ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Menachos 84
(a) The Tana'im of our Mishnah and of the previous Beraisa argue over
whether the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are Kasher Bedieved, if they are
brought from Yashan produce. They do not however, argue over the produce of
Chutz la'Aretz - which they both agree is Pasul even Bedieved.
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah however disagrees - permitting them from
produce of Chutz la'Aretz even Lechatchilah.
(c) He learns from the Pasuk "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz" (from which the other
Tana'im learn that the Omer must comprise the crops of Eretz Yisrael) - that
Chadash became forbidden only from the time that they entered Eretz Yisrael.
(d) He interprets "mi'Moshvoseichem" - to mean that the Isur Chadash applies
mi'd'Oraysa to the crops of Chutz la'Aretz.
(e) And he extrapolates from there - that they are eligible to be used for
(a) The Mishnah in Shekalim rules that Shomrei Sefichim in the Sh'mitah get
paid from the Terumas ha'Lishkah. 'Shomrei Sefichim' are - people who guard
the wild barley that is eligible for the Omer in the Sh'mitah year (to
ensure that neither animals nor poor people take them).
(b) Rami bar Chama has a problem with that from the Pasuk "Le'Ochlah" - from
which we learn "le'Ochlah", 've'Lo li'Sereifah' (and the Omer has to be
(c) Rav Chisda counters ...
1. ... that - with the Pasuk "le'Doroseichem", implying that the Omer
applies even during the Shemitah.
2. ... Rami bar Chama's reply (that he did not mean to suggest that the Omer
should be Bateil, but that one should bring it from last year's crops) -
with the Pasuk "Carmel", implying that it must be fresh.
3. ... Rami bar Chama's suggestion that one could always bring the Omer from
last year's fresh crops - with the Pasuk "Carmel Takriv", which implies that
it must be fresh at the time that it is brought.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan learns that one cannot bring last year's crops from
'Carmel Takriv' (like Rav Chisda) - whereas Rebbi Elazar learns it from the
Pasuk "Reishis Ketzircha" (which implies that the Omer must be the first of
the new crops to be sacrificed that year).
(b) The difference between the two D'rashos is - a case where the barley is
fresh but is not the first of the harvest (which is Kasher according to
Rebbi Yochanan but not according to Rebbi Elazar).
(c) Rabah cites a Beraisa, which discusses the Pasuk "ve'Im Takriv Minchas
Bikurim", which the Tana defines as - the Minchas ha'Omer.
(d) Rebbi Eliezer there, learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Aviv" (in the
current Parshah) "Aviv" ('ki ha'Se'orah Aviv' [in connection with the plague
of Barad]) - that the Omer must be brought from barley.
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns the same Halachah from the fact that both a Yachid
and the Tzibur bring their Chovah sometimes from wheat and sometimes from
barley. The Chovah that a Yachid brings from ...
1. ... wheat is - the Minchas Chotei (the Korban Oleh ve'Yored).
(b) Bearing in mind that the Korban Chovah of a Tzibur is the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem, Rebbi Akiva goes on to prove from there - that the Minchas
ha'Omer must consist of barley, because otherwise, which Korban Tzibur of a
2. ... barley is - the Minchas Kena'os of a Sotah.
(a) Alternatively, what Rebbi Akiva said was that if the Korban Omer
consists of wheat, then the Sh'tei ha'Lechem would not be considered
"Bikurim" - which implies 'the first fruits to ripen' (and the Sh'tei
ha'Lechem will always be preceded by the Omer [which ripened first]).
(b) When he cited this Beraisa - Rabah had in mind to ask on Rebbi Yochanan,
since the Tana clearly requires the Sh'tei ha'Lechem to be the first-fruit,
and not just fresh.
(c) We remain with a 'Teiku' ('Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos').
(a) The Beraisa limits Bikurim to the seven species - which are the fruits
for which Eretz Yisrael is praised, and which comprise wheat, barley,
grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives and dates.
(b) Dividing the fruit into two categories - dates may only be brought from
the valley, and the remaining fruits, from the mountains.
(c) Ula rule that if the owner did designate dates from the mountains and
other fruit from the valley - they are not sanctified.
(a) Rav Acha bar Huna queries Rav Ula from a Beraisa. The Tana quotes the
Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with yeast and [date] honey) "Korban Reishis
Takrivu Osam" - which refers to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, and comes to teach us
that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem must precede all other Menachos as regards Chadash
(as we learned earlier).
(b) Similarly, the Torah writes in Pinchas (in connection with the Musafin)
"be'Hakrivchem Minchah Chadashah la'Hashem". Bearing in mind that the
Sh'tei ha'Lechem comprises wheat, the Tana learns from the fact that the
Torah repeats the word "Chadashah" - ('Im Eino Inyan) that it must also
precede Korbanos that comprise barley.
(c) And the Tana learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Ki Sisa "ve'Chag Shavu'os Ta'aseh Lecha Bikurei Ketzir
Ma'asecha" - that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem must also precede Bikurim.
(d) With a stress on the word "ba'Sadeh" in the previous Pasuk, we learn
from the Pasuk in Korach "Bikurei Kol Asher be'Artzam" - that it even
precedes crops that grew on the roof, in a ruin, in a ship or in a
2. ... in Mishpatim "ve'Chag ha'Katzir Bikurei Ma'asecha Asher Tizra
ba'Sadeh" - that it also precedes the Bikurim of barley.
(a) The Pasuk writes in Mishpatim "be'Ospecha es Ma'asecha min ha'Sadeh" -
with regard to Succos.
(b) Bearing in mind that by then, all the crops have been harvested
including the grapes, we learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah "Ma'asecha" (by the
Sh'tei ha'Lechem) from "Ma'asecha (by Succos)" - that the Sh'tei ha'Lechem
must even precede Nesachim (with regard to bringing them from Chadash).
(c) When the Tana mentions 'Peiros' together with Nesachim - he is referring
to Bikurim, which he only inserts here 'Derech Agav' (by the way).
(d) Rebbi Acha bar Huna's Kashya from 'she'be'Gag, she'be'Churva,
she'be'Atzitz, ve'she'bi'Sefinah' on Ula - is from the fact that the Tana
clearly incorporates these four in the Din of Bikurim, 'Kal va'Chomer',
Temarim she'be'Harim and Peiros she'be'Amakim' (a Kashya on Ula).
(a) Rabah answers that the Seifa (regarding 'she'be'Gag, she'be'Churva ...
') refers (not to Bikurim, but) to Menachos (as we shall see shortly).
'Seifa' might refer to the Seifa of the Beraisa 'Kol she'be'Gag ... ' - or
it might refer to the Seifa of the Pasuk "Bikurei Kol Asher be'Artzam"
(meaning that "Bikurei" the Reisha, refers to Bikurim, and "Kol Asher
be'Artzam", to Menachos).
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah queries this from the Pasuk there "Kol Tahor
be'Veischa Yochlenu". If the Pasuk is referring to Menachos, he asks - it
is only the male Kohanim who are permitted to eat them, and not 'whoever is
Tahor among the members of his household'.
(c) When Rav Mesharshaya answers 'T'rei Kera'i Kesivi' "Kol Tahor
be'Veischa" and "Lecha Yiheyeh", he means - that the first 'Pasuk' refers to
"Bikurim" in the Reisha, and the second, (which refers to the male Kohanim
only) to the Menachos.
(d) Rav Ashi establishes the entire Pasuk by Menachos. According to him,
"Kol Tahor be'Veischa Yochlenu" refers - to the Lachmei Todah (which are
Kodshim Kalim, and may therefore be eaten by all the members of the Kohen's
(a) Rebbi Yochanan rules 'Lo Kideish' (with regard to dates that grew on a
mountain, and other fruit that grew in a valley [like Ula]). Resh Lakish
holds - 'Kideish' ...
(b) ... because he claims, they are no worse than weak Kodshim, which are
(c) Rebbi Elazar bases Rebbi Yochanan's reason on the Pasuk in Ki Savo. He
learns from the 'Mem' ...
1. ... in "me'Reishis" - that only the seven species are subject to Bikurim.
(d) Rebbi Elazar's inspiration to discover this explanation - stemmed from a
dream on the previous night, in which Rebbi Yochanan appeared to him.
2. ... in "me'Artzecha" - that 'Im Heivi, Lo Kideish' (like Ula).
(a) Resh Lakish explains 'me'Artzecha' like Raban Gamliel bar Rebbi in a
Beraisa, who learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Asher Tavi me'Artzescha"
from "Eretz Chitah u'Se'orah ... " - that only the seven species of fruit
are subject to Bikurim.
(b) Resh Lakish counters Rebbi Yochanan, who learns the Gezeirah-Shavah from
"Eretz" and the invalidation of Temarim she'be'Harim from the 'Mem' of
"me'Artz'cha" - inasmuch as he does not consider the 'Mem' to be an
(c) One Beraisa rules that fruit that grew on a roof, in a ruin, in a
plant-pot or in boat is subject to Bikurim, including the reading of the
Parshah. A second Beraisa rules - 'Meivi ve'Eino Korei'.
(a) When, according to Resh Lakish, we resolve the two contradictory
Beraisos by establishing one of them by the roof of a cave and the other, by
the roof of a house or a ruin, we mean - that the former is 'Meivi ve'Korei'
(since the roof of a cave resembles Karka), the latter, 'Meivi ve'Eino
Korei' (since they do not]).
(b) And when we establish one Beraisa by ...
1. ... a Churvah Avudah (plowed), and the other, by a Churvah she'Einah
Avudah, we mean - that what grows in a plowed ruin is as if it grew from the
ground and requires Keri'ah, whereas what grows in a ruin that has not been
plowed, is not.
(c) The problem with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling is - that both Tana'im clearly
incorporate crops that grow on a roof or in a ruin ... and dates that grow
on a mountain ... in the Din of Bikurim (whereas Rebbi Yochanan does not).
2. ... a flower-pot with a hole, and the other, by one without a hole, we
mean - that the former is considered attached to the ground, whereas the
latter is not.
3. ... a wooden boat, and the other, by a boat made of earthenware, we mean
that we consider whatever grows in a wooden boat is considered attached to
the ground, whereas the earthenware one is not. Note, that in all of these
cases, the owner cannot read the Parshah, because he cannot say
"me'Artzecha" (see Eizehu Mekoman DH 'Ha be'Gag').
(d) We answer that according to him, this is another Machlokes Tena'im. One
Beraisa says 'she'be'Gag ve'she'be'Churvah Meivi ve'Korei'. A second Beraisa
rules - 'Eino Meivi Kol Ikar'.
(a) Our Mishnah presented Ofrayim as second to Machnis and Zatcha as regards
flour. When Moshe began performing miracles in Egypt, he was confronted by
Yuchna and Mamrei - the two leading astrologers in Egypt.
(b) They accused him of bringing 'straw to Ofrayim' (i.e. of bringing
witchcraft to Egypt, which was already teaming with wizards).
(c) He replied - that on the contrary, it is precisely to a town which sells
grain in large quantities that everybody gathers to purchase corn from the
many merchants there. And that is where one needs to go to sell one's crops,
if one wishes to find buyers.