(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Menachos 66

MENACHOS 66 - dedicated by Moishe Schwerd of Kew Gardens Hills, NY. May he and his family be blessed with good health and continued growth b'Ruchniyus and b'Gashmiyus!



(a) The Pasuk "mi'Yom Havi'achem ... Tisperu" implies that one may count any time after bringing the Omer, says the Beraisa currently under discussion. However, the Tana learns from the Pasuk "me'Hacheil Chermesh ba'Kamah Tacheil Lispor" - that the counting must take place between the cutting and the bringing of the Omer.

(b) And he learns that the Kohanim cannot ...

1. ... subsequently bring the Omer whenever they please - because of the previous Pasuk ("mi'Yom Havi'achem", which implies that the counting takes place on the same day as the bringing, and not a day or two earlier).
2. ... cut the barley, count the Omer and bring the Omer, all in the daytime - because the Torah writes "Temimos", implying that one must count by night.
3. ... cut the barley, count the Omer and bring it, all by night - because the Torah writes "mi'Yom Havi'achem", which indicates that the bringing of the Omer must be performed by day.
(c) The Tana therefore concludes - that one cuts and counts the Omer by night, and brings it in the day.
(a) Rava concludes that eight of the twelve opinions quoted above in the two Beraisos are refutable. He refutes the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai by citing Abaye, who reconciles the two Pesukim "Tisperu Chamishim Yom" and "Shiv'ah Shavu'os Tispor Lach" - by learning from them that it is a Mitzvah to count the weeks as well as the days.

(b) The problem Rava has with ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer (and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira in the second Beraisa ['Sefirah ha'Teluyah be'Beis-Din']) and Rebbi Yehoshua ('Samuch le'Bi'ah Nikeres'), who prove that the counting must begin after Yom-Tov and not after Shabbos is - from where do they then know that it is not on the day after the *last* day of Yom-Tov that one begins to count (rather than on the day after the first).
2. ... Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who proves that one must always count fifty days until Shavuos (and not more) - that perhaps this means from the time that one begins counting, and not from Pesach (as he assumes).
(c) And Rava refutes Rebbi Yossi's first proof (because we would not know which Shabbos) - due to the fact that Rebbi Yossi presents an alternative proof (indicating that he himself was not not happy with the first one [possibly because it is obvious that the Pasuk would be referring to the day after Shabbos in the middle of Pesach, since that is where it is written).

(d) He leaves intact the opinions of - Rebbi Yishmael (and Rebbi Yossi in the second Lashon), and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira (' ... Mah lehalan Regel u'Techilas Regel ... '), and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ('Kasuv Echad Omer Sheishes Yamim ... '), all of which point to the second day of Pesach as the first day of counting the Omer.

(a) The Rabbanan of Bei Rav Ashi used to count the days and the weeks, like the ruling of Abaye. Ameimar used to count only the days ...

(b) ... because, he said, since nowadays (when we cannot bring the Omer), counting the Omer is only mi'de'Rabbanan, 'Zeicher le'Mikdash' (in memory of the Beis-Hamikdash), the Rabbanan did not necessitate counting the weeks as well.

(a) After cutting the barley and placing it in boxes, they carried it to the Beis-Hamikdash. According to Rebbi Meir, they then scorched the kernels in fire - to fulfill the Pasuk "Kaluy ba'Eish".

(b) The Chachamim disagree on two scores. Before scorching the kernels, they first beat them ...

(c) ... not with the flails that they used to beat dry kernels, but with canes or cabbage-stalks (to prevent the kernels from becoming crushed.

(d) The Chachamim also require the kernels to be scorched on an 'Ibuv' of copper (a copper burner specially manufactured for this purpose - because scorhing them directly on the flame is not called "Kaluy".

(e) The Ibuv was - well holed, to ensure that the intense heat of the fire reached all the kernels.

(a) Before grinding the scorched barley kernels - they spread them out on the floor of the Azarah to allow the wind to get at them.

(b) They then ground them in a bean grinder (Rechayim shel G'rusos) - which does not grind them too fine, ensuring on the one hand that the So'les remains, and on the other, that the bran is not ground too, but is removed together with the outer husk. This too, conforms with the Pasuk "*Geres* Carmel".

(c) They finally end up - with one Isaron, after sifting the flour ...

(d) ... thirteen times, first using a fine sieve, then a coarse one, then a fine one, and so on.

(a) The remainder of the flour - was redeemed by anyone who wanted, and became Chulin.

(b) The Tana Kama obligates the person who redeems it to take Chalah from the dough - since he is the one who would knead it, and it is the kneading of the dough that determines the Chiyuv to separate Chalah.

(c) On the other hand, he exempts him from Ma'asros - because the Miru'ach (flattening the pile of grain prior to winnowing it) was performed by Hekdesh, and Hekdesh is Patur from Ma'asros.

(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - he is Chayav to separate Ma'asros as well (as we shall see in the Sugya).




(a) Based on the Pasuk "Aviv Kaluy ba'Eish Geres Carmel", the Beraisa learns that the barley is roasted before it is ground and not afterwards - from the fact that it places "ba'Eish" in between "Kaluy" and "Geres".

(b) The Tana Darshens the word "Carmel" as the acronym of 'Rach u'Mal' - meaning that the kernels of barley that are cut for the Omer must be sufficiently soft that one will remove the husk by rolling them between one's fingers.

(c) The connection between ...

1. ... the words 'Ba Ve'yatzak Lanu Ve'achalnu ve'Naveh Lanu' and the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ba mi'Ba'al Shalishah Va'yavei ... Lechem Bikurim ... ve'Karmel be'Tziklono" is - that "be'Tziklono" is the acronym of the former.
2. ... that D'rashah and our Sugya is - the fact that, like "Carmel", "be'Tziklono" is an acronym.
(a) The speaker in the Pasuk in Mishlei "Nis'alsah ba'Ahavim" is - an adulteress (speaking to the adulterer).

(b) The 'Nun', the 'Saf', the 'Ayin' and the 'Lamed' in "Nis'alsah" represent 'Nasa Ve'nasan Ve'na'aleh' (let us talk and go to bed, and the 'Samech' ('Sien') and the 'Hey' (which is sometimes interchangeable with a 'Ches') - 'Nismach ve'Nischatei' (Let us enjoy ourselves and then go for a walk).

(c) The Tana also cites the Pasuk "K'naf Ra'ananim Ne'elsah" (which is the acronym of 'Nosei Oleh ve'Nischatei'). This refers to - a bar Yochni (a type of bird), and it means that it picks up its egg, flies up with it, and lowers it into its nest.

(d) The Pasuk "Ki Yarat ha'Derech Lenegdi" is the acronym of - 'Yir'asah, Ra'asah, Natsah', meaning that Bil'am's ass was afraid, saw the angel and turned aside.

(e) The final acronym cited by the Beraisa quoting Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael is "Carmel", which *he* presents as - 'Kar Malei', (meaning that the kernels must be filled ['like a cushion that is filled with feathers', Shitah Mekubetzes 5], which really mean that they must be completely ripe when they are cut).

(a) According to Rav Kahana, Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah, who obligates the purchaser to Ma'aser the remainder of the Omer flour that he redeemed, says this - because 'Miru'ach Hekdesh Poter'.

(b) Rav Sheishes queried this with a Beraisa. When, following Rebbi Akiva's ruling in our Mishnah, the Rabbanan retorted 'Podeh mi'Yad Gizbar Yochi'ach, she'Chayav be'Chalah u'Patur min ha'Ma'asros' they were referring to redeeming wheat (that the owner declared Hekdesh whilst it was still growing) from the treasurer of Hekdesh (Bedek ha'Bayis).

(c) They were trying to prove with this - that Miru'ach Hekdesh is exempt from Ma'asros.

(a) Rav Sheishes now asks - that if Rebbi Akiva holds 'Mi'ru'ach Hekdesh Poter', what are the Rabbanan trying to prove from there (seeing as Rebbi Akiva disagrees with them there as well)?

(b) We answer - 'Hi Hi' (meaning that he did does indeed argue with them there as well, only the Rabbanan, not knowing the reason for his ruling, did not realize that).

(a) Rav Kahana bar Tachlifa queries Rav Kahana from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Akiva himself presents the reason for his ruling, (obligating the purchaser to Ma'aser the leftover barley from the Omer) as - the fact that any money in excess of the Isaron that was needed for the Omer, was not declared Hekdesh to begin with (see Tosfos DH 'she'Lo Nitnu').

(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore concludes - that this is indeed Rebbi Akiva's reason, and as far as Miru'ach Hekdesh is concerned, he agrees with the Rabbanan that 'Miru'ach Hekdesh Poter'.

(c) Based on that ruling, Rava says - that Miru'ach Oved-Kochavim is nevertheless a Machlokes Tana'im.

(a) In a Mishnah in D'mai, Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah permit a Yisrael, a Nochri and a Kuti to Ma'aser from the crops belonging to any one of them on those belonging to any one of the others. The fact that the produce belonging to a Nochri is Chayav Ma'asros is based on which principle - 'Ein Kinyan le'Oved-Kochavim be'Eretz Yisrael Lehafki'a mi'Yad Ma'aser'.

(b) The significance of Kutim in this Mishnah is - that all these Tana'in clearly hold 'Kutim Geirei Arayos Hein' (that Kutim originally converted out of fear of lions, and are therefore not genuine Geirim [see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yossi']).

(c) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon disagree with the ruling of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah - regarding taking Ma'aser from crops belonging to an Oved-Kochavim or a Kuti on those belonging to a Yisrael, and vice-versa.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether 'Miru'ach Oved-Kochavim Poter' (Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon) or not (Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,