Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked Rebbi Yashiyah who lived in his generation not to sit down until he explained to him from where we know that the Omer permits all crops that have taken root. We add the words 'who lived in his generation' to preclude - Rebbi Yashiyah the Tana, who lived a few generations earlier.

(b) "Aviv" means - ripe.

(c) Based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "Aviv Kaluy ba'Eish", Rebbi Yashiyah's initial reaction to Rebbi Elazar's was - that the mere fact that the Torah writes "Aviv Kaluy ba'Eish" (with regard to the Omer) - indicates that there are other crops that are considered Chadash that have not yet reached the stage of Aviv, which presumably refers to the stage after Hashrashah.

(a) We refute Rebbi Yashiyah's suggestion however - on the grounds that "Aviv" does not preclude corn that took root - but corn that has grown one third of its full potential.

(b) Shmuel makes the same inference from "me'Hachel Chermesh ba'Kamah" ('La'av mi'Chelal de'Ika de'La'av bar Chermesh'). We refute that too however, by precluding (not corn that has reached the stage of Hashrashah, but) the stage of 'Shachas' (that did not grow well, and is only fit for animals).

(c) And Rebbi Yitzchak makes the same inference from "Kamah" ('La'av mi'Chelal de'Ika de'La'av bar Kamah'). Again, we refute this - by establishing the stage that is precluded from the Omer as 'Agam' (that has grown to the height that one can bend one stalk to touch the root of the one next to it).

(a) Rava finally learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Chag ha'Katzir Bikurei Ma'asecha *Asher Tizra*" (implying from the time of planting), which pertains to the Omer as well as to the Sh'tei ha'Lechem, because the latter only permits the same crops to the Mizbe'ach as the Omer already permitted to the Hedyot.

(b) Rav Papa asked Rava why the Omer does not then permit the crops from the time of planting - to which he replied "ba'Sadeh" K'siv, meaning that, besides the planting, it also needs to have become part of the field.

(c) He referred to Rav Papa as 'Sudni', perhaps based on the Pasuk "Sod Hashem li'Yere'av". Alternatively, he might have called him that - because he was a beer-manufacturer (which is what 'Sudni' means).

(a) We have already discussed our Mishnah, which permits harvesting a Sadeh Beis Hashalachin in the valley, provided one does not make a hay-stack out of it - which is precisely what the men of Yericho used to do.

(b) The Chachamim - gave their consent to the harvesting of the crops, but not to the fact that they made haystacks out of it.

(c) The Tana permits - cutting Shachas to feed one's animals before the Omer.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the Tana's previous statement - by permitting this even after the crops have grown one third, provided he began harvesting prior to that.

(b) Rebbi Shimon is more lenient than Rebbi Yehudah. He permits - even to begin cutting the crops to feed one's animals, even after they have grown one third.

(c) Our Mishnah also permits cutting the crops before the Omer because of ...

1. ... saplings. This might be due to the Isur of Kil'ayim. Alternatively - it is because crops that grow in a field of trees are not eligible to be used for the Omer (in which case they are not subject to the Isur of cutting before the Omer either).
2. ... u'Mipnei Beis ha'Aveil u'Mipnei Bitul Beis-Hamedrash' - meaning in order to make room to eulogize a Meis, or to seat the Talmidim who have no room to learn.

(d) The Tana only permits that however - on condition that one arranges the cut corn into loose untied sheaves.

(a) The Tana permits bringing the Omer from sheaves that have already been cut - Bedieved. Lechatchilah, however, they must be cut for the sake of the Omer, as the Torah writes "me'Hachel Chermesh ba'Kamah".

(b) He also permits Bedieved the Omer from ...

1. ... dry produce - though Lechatchilah, it should be fresh (since the Torah writes "Carmel", as we learned earlier).
2. ... produce that was cut by day - though Lechatchilah, it should be cut at night-time (to coincide with "Temimos", as we learned earlier).

(a) The Pesukim "u'Ketzartem es Ketzirah Va'haveisem es Omer") and "Reishis Ketzirchem el ha'Kohen" appear to contradict each other - because the former seems to permit harvesting the crops before the Omer, whereas the latter implies that the Omer must be the first crops to be harvested.

(b) Rebbi Binyamin in a Beraisa reconcile them - by establishing the former in a location whose crops are not eligible to be brought as the Omer, and the latter in one whose crops are.

(c) We query this however, on the grounds that - perhaps it is a *species* that is not eligible to be brought as the Omer that is permitted (and not a location).

(d) And we refute this on the basis of Rebbi Yochanan, who Darshened on the previous Amud from "Reishis" "Reishis" that the Isur of cutting the crops before the Omer incorporates all five kinds of grain (even though the Omer may only be brought from barley).

(a) We learned in a Beraisa that the men of Yericho did six things. According to Rebbi Meir, the significance of ...

1. ... the first group, who grafted date-palms all day (on Erev Pesach), were 'Korchin al Shema' and harvested their crops before the Omer' is - that they did so with the consent of the Chachamim.
2. ... the second group, who made haystacks from the crops before the Omer, permitted the branches of carob and Shikmah (a sort of fig-tree)-trees of Hekdesh that grew after the declaration of Hekdesh, and who, in years of drought, made breaches in their gardens and orchards to feed the fruit that fell from the trees to feed the poor on Shabbos and Yom-tov' (even though they were Muktzah or because one might climb the tree to and pick more) is - that they did this without the Chachamim's consent.

(b) 'Korchin al Sh'ma' means - that they read the Sh'ma without making a break (see Tosfos DH 've'Korchin').

(a) Rebbi Yehudah objects to Rebbi Meir's version of the distinction between the two groups on the grounds that - if the Chachamim gave their consent to the first three things, then why did only *they* perform them and nobody else?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah therefore distinguishes between the two groups - in that the Chachamim did not verbally protest to the actions of the first group (even though they did not agree with what they did), whereas they did, to the actions of the second.

(c) However, he combines harvesting and making haystacks in the first group - adding 'Nosnin Pe'ah la'Yerek' (leading the poor to believe that it was Patur from Ma'aser) to the second.

(a) Based on this Beraisa, the author of the Reisha of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Yehudah - because it speaks of the Chachamim not protesting about making haystacks (and he is the one who enters into 'Miychu' and 'Lo Miychu' in the Beraisa).

(b) That leaves us with a discrepancy between our Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, which lists 'Kotzrin' among the things that the Chachamim consented to, and Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa, who only lists those things to which the Chachamim did not consent to, yet it includes 'Kotzrin'.

(c) We first counter this by pointing out a discrepancy in the Beraisa itself - which presents a list containing six things that the men of Yericho did, and then goes on to list seven.

(d) So we kill two birds with one stone, and answer both questions with one fell swoop - by omitting 'Kotzrin' from the Beraisa altogether.

11)

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Pe'ah that a Nachal, a Shelulis, a public and private road and a public and private path divide a field in two with regard to Pe'ah. The definition of ...

1. ... 'a Nachal' is - a valley of hard virgin soil (like the Nachal Eisan in the Parshah of Eglah Arufah).
2. ... 'a Shelulis' is - a pool of rain water.

(b)

1. A private road is at least four Amos wide - whereas a private one is at least sixteen.
2. A road (Derech) is for traffic - whereas a path (Sh'vil) is for walking.

(c) A private path divides between two fields, provided it is used in winter as well as in summer. The significance of the fact that it is used in winter too is - that otherwise, it is an indication that it is too narrow, and is therefore not Chashuv.

(a) Finally, the Tana inserts a Sadeh Bur, a Sadeh Nir, Zera Acher and, according to Rebbi Meir, Kotzer la'Shachas to the list. 'Zera Acher' means a field between two wheat-fields for example, that is growing lentils. A 'Sadeh Bur' is - a field that has been left fallow, and a 'Sadeh Nir' - one that has been plowed.

(b) According to the Chachamim, 'Kotzer la'Shachas' only divides the field if one subsequently plowed it - because cutting the corn for animals is considered to be the beginning of the harvest (in which case, it is all still considered one field).

(c) Rebbi Meir holds - that 'Kotzer la'Shachas' is not considered a harvest at all (in which case the middle field is not part of the two fields that flank it).

(d) When Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan equates Rebbi Meir with Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, he means - that the latter too, does not consider Kotzer la'Shachas to be a harvest, which is why he gives a blanket Heter to do so before the Omer.

(a) When Rabah repeated Rebbi Yochanan's statement, Rav Acha bar Huna queried it from a Beraisa (in connection with Pe'ah) which discusses 'Achlah Chagav, Karsemuhah Nemalim Shavraso ha'Ru'ach'. The Tana uses the expression 'Achlah' in connection with the locusts and 'Karsemuhah' in connection with the ants - because it is the way of locusts to attack the corn from the top, whereas the ants severs the stalks from the bottom.

(b) The Tana concludes - 'Divrei ha'Kol Charash, Mafsik, Lo Charash, Eino Mafsik'. 'Divrei ha'Kol' obviously refer to Rebbi Meir (who argues with the Rabbanan in the Mishnah in Pe'ah).

(a) To explain why Rebbi Meir concedes to the Rabbanan in the latter, Rav Acha bar Huna therefore establishes the Mishnah in Pe'ah - when it has not grown a third, and the Beraisa - when it has (and he considers Kotzer la'Shachas to be a harvest, once the crops have grown a third [like Rebbi Yehudah]).

(b) Otherwise, asks Rav Acha bar Huna, (according to Rebbi Yochanan, who equates Rebbi Meir with Rebbi Shimon), if the Mishnah is speaking about produce that has grown a third, and it is not considered a harvest when performed by a man, how much more so when it is performed by an animal (so why does he say in the Beraisa 'Lo Charash, Eino Mafsik')?

(c) Bearing in mind that Rebbi Meir is speaking about cutting the corn for human consumption, the problem with equating him with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (as we then suggest) is that if Rebbi Yehudah holds that Kotzer la'Shachas is not considered a harvest even then - he will be arguing with the Tana Kama (who only says this in connection with cutting it for animal consumption), creating three opinions in the Mishnah, when in fact, we know that he really agrees with the Tana Kama ...

(d) ... because whenever Rebbi uses the term 'Eimasai', he is coming to qualify and not to argue.

(a) So when Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he established Rebbi Meir like Rebbi Akiva his Rebbe, who argues with the Chachamim in a Mishnah in Pe'ah with regard to 'ha'Menamer Sadeihu Ve'shiyer bo Kelachim Lachim', which means - that someone harvests one of every two rows in his field, leaving every alternate row of fresh corn uncut.

(b) Rabbi Akiva holds 'Ha'menamer Sadeh ... Pe'ah le'Chol Echad ve'Echad' - because what he harvests is not considered part of the harvest of the field, though if the corn was fully grown, he would concede that what he cut is considered part of the harvest ...

(c) ... like the Chachamim, who say - 'me'Echad al ha'Kol, even if the produce is not fully ripe.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel confines Rebbi Akiva's previous ruling to 'Menamer li'Kelayos' (which is comparable to corn that has not yet reached a third), - whereas by 'Menamer le'Otzar', which is fully ripe, he too, will hold 'me'Echad al ha'Kol'.

(b) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. In his opinion - Rebbi Akiva's opinion extends to 'Menamer le'Otzar' (even that is not considered a harvest).

(c) This clashes with Rebbi Meir, who says - that once the corn is a third grown, it is considered a harvest (as we saw in the Beraisa of 'Achlah Chagav').

(d) So we conclude - that, regarding even with regard to cutting for human consumption, Rebbi Meir concurs with Rebbi Akiva, at least as far as where the crops have not yet grown one third is concerned (but once they have, he considers it a harvest, even though Rebbi Akiva doesn't).