ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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).
(c) The Tana therefore concludes - that one cuts and counts the Omer by
night, and brings it in the day.
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
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.
(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).
(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).
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).
(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
(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*
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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).