Menachot 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

And

we challenge this: Is it possible that

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon did not hear

what his father, Rabbi Shimon, said concerning the burning of the fats and limbs? Surely he certainly heard it from him! —

Rather,

it must be that, in any event, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon holds that if the omer that was not reaped in accordance with its mitzva is valid, its reaping should nevertheless not override Shabbat, because it is work that could properly be performed on the eve of Shabbat. And the reaping is not comparable to the proof from the burning of the fats, because:

There, it is different —

with regard to the burning of the fats and limbs, which overrides Shabbat even though it could be performed after Shabbat —

for

it was already

the slaughtering

of these offerings

that had overridden Shabbat. Since Shabbat had already been rendered subject to being overridden by this offering with regard to its slaughtering, Shabbat was likewise rendered subject to being overridden after the slaughtering with regard to the burning of the fats, even though they could be burned after Shabbat. Can you say the same with regard to reaping? At the time of reaping, the offering of the omer had not yet overridden Shabbat, as its offering takes place only afterward.

and since Shabbat had already been given to be overridden with regard to this offering in the matter of slaughtering, Shabbat was likewise given to be overridden after the slaughtering in the matter of burning the fats, even though they can be performed after Shabbat. Can you say this with regard to reaping, for at the time of reaping the offering of the omer had not yet overridden Shabbat, since the offering is only afterward?

And

if so,

according to Rabbi, here too

one cannot bring a proof from the burning of the fats to the reaping of the omer, since there it is different, as

the slaughtering had already overridden Shabbat!?

Rather,

on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara explains Rabbi’s opinion as follows: He disagrees with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon’s proof for another reason. Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon’s entire proof is based on his view that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat, in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael. If so, it necessarily follows that an omer reaped not in accordance with its mitzva is invalid. But according to Rabbi, there is no proof, —

because

Rabbi holds: The reaping of the omer does not override Shabbat,

and not in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

We challenge this:

And

if

not

does the reaping of the omer override Shabbat according to Rabbi —

!?

But we learned

in the Mishna at the beginning of the chapter:

Rabbi Yishmael says: When the omer was brought on Shabbat, it was brought from three se’a [only, so as not to increase the labors performed on Shabbat], and on a weekday it was brought from five [se’a]:

And the Sages say: One

issaron of the omer brought on

Shabbat, and one

issaron of the omer brought on

a weekday, was brought from three

se’a of barley

;

this indicates that even on Shabbat it was brought from grain that had been reaped on Shabbat!?

We answer: The statement of the Sages is

not in accordance with Rabbi,

as according to him the reaping of the omer does not override Shabbat.

The Gemara continues to challenge this from the continuation of the Mishna: Rabbi Ḥanina, deputy of the priests, says: On Shabbat it was reaped by one person, and on a weekday by three.

And the Sages say: Whether on Shabbat or on a weekday,

the omer was reaped

by three

people, and the grain was placed

in three baskets, and

they reaped

with three sickles;

this indicates that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat!?

We answer: This statement of the Sages, too, is

not in accordance with Rabbi

.

The Gemara continues to challenge this from the second Mishna in this chapter: All the nearby towns would assemble there so that the omer would be reaped with great ceremony. Once it became dark, he would say to them, “Has the sun set?” The people would say, “Yes.”

And on Shabbat he would say

the reaper to them,

“Is this Shabbat”

[shall I reap on Shabbat]? The people would say, “Yes.” This indicates that they would reap the omer on Shabbat!?

We answer: This Mishna, too, is

not in accordance with Rabbi.

The Gemara continues to challenge this from our Mishna:

And if it was reaped during the day, it is valid and overrides Shabbat,

which must be the opinion of Rabbi, since:

Whom have we heard say

[who was it that we heard say]:

If it was reaped during the day

— not in accordance with its mitzva —

it is valid?

It was

Rabbi, and

nevertheless

it teaches: And it overrides Shabbat —

Is it not

the case that with regard to

reaping

we stated: “And it overrides Shabbat”? This indicates that even according to Rabbi, the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat!?

We answer:

No.

It is not as you interpreted it, that the phrase “and it overrides Shabbat” was stated with regard to reaping. Rather, it was stated with regard

to

the

offering,

which overrides Shabbat; but in truth, reaping does not override Shabbat according to our Mishna, which is in accordance with Rabbi.

We challenge this:

But with regard to reaping —

it does not!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi says:

It is written in the passage of the appointed times [Leviticus 23, after the passage there in which the Almighty commanded Moses to instruct the Children of Israel concerning the appointed times]:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord

to the Children of Israel.” And

what does the verse come to teach?

We already know that Moses did as he was commanded and instructed the Children of Israel concerning the appointed times! Rather, this is stated to teach concerning the offerings mentioned there, that they override Shabbat:

For we have learned

— without this verse —

only concerning the daily offering and the Paschal offering,

which override Shabbat, because

it is stated concerning them,

“at its appointed time,”

indicating that their time must not be allowed to pass under any circumstances. And to teach:

“At its appointed time,”

he shall bring the daily offering and the Paschal offering;

even on Shabbat, at its appointed time,

he shall bring them;

and even in a state of ritual impurity.

From where

do we know that the other communal offerings also override Shabbat and ritual impurity?

The verse states

in the passage concerning the additional offerings of the appointed times:

“These you shall offer to the Lord

at your appointed times,”

to teach that the communal additional offerings are brought even on Shabbat and even in a state of ritual impurity.

From where do we include

also the

omer and the offering brought with it

[the lamb that was offered with the omer], and

the two loaves and the offerings brought with them

[the two lambs offered with the two loaves], which are not mentioned in that passage but only in the passage of the appointed times?

Therefore

the verse states:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord”;

the verse established an appointed time for all of them,

teaching that even the offerings mentioned there override Shabbat and ritual impurity; namely, the omer and the two loaves, concerning which we did not yet know that they override Shabbat and ritual impurity.

And from here it follows that, according to Rabbi, the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat, since:

For what purpose,

with regard to what did Rabbi say in this beraita that the omer overrides Shabbat?

If we say it was only with regard to the offering,

that he said this, but its reaping does not override Shabbat, because according to Rabbi, who holds that if it was reaped during the day it is valid, work that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat, as you said — this cannot be said, because:

For Rabbi also said in this beraita that the two loaves override Shabbat. But

are the two loaves subject to being offered,

so that one could say that Rabbi stated that they override Shabbat and ritual impurity only with regard to their offering — which is work that can be performed only on Shabbat!?

Rather, obviously, with regard to

the

grinding and sifting

of the two loaves Rabbi said that they override Shabbat, even though they are labors that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat —

And

if so,

the same applies with regard to the omer

[the interpretation that applies to the two loaves applies similarly to the omer],

to reaping

— which is work that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat according to Rabbi — this is what Rabbi intended.

And

nevertheless

it does override

the reaping of the omer

Shabbat!? Thus it is explicit that even reaping overrides Shabbat according to Rabbi, despite being work that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat, according to Rabbi!?

It is therefore clear that, according to Rabbi, even reaping overrides Shabbat, although it is labor that could have been performed on the eve of Shabbat?!

We answer:

Rather, the omer

that Rabbi said overrides Shabbat was in fact with regard

to the offering,

and the two loaves,

which he said override Shabbat, were with regard

to baking.

That is, it is not as you assume, that Rabbi said with regard to the two loaves that they override Shabbat in relation to grinding and sifting, and that you derive from this that, likewise, with regard to the omer, he intended labors that could be performed on the eve of Shabbat. It is not so. Even with regard to the two loaves, Rabbi intended a labor that could not be performed on the eve of Shabbat, namely, baking.

And the reason that baking is a labor that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat is:

And Rabbi holds: The oven

of the two loaves is what

sanctifies

them, as the oven is a service vessel.

And

it follows that

if he baked them yesterday, they would become disqualified through overnight

[if he baked the two loaves on the eve of Shabbat, the two loaves would become disqualified through overnight, since they were sanctified in a service vessel]. Consequently, he is compelled to bake them on Shabbat, and it is work that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat.

We challenge this:

And

if

Rabbi holds that the oven sanctifies

? But it was taught in a beraita:

The two lambs of Shavuot

[the two lambs brought on Shavuot with the two loaves]

do not sanctify the

two

loaves

brought with them

except through their slaughtering;

the oven does not sanctify them.

How so?

If he slaughtered

the lambs

for their sake, and

also

sprinkled their blood for their sake, the loaves are sanctified.

If he slaughtered them not for their sake, and

also

sprinkled their blood not for their sake, the loaves are not sanctified.

If he slaughtered them for their sake but sprinkled their blood not for their sake, the loaves are sanctified and are not sanctified,

as this clause was explained above, on 47a.

These are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon says: They are never sanctified

— the loaves —

until he slaughters them for their sake and sprinkles their blood for their sake.

We have learned that according to Rabbi it is the slaughtering that sanctifies the loaves, and not the oven. How, then, did you say that Rabbi holds that the oven sanctifies them!?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

In truth, according to Rabbi the oven sanctifies the loaves. And do not revise the wording of the beraita to read “the loaves were sanctified”; the beraita is not discussing sanctification. Rather, this is what the tanna intends:

If he slaughtered them for their sake and sprinkled their blood for their sake, the two loaves

were designated

by this for these lambs that were brought with them, and he may not designate them for another sacrifice.

And

if he slaughtered them not for their sake, they

were not designated.

This is what he

was saying.

And the same applies throughout the entire beraita.

We have completed the chapter of Rabbi Yishmael.

Mishna:

And these are

the

menachot

that

are kemitzah-performed

by the koen, and their kometz is burned upon the altar,

while their remainder

of the menachot—after their kometz has been burned—is eaten

by the kohanim:

The first seven menachot are voluntary menachot, and the final three menachot are obligatory menachot; eight of the menachot are wheat menachot, whereas the Omer offering and the sota offering are barley menachot; eight menachot require oil, whereas the sin-offering menacha and the sota offering are dry, without oil:

a.

The fine-flour menacha,

as it is stated [Leviticus 2:1]: “When a person brings a meal-offering to the Lord, his offering shall be fine flour. He shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the kohanim, and he shall take from it a fistful of its fine flour and of its oil, with all its frankincense; and the koen shall burn its memorial portion [the kometz that ascends on high is the remembrance of the menacha, through which its owner is remembered favorably and for acceptance] upon the altar, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And what remains of the menacha shall be for Aaron and his sons, most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord.” It is thus explicitly stated that it is kemitzah-performed and that its remainder is eaten by the kohanim. b.

The griddle-offering,

as it is stated [Leviticus 6]: “And this is the law of the menacha [all wheat menachot, as is the usual meaning of menachot, are included] which the sons of Aaron shall offer. He shall take his handful from it. And what remains of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons”; thus the Torah established that all menachot are kemitzah-performed and that their remainder is eaten by the kohanim. It is also stated [Leviticus 7:9]: “And every menacha baked in the oven, and every one prepared in a pan and on a griddle, shall belong to the koen who offers it; it shall be his.”

c.

The pan-offering,

as it is stated [Leviticus 2:7]: “And if your offering is a pan-offering, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. You shall bring the menacha that is made from these to the Lord; he shall bring it to the koen, and he shall present it to the altar. The koen shall take from the menacha its memorial portion [that is, the kometz] and burn it upon the altar, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And what remains of the menacha shall be for Aaron and his sons, most holy, from the fire-offerings of the Lord”; it is thus explicitly stated that it is kemitzah-performed and that its remainder is eaten by the kohanim.

d.

The loaves

of the oven-baked menacha [one who vows an oven-baked menacha may bring it entirely as loaves], and they are included in what the Torah stated concerning every menacha: that it is kemitzah-performed and that its remainder is eaten by the kohanim; it is also stated: “And every menacha baked in the oven shall belong to the koen who offers it; it shall be his.”

e.

And the wafers

of the oven-baked menacha [for one who vows it may bring it entirely as wafers], and they too are included in what the Torah stated: “And this is the law of the menacha,” as well as in “And every menacha baked in the oven.”

f.

A gentile’s menacha,

meaning, a gentile who voluntarily brought one of the menachot listed above, which are voluntary menachot.

g.

And a woman’s menacha,

meaning, a woman who voluntarily brought one of the menachot listed above, which are voluntary menachot.

h.

The Omer offering,

as it is stated: “And if you bring an offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring crushed roasted grain of a fresh ear. And the koen shall burn its memorial portion [that is, the kometz], from its crushed grain and its oil, with all its frankincense, a fire-offering to the Lord.” It is thus explicitly stated that it is kemitzah-performed; and in the Gemara it will be explained from where it is derived that the remainder of the Omer offering—which is made from barley, unlike ordinary menachot—is eaten by the kohanim.

i.

The sin-offering menacha,

which is the menacha brought by a person in the most impoverished category, for a sin whose required offering is a sliding-scale offering, as it is stated [Leviticus 5]: “When a person sins, having heard the voice of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known; or if a person touches anything impure; or if a person takes an oath; and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord for his sin that he committed, a female from the flock.

And if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring his guilt-offering for the sin he committed, two turtledoves.

And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two young pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for the sin he committed one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering. He shall bring it to the koen, and the koen shall take his fistful from it, its memorial portion, and burn it upon the altar. The koen shall atone for him, and it shall belong to the koen like a menacha [teaching concerning the sin-offering menacha that its remainder is to be eaten]”; and it is also stated [Leviticus 7:10]: “Every menacha mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one like his brother,” and the sin-offering menacha is a dry menacha.

j.

And the sota offering [

the menacha of a woman suspected of adultery], as it is stated [Numbers 5]: “If any man’s wife goes astray. The man shall bring his wife to the koen, and he shall bring her offering for her, one-tenth of an ephah of barley flour. The koen shall take from the woman’s hand the menacha of jealousy. The koen shall take from the menacha its memorial portion and burn it upon the altar”; and in the Gemara it will be explained from where it is derived that this menacha too—which is made from barley—has its remainder eaten by the kohanim.

But a kohen’s menacha—both a voluntary menacha and a sin-offering menacha—is not kemitzah-performed according to the first tanna, as it is stated [Leviticus 6:16]: “Every menacha of a koen shall be entirely burned; it shall not be eaten.”

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even

a koen’s sin-offering menacha

is

kemitzah-performed, its kometz is offered separately, and its remainder is offered separately.

Gemara:

Rav Pappa said: Wherever we learned

that the Sages taught “And these are the menachot” in order to teach a particular law—

ten

menachot

we learned [

ten menachot were enumerated there].

The Gemara asks:

What does this come to teach us

in Rav Pappa’s statement? We can count them and find that they are ten!?

The Gemara explains that its purpose is to teach us that there are only ten menachot here, because the oven-baked menacha is counted as only two, namely: either loaves or wafers

; to exclude Rabbi Shimon [

to teach us that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon],

who says:

One who vows an oven-baked menacha, if he wishes to bring

half loaves and half wafers, may bring them;

there would then be three types of oven-baked menacha—entirely loaves, entirely wafers, and half loaves and half wafers—and the total number of menachot would be eleven—

It comes to teach us that it is not so

but that he must either bring all loaves or bring all wafers.

We learned in the Mishna: “And these are the menachot that are kemitzah-performed.”

And their remainder is for the kohanim:

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know

that the remainder of all these menachot is for the kohanim?

We raise an objection to the question:

From where do we know [

Is it necessary to ask from where this law is derived]!? For:

Where it is written—

it is written:

those menachot concerning which this law is explicitly stated are indeed so stated;

and where it is not written,

even regarding those in which it is not explicitly written,

it is written concerning it [

Leviticus 6]: “

And this is the law of the menacha [

every menacha is included]

which the sons of Aaron shall offer.

He shall take his handful from it.

And what remains of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons”;

the Torah thus established that all menachot are kemitzah-performed and that their remainder is eaten by the kohanim—

If so, what place is there for the question “From where do we know?”

We explain: Indeed, concerning a menacha that

is made from wheat—

in which the eating of the remainder by the kohanim was not explicitly stated—

we do not ask

from where it is derived, because it can be learned from this verse, which deals with ordinary menachot made from wheat.

But what we do ask

is: From where do we know it concerning a menacha that

is made from barley [

namely, the Omer offering and the sota offering, concerning which only kemitzah is stated], which is not included in this verse, since it deals with ordinary menachot made from wheat?

We nevertheless ask: Even a menacha that

is also made from barley

should not be the subject of a question as to from where we know that its remainder is eaten by the kohanim, since

from the fact that it is kemitzah-performed

—as is explicit in the verse—we automatically know that

its remainder

is eaten

by the kohanim!?

We explain: Indeed,

according to the Rabbis—

who hold that a koen’s sin-offering menacha is entirely burned, and according to their view there is no kemitzah-performed menacha whose remainder is not eaten by the kohanim—

we do not ask

from where it is known that the remainder of a barley menacha is eaten by the kohanim, because we already know this automatically from the fact that they are kemitzah-performed—

What we do ask, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says: There is a menacha that is kemitzah-performed but is not eaten [

there is a menacha that is kemitzah-performed, yet its remainder is nevertheless not eaten by the kohanim], is whether the same applies to the Omer offering and the sota offering: perhaps they are kemitzah-performed, but their remainder is not eaten by the kohanim,

as we learned

in our Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: A koen’s sin-offering menacha is kemitzah-performed; the kometz is offered separately, and the remainder is offered separately;

and according to him we ask:

From where do we know

that the remainder of the Omer offering and the sota offering is eaten by the kohanim? Perhaps although they are kemitzah-performed, their remainder too is offered upon the altar, like the sin-offering menacha?

He said—

he explained—

Hezekiah

the source that the remainder of these two menachot is eaten by the kohanim,

from what the verse says [

Leviticus 7:10]:

“Every menacha mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron

one like his brother”; this shows that the remainder is eaten by the kohanim. Although this verse too must be explained according to its plain meaning as referring to ordinary menachot made from wheat, we nevertheless learn from it also concerning the Omer offering and the sota offering—

And because of the principle

“If it is not needed for”

what the Torah taught in this verse—that the remainder of the menachot is eaten by the kohanim—

for a

menacha

mixed

with oil

of wheat,

since we already knew regarding all wheat menachot mixed with oil that their remainder is eaten by the kohanim—

Apply it

to this verse

to refer to a

menacha

mixed

with oil

of barley,

namely, the Omer offering, which is mixed with oil, although it is not stated concerning it that its remainder is eaten by the kohanim.

And if it is not needed—

what the Torah stated, “Every menacha . . . whether mixed with oil or dry, shall belong to all the sons of Aaron”—

for the dry one of wheat

[ the sin-offering menacha], since we already knew this law concerning it,

apply it to the dry one of barley,

which is the sota offering.

We challenge this:

But

is the verse, “Every menacha mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all the sons of Aaron, one like his brother,”

really what it comes for

[

to teach us that the remainder of the Omer offering and the sota offering is eaten by the kohanim]!?

It is needed for this,

for this verse is necessary for what is taught in a beraita:

the meat of most holy sacrificial offerings from animal sacrifices and birds [apart from the burnt-offering, which is entirely burned for the Lord], the remainder of the menachot after their kemitzah, and the breast and thigh of peace-offerings are priestly gifts distributed among the priestly division serving that day.

From where is it derived that they do not divide

the

menachot against the animal sacrifices,

so that one koen cannot say to another koen, “You take your portion from the menacha, and I will take my portion from the sacrifice, at the same value as the portion you took from the menacha”; rather, the kohanim divide the menachot among them all, and the sacrifices among them all?