Menachot 85a — the Talmud in English

But according to Rabbi Yohanan it is difficult:

from what we learned: “in a flowerpot and in a boat” he brings but does not recite. For that which grows in these is not choice, and is inferior to dates in the mountains, concerning which Rabbi Yohanan said that if he brought, he did not consecrate; whereas concerning a flowerpot and a boat it is explained that he consecrated, and he even brings it initially!?

And we answer: that which grows in a flowerpot and in a boat, if it is subject to the first fruits—

it is a dispute between tannaim,

it is stated as a dispute between tannaim,

for it was taught: concerning that which is on the roof

of a cave

and concerning that which is in a ruin

that is worked

he brings and recites; concerning that which is in a flowerpot and in a boat

he does not bring at all.

And Rabbi Yohanan holds like this tanna, that he does not bring at all, because it is not choice and is inferior to dates in the mountains. We learned in the Mishna:

and all of them come only from the choice

Ephraim is second to them:

And that which we read in the chapter “All the Offerings”: one baraita taught: concerning that which is on a roof and that which is in a ruin; evidently, concerning a house roof one brings but does not recite. This is specifically with regard to first fruits, for we require “from the praise of your land,” just as with dates in the mountains and fruits in the valleys, from which one does not bring first fruits; and Resh Lakish says that if he brought, he consecrated. And likewise concerning a house roof, although it is considered attached, nevertheless the fruits are not choice, just as in the case of an unworked ruin, from which one brings first fruits but does not recite, although it is completely attached . And it further appears possible to bring a complete proof from there, that a roof is considered attached even with regard to first fruits, and we apply to it “upon the land which You gave me” ; for we read there: “But according to Rabbi Yohanan it is difficult; it is a dispute between tannaim” ; and in any event it is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan from a roof and a ruin, for we do not find a tanna concerning them who says that he does not bring at all. And it is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said: concerning dates in the mountains and fruits in the valleys, if he brought, he did not consecrate ; and since the Gemara said above, “Granted, according to Resh Lakish it is not difficult: here it is a cave roof, here it is a house roof; but according to Rabbi Yohanan it is difficult,” evidently the Gemara compares a roof and a cave to dates in the mountains and fruits in the valleys, and raises a difficulty from this against Rabbi Yohanan, without resolving anything. Rather, necessarily we must say that the main difficulty raised against Rabbi Yohanan is from a flowerpot and a boat, which are similar to dates in the mountains and fruits in the valleys. But the fruits of a roof and a ruin are superior to dates in the mountains and fruits in the valleys, and from them one brings first fruits and recites according to one tanna, while according to the other tanna he brings but does not recite ; and this that the Gemara says, “Granted, according to Resh Lakish it is not difficult: here it is a cave roof, here it is a house roof,” certainly, since according to Resh Lakish it is possible to distinguish and resolve all the baraitot, the Gemara descends, according to him, to explain and resolve them according to him. And this that it says, “but according to Rabbi Yohanan it is difficult,” applies only to a flowerpot and a boat; but from a roof and a ruin it is not difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, as I explained above. Therefore it resolved only the matter of the flowerpot and the boat, and no more ; and see also in the explanation of the Vilna Gaon in Yoreh Deah 294, subsection 3; and in Hazon Ish Orla 1:17 ; [ and Tosafot remained with the difficulty concerning the sugya; and see the commentary attributed to Rashi and Rashi’s commentary from a manuscript]. And it is plainly explained from the words of the Rosh: a. Dates in the mountains are inferior even to those growing on a house roof and in an unworked ruin, for otherwise, by virtue of the contradiction between the baraitot, one would have to say that even from a house roof and an unworked ruin he brings but does not recite, and this would be difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said: he did not consecrate ; rather, certainly that which grows on a house roof and in an unworked ruin is better than dates in the mountains, and therefore one cannot raise a difficulty from this against Rabbi Yohanan. b. Since that which grows in a perforated flowerpot or in a boat like it has fruits more choice than that which grows on a house roof and in an unworked ruin—for according to Resh Lakish one brings from these and recites, whereas from a roof and a ruin he does not recite ; then necessarily, if from a house roof and an unworked ruin one cannot raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan, as explained, all the more so one cannot raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan from that which grows in these, since these are better than that which grows on a house roof and in an unworked ruin ; and necessarily one must say—according to the method of the Rosh—that the entire difficulty of the Gemara against Rabbi Yohanan is only from an unperforated flowerpot and a boat like it, which are inferior to dates in the mountains ; and necessarily one must also explain the baraita concerning a flowerpot and a boat, “he does not bring at all,” as referring specifically to an unperforated flowerpot and a boat like it. But see concerning all this in Penei Yehoshua in the supplementary tractate to Gittin 7b; according to his understanding of the opinion of the Rosh, even that which grows in a perforated flowerpot and a boat like it is inferior to dates in the mountains ; and see also in Hazon Ish Uktsin 4:4 ; and see in Penei Yehoshua, who brought from Maimonides [ Bekurim 2:9, who ruled that even in a perforated flowerpot one does not bring at all ; but some read in Maimonides “ flowerpot that is not perforated,” see Kiryat Sefer, and see further in Sefer HaMafteach there. The Gemara brings that, at the beginning of the redemption of Israel from Egypt, it is stated there: [Exodus 7:9]: “When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Give yourselves a sign,’ then Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, and they did so, as the Lord commanded; and Aaron cast his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Pharaoh also called for the wise men and for the sorcerers, and they too, the magicians of Egypt, did so with their flames”—

Yohana and Mamre said to [

the names of two men from the leaders of the sorcerers in Egypt]

Moses

our teacher:

And do

you bring straw to Ephraim!?

They mocked him: do you bring sorcery to Egypt, which is full of sorcery? For they thought that Moses was performing sorcery, and this is like one who brings straw to Ephraim, which is full of grain; such a person is nothing but insane.

He said to them,

Moses our teacher said to those sorcerers, by way of mockery corresponding to their mockery:

People say: To a city, take vegetables, vegetables!

This is a common proverb among people: to a city in which much vegetation grows, you too bring vegetables to sell there, for anyone who needs vegetables comes to buy them there; and so too I, in a place where there is sorcery, will perform sorcery.

Mishna:

One does not bring

the omer and the two loaves from fields whose produce is not choice:

Nor from a dung-house,

from a field that requires manure.

Nor from a water-channel field,

a field that grows by means of spring water within it, and not by means of rainwater.

Nor from a tree-house,

a field in which there are trees.

And

in any event

if he brought

from these fields—

it is valid.

How does he make it

so that the grain growing in the field will be choice?

This is

plowed [

he plows the field and leaves it fallow, without sowing it, for]

the entire first year,

all of it,

and in the

year

he sows it in the second year seventy days before Passover,

and from its grain he makes abundant fine flour.

How does he examine

the fine flour after grinding and sifting the grain, whether it is fit?

The treasurer

inserts

his

hand into it:

if

dust rose in it,

then the fine flour is

invalid until he clears away

the dust.

And if it became wormy,

the fine flour, it is

invalid.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“How does he make it? He plows it during the first year,

and in the second year he sows it seventy days before Passover”:

They raised a question before them: What is he saying

the tanna? How is the Mishna interpreted, for it can be explained in two ways: Is it that

he plows it during the first year,

plowing it and leaving it fallow throughout the entire year,

and

in the

second year he plows it and sows it,

like all other fields, which are first plowed and afterward sown?

Or perhaps: he plows it during the first year, and

in the

second year he sows it without plowing it,

for he already plowed it during the first year.

Come and hear

a proof that he plows it again also during the second year, from this:

for it was taught: Rabbi Yose said:

Even “

the wheat of Karzaim”

and “

Kefar Ahim” [

they are names of places],

if not [

if it were not that they are not]

near Jerusalem,

from which the omer is to be brought,

would they bring

the omer also

from them—

because

these fields stand in the south of the Land of Israel they stand, and

one brings the omer only from fields facing south [

that stand in the south of the Land of Israel], as he proceeds to explain the reason—

And

from the fields

plowed for this purpose [

plowed for the sake of the omer]—

in which—

in the fields facing south—

the sun rises,

that is, even during the winter, for most of the daytime the sun is there in the south,

and from them the sun sets,

that is, near its setting the sun shines there upon them, and all this is good for the grain.

How

does he

make it?

He plows it during the first year, and

in the year

second he plows and plows again [

he plows twice]—

and sows it seventy days before Passover—

so that

through sowing it close to Passover

the sowing will be near

the sowing

to

the strength of the

sun [

the time when the sun becomes stronger],

and

as a result

the grain makes

the grain:

a stalk—

of the size of

a span, and an ear [

the head of the ear, where the kernels are, [in the length of]

two spans.

And he reaps, gathers sheaves, threshes, winnows, selects, grinds, sifts, and brings it to the treasurer -

And

the

treasurer inserts his hand into it; if dust rose in it, he says to him: Return and sift it

a

second time.

In the name of Rabbi Natan they said: the treasurer anoints his hand

with

oil, and inserts

his hand

into it, until he lifts out all its powder

its dust.

And from this beraita the Gemara resolves its uncertainty in the interpretation of the Mishna: whether he plowed only in the first year, or also in the second year:

It teaches, at any rate,

in the beraita: “and the second year”

he plows and repeats.

It follows that he also plowed in the second year.

And we challenge the resolution from the beraita to our Mishna:

But according to your reasoning,

and according to your method, that you learn from the beraita to explain the Mishna—behold,

our Mishna does not teach

that he had

repeat

his plowing in the second year,