicated by this anonymous Mishna. Although there is an anonymous Mishna in Menachot that teaches that if it was harvested during the day it is valid after the fact, nevertheless, the anonymous Mishna here takes precedence, since it is taught together with definitive halakhic rulings; ; and:

He was standing and offering the meal-offering of the Omer, and it became ritually impure in his hand; if there is another one

to offer,

he says to him:

“Bring another one in its place.”

According to Rashi ’s version before us, the reason is clear: Although the Omer overrides ritual impurity [as stated above: “You shall bring, even in a state of ritual impurity”], nevertheless, he should offer another one, so that people will not say: It is permitted to offer a ritually impure meal-offering, even one belonging to an individual; ; and:

And if not,

if there is no other meal-offering,

he says to him:

“Be clever and remain silent,”

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case

whether he has another one or whether he does not have another one,

he says to him:

“Be clever and remain silent,”

because he cannot offer the other meal-offering, since it was not harvested at night as required.

For every Omer that was harvested not in accordance with its mitzva

on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan

is invalid,

and therefore he cannot bring another meal-offering for the Omer. Consequently, he offers the ritually impure one and remains silent—

It is therefore clear: The meal-offering of the Omer is valid only if it was harvested on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan; but if it was not harvested then, it is invalid. This is also the position of the Mishna in Megilla, which disqualifies harvesting the Omer during the day.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon

who holds that the meal-offering of the Omer is valid only if it was harvested on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan,

stated his view in accordance with the method of Rabbi Akiva, his father’s teacher

[Rabbi Shimon] —

he stated it, as we learned

in tractate Shabbat 130a:

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: One cuts wood [on Shabbat] to make charcoal, in order to make an iron instrument [with which to circumcise the infant; for just as circumcision itself overrides Shabbat, so too do its requisite preparations override Shabbat, even if these preparations could have been performed on the eve of Shabbat]; but Rabbi Akiva disagrees, for:

Rabbi Akiva stated a general principle:

Any labor that one could perform on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat,

but one that it is impossible to perform on the eve of Shabbat overrides Shabbat.

And

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, further held

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, who said: The harvesting of the Omer is a mitzva,

that is, he held in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael, who derives from the verse that harvesting the Omer—which is a mitzva—overrides Shabbat;

as we learned

in tractate Shevi'it 1:4:

Rabbi Ishmael says:

It is written concerning Shabbat: “In plowing and in harvesting you shall rest.” And we learn:

Just as plowing,

which the Torah said one must refrain from, means plowing of

optional

nature, since there is no plowing that is a mitzva,

so too harvesting,

which the Torah said one must refrain from, means specifically harvesting of

optional nature; the harvesting of the Omer is excluded,

from which one need not refrain, since

it is a mitzva.

See the wording of Rashi ’s in Shabbat 131a, concerning the statement there that the preparations for the Omer override Shabbat. He wrote: “Its preparations,” namely harvesting, grinding and sifting of it, override Shabbat, as we say in Menachot: “In plowing and in harvesting you shall rest”—just as plowing is optional, so too is harvesting optional; the harvesting of the Omer, which is a mitzva, is excluded; ; and:

And according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, it necessarily follows from the fact that the verse taught that harvesting the Omer overrides Shabbat that the Omer is invalid if it was harvested not in accordance with its mitzva, on the night of the sixteenth, for:

And if it enters your mind that, if it was harvested not in accordance with its mitzva, it is valid, why does

the harvesting of the omer override the

Shabbat?

For even if he harvests it not in accordance with its mitzva, the omer will be valid, and this is included among labors that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat and therefore do not override Shabbat

Rather, since it overrides

the harvesting of the omer

Shabbat, conclude:

It is a labor that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, because the omer

if harvested not in accordance with its mitzva, is disqualified.

The Gemara had assumed—based on what was explained regarding the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who disagrees with Rabbi concerning an omer harvested not in accordance with its mitzva—that Rabbi too agrees with him concerning the law of harvesting, namely, that it overrides Shabbat. However, only Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, has proof from this that the omer is disqualified, since he is the son and student of his father, and his father, after all, holds in accordance with the approach of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva.

Consequently, it necessarily follows that an omer harvested not in accordance with its mitzva is disqualified; but Rabbi does not accept the view of Rabbi Akiva and disagrees with him, so there is once again no proof that an omer harvested not in accordance with its mitzva is disqualified. Therefore, the Gemara raises the following difficulty:

And

since

Rabbi was not a student of Rabbi Shimon

[and is Rabbi not a student of Rabbi Shimon, as is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon]? Before you say that Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Shimon, who holds in accordance with his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, is this possible!?

But was it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa

[a place name],

we would bring him

on Shabbat

oil

for anointing

and a towel

for drying himself, in the manner permitted according to Rabbi Shimon, namely:

from a courtyard to a roof, and from a roof

[to a karpef]

[to a karpef,

a type of courtyard],

and from one karpef to another karpef,

until we reached the spring in which we bathed—

It is therefore clear that Rabbi studied Torah with Rabbi Shimon. If so, Rabbi could not have disagreed with him, and he must have said that an omer harvested not in accordance with its prescribed mitzva is invalid, just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said!?

It is evident that Rabbi studied Torah from Rabbi Shimon; if so, it is impossible that Rabbi disagreed with him, and he must have said that an omer harvested not in accordance with its mitzva is disqualified, just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said

?

And we answer: Rabbi did not disagree with Rabbi Shimon. Rather,

Rabbi held

in accordance with another statement of Rabbi Shimon

[another teaching] of Rabbi Shimon—

That is, from another statement of Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi learned that the principle of Rabbi Akiva does not apply to the harvesting of the omer, and that it overrides Shabbat even though an omer that was not harvested in accordance with its mitzva is valid, and this is not included among labors that can be performed on the eve of Shabbat and therefore do not override Shabbat—

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said: Come and see how beloved a mitzva is when performed at its proper time

[how greatly we must cherish it when performed at its proper time]—

For the burning of the fats and limbs

of the additional and daily offerings of Shabbat

is valid throughout the entire night

of the conclusion of Shabbat, and nevertheless

he would not wait for them

on Shabbat

until nightfall, but would burn them while it was still day, in order to hasten to fulfill a mitzva at its proper time—

We learn from this that although the burning of the fats and limbs could be postponed until after Shabbat, nevertheless it overrides Shabbat. Necessarily, this does not contradict Rabbi Akiva’s principle, because Rabbi Akiva stated this principle only with regard to something whose time is not fixed, such as the preparations for circumcision; but something whose time is fixed and which overrides Shabbat overrides it even if it is possible not to perform the labor on Shabbat—

Therefore, Rabbi maintains that the same applies to the harvesting of the omer: Although it is considered a labor that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat, nevertheless, since the Torah fixed the time of harvesting at a set time, it overrides Shabbat.