Menachot 10

האיר מזרח מתיר

it was the daybreak that rendered [the new harvest] permitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 68a. The restriction against partaking of the new harvest is lifted at the dawn of the sixteenth day of Nisan, before the offering of the 'Omer. Consequently the handful, even though taken under another name, may be burnt upon the altar, for the new harvest is already permitted to all.');">¹</span> This view of Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the daybreak of the sixteenth day of Nisan renders the new harvest permitted, even before the offering of the 'Omer.');">²</span>

והא דריש לקיש לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דתנן אין מביאין מנחת בכורים ומנחת בהמה קודם לעומר (דבעינן ממשקה ישראל) ואם הביא פסול

was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following: We have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 68b.');">³</span> One may not offer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the new harvest.');">⁴</span>

קודם לשתי הלחם לא יביא (משום דאיקרו בכורים) ואם הביא כשר

meal-offerings, first-fruits, or meal-offerings that accompany animal-offerings, before the 'Omer;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For only that which is permitted to Israel may be offered upon the altar; cf. Ezek. XLV, 15, and supra p. 20.');">⁵</span> and if one did so it is invalid.

ואמר רבי יצחק אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא בארבעה עשר ובחמשה עשר אבל בששה עשר אם הביא כשר (וקשיא לי ליהוו כמחוסר זמן) אלמא קסבר האיר המזרח מתיר

Neither may one offer these before the Two Loaves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which were offered on Shabuoth, the Feast of Weeks. These are referred to as 'a new meal-offering'. I.e., the first (wheaten) meal-offering of the new harvest; v. Lev. XXIII, 16, 17.');">⁶</span> but if one did so it is valid.

ורבא אמר מנחת העומר שקמצה שלא לשמה כשירה ושיריה נאכלין ואינה צריכה מנחת העומר אחרת להתירה שאין מחשבה מועלת אלא במי שראוי לעבודה ובדבר הראוי לעבודה ובמקום הראוי לעבודה

And R'Isaac said in the name of Resh Lakish. This rule<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That whatsoever is offered before the 'Omer is invalid.');">⁷</span>

במי שראוי לעבודה לאפוקי כהן בעל מום ובדבר הראוי לעבודה לאפוקי מנחת העומר דלא חזיא דחדוש הוא ובמקום הראוי לעבודה לאפוקי נפגם המזבח:

applies only [if the offering was brought] on the fourteenth or fifteenth day [of Nisan], but if brought on the sixteenth day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the 'Omer meal-offering had not yet been brought.');">⁸</span> it would be valid.

ת"ר כשהוא אומר (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבקר למטה שאין ת"ל אלא להוציא את הטרפה

It is thus clear that he is of the opinion that the daybreak [of the sixteenth day of Nisan] renders [the new harvest] permitted. Raba said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the 'Omer under any name other than its own, it is valid, and the rest of it may be eaten; moreover there is no need of another 'Omer meal-offering [to be brought in order] to render [the new harvest] permitted.

והלא דין הוא ומה בעל מום שמותרת להדיוט אסורה לגבוה טריפה שאסורה להדיוט אין דין שאסורה לגבוה חלב ודם יוכיחו שאסורין להדיוט ומותרין לגבוה

For [Raba is of the opinion that] a wrongful intention does not affect the offering unless expressed by one fit for service, in respect of what is fit for service, and in the place that is fit for service.' By one fit for service' - this excludes a priest with a physical-blemish; 'in respect of what is fit for service' - this excludes the 'Omer meal-offering which is not fit for any other offering, for it is exceptional;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that it was brought of barley (and of bruised grain in contradistinction from the meal-offering of jealousy which was of barley meal) whereas all other meal-offerings consisted of wheat.');">⁹</span>

מה לחלב ודם שכן באין מכלל היתר תאמר בטריפה שכולה אסורה ולא תהא מותרת לגבוה

'and in the place that is fit for service - this excludes an alt which has become chipped.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XX, 21: And thou shalt slaughter upon it, implying that the altar shall be whole at the time of the service and not chipped. V. Zeb. 59a, and Hul. 18a.');">¹⁰</span> Our Rabbis taught: When it says in the next verse Of the herd<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3. In the preceding verse 2, the particle 'of' that precedes each of the classes of animals mentioned is utilized to exclude from sacrifices such animals as were used for irreligious or immoral purposes.');">¹¹</span>

מליקה תוכיח שכולה איסור ואסורה להדיוט ומותרת לגבוה

- which is unnecessary - it does so only to exclude a trefah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹²</span> animal.

מה למליקה שכן קדושתה אוסרתה (בשעת קדושתה למזבח היא נאסרה להדיוט דהיינו מליקתה אבל קודם לכן לא נאסרה להדיוט) מה שאין כן בטריפה שאין קדושתה אוסרתה

But surely this can be arrived at by an a fortiori argument:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no verse therefore is required to teach that a trefah animal is unfit for a sacrifice.');">¹³</span> if a blemished animal which is permitted to man is forbidden to the Most High,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to be offered upon the altar.');">¹⁴</span>

ואם השבתה כשהוא אומר מן הבקר למטה שאין ת"ל להוציא את הטריפה

how much more is a trefah animal which is forbidden to man forbidden to the Most High! The fat and the blood [of the animal], however, can prove otherwise; for these are forbidden to man yet are permitted to the Most High. [And if you retort,] This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from that which is permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the whole of the animal is permitted to be eaten except for these parts.');">¹⁵</span>

מה אם השבתה (סי' רקיח מר אדא לשישי"ה)

but will you say the same of a trefah animal which is wholly forbidden? [I reply,] The rite of nipping off [the head of a bird-offering] which [would render the bird] wholly forbidden [to man] could prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet is permitted to the Most High.

אמר רב משום דאיכא למימר מנחת העומר תוכיח שאסורה להדיוט ומותרת לגבוה מה למנחת העומר שכן מתרת חדש

[But you might retort,] This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden [to man] by this act which renders it consecrated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the nipping. It is with the rite of nipping that the bird becomes consecrated and so forbidden to a layman; before that it was permitted.');">¹⁶</span> the same, however, cannot be said of a trefah animal for it is not rendered forbidden by any act which renders it consecrated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For without consecration a trefah animal is forbidden to man. And so no verse is really necessary to exclude a trefah animal from being offered as a sacrifice.');">¹⁷</span>

בשביעית שביעית נמי שכן מתרת ספיחין בשביעית כר' עקיבא דאמר ספיחין אסורים בשביעית

And if you reply to this, then [I say that] when it reads in the next verse 'Of the herd' - which is unnecessary-it does so only to exclude the trefah animal. What was meant by 'If you reply to this'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What reasoning could be adduced to refute the foregoing argument derived from the rite of nipping that it was found necessary to resort to the verse to exclude a trefah animal?');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בר אבא לרב אשי לרבי עקיבא נמי לפרוך מה למנחת העומר שכן מתרת חדש בחוצה לארץ

- Rab said, Because one could reply that the 'Omer meal-offering can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. But this is so of the 'Omer meal-offering as it renders the new produce permitted!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas a trefah animal does not render anything permitted.');">¹⁹</span>

ואפילו למ"ד חדש בחו"ל לאו דאורייתא שכן באה להתיר לאו שבתוכה

- The ['Omer meal-offering of the] Sabbatical year was meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When there is no new produce to be rendered permitted, for in this year the fields were to rest and lie fallow (cf. Ex. XXIII, 10, 11) . Hence the 'Omer meal-offering of this year is on the same footing as any trefah animal in that neither can render anything else permitted; consequently by analogy with the 'Omer meal-offering a trefah animal should be permitted as a sacrifice, and therefore the verse is necessary to exclude the trefah animal.');">²⁰</span> But that surely renders the aftergrowth permitted? - [It is indeed the 'Omer meal-offering of] the Sabbatical year [that is meant], but the view is in accordance with that of R'Akiba who said that the aftergrowth is forbidden in the Sabbatical year.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 51b. The 'Omer of this year therefore does not render anything permitted and is on all fours with a trefah animal.');">²¹</span>

א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא א"ה טריפה נמי תקריב ותתיר לאו שבתוכה אלא פריך הכי מה למנחת העומר שכן מצותה בכך

R'Aha B'Abba said to R'Ashi, Even according to R'Akiba's view one could refute the argument thus: This is so of the 'Omer meal-offering since it renders permitted the new produce [of the Sabbatical year grown] outside the Land [of Israel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so it is not on a par with a trefah animal which renders naught permitted.');">²²</span> And even according to him who maintains that outside the Land [of Israel] the new produce is not forbidden by the law of the Torah, [one can refute the argument thus: This is so of the 'Omer meal-offering,] since it serves to raise the prohibition that lies upon it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the prohibition of the new produce. If in the Sabbatical year a man were to eat of the remnants of the 'Omer meal-offering, he would not be liable for eating of the new produce, for this prohibition has been raised by the offering of the 'Omer, but would only incur guilt for eating of ifa the produce of the Sabbatical year. V., however, Tosaf. s.v. .');">²³</span>

ריש לקיש אמר משום דאיכא למימר מפטם הקטרת יוכיח שאסור להדיוט ומותר לגבוה מפטם גברא הוא

R'Aha of Difti thereupon said to Rabina, If so, should not a trefah animal also be permitted to be offered as a sacrifice and so it would raise the prohibition [of trefah] that lie upon it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And whosoever ate thereof would not be liable for eating what was trefah.');">²⁴</span> -One could, however, refute the argument thus: This is so of the 'Omer meal-offering since there is an express command that it shall be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'Omer meal-offering must be brought from the new produce of the year, for that is the very essence of the precept; on the other hand, it is not essential that only a trefah animal shall be offered, any other animal would serve just as well.');">²⁵</span>

אלא פטום הקטרת יוכיח שאסור להדיוט ומותר לגבוה מה לפטום הקטרת שכן מצותו בכך

Resh Lakish said, One could reply that the case of the compounder of the incense can prove otherwise: for he is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXX, 34ff. Likewise it would be said that a trefah animal, though forbidden to man, is permitted to the Most High. Hence a verse is necessary to exclude a trefah animal.');">²⁶</span> But the compounder is a person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And how can it be said that he is permitted to the Most High?');">²⁷</span>

מר בריה דרבינא אמר משום דאיכא למימר שבת תוכיח שאסורה להדיוט ומותרת לגבוה

- Say, rather, The compound forming the incense can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 37.');">²⁸</span> yet permitted to the Most High<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 37.');">²⁸</span>

מה לשבת שכן הותרה מכללה אצל הדיוט במילה

But this is so of the compound forming the incense since there is an express command that it shall be so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But there is no express command to offer a trefah animal!');">²⁹</span> Mar the son of Rabina said, One could reply that the Sabbath can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., work on the Sabbath is forbidden to the layman, yet it is permitted to offer thereon the prescribed sacrifices.');">³⁰</span>

אטו מילה צורך הדיוט הוא מילה מצוה היא אלא מה לשבת שכן מצותה בכך

But this is so of the Sabbath since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of circumcision!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be performed on the Sabbath. On the other hand there are no exceptions to the general prohibition of trefah!');">³¹</span> - Surely circumcision is not for the sake of the layman.

רב אדא בר אבא אמר משום דאיכא למימר כלאים תוכיח שאסורין להדיוט ומותרין לגבוה

It is a precept [of the Law]! - One could therefore say, This is so of the Sabbath since there is an express command that it shall be so!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Sabbath sacrifices can only be offered on the Sabbath.');">³²</span> R'Adda B'Abba said, One could reply that a garment of diverse kinds [of stuff]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a texture blended of wool and linen; v. Lev. XIX, 19; Deut. XXII, 11.');">³³</span>

מה לכלאים שכן הותרו מכללן אצל הדיוט בציצית אטו ציצית צורך הדיוט היא מצוה היא אלא

can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to the layman yet permitted to the Most High.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The High Priest whilst officiating in the Temple wore a girdle that was blended of wool and linen.');">³⁴</span> But this is so of diverse kinds since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of the zizith!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the fringes; cf. Num. XV, 38ff; Deut. XXII, 12. It is permitted to attach fringes of wool to a linen garment, for the prohibition of diverse kinds of stuff does not apply to the precept of zizith.');">³⁵</span> - Surely the zizith is not for the sake of the layman, it is a precept [of the Law]! - One could therefore say,