1)

(a)What does our Mishnah learn from the word "Ketzirchem", in the Pasuk in Emor "Vahveisem es ha'Omer, Reishis Ketzirchem"[as opposed to "ha'Katzir"])?

(b)How might this pertain also to 'Kotzrin Mipnei ha'Neti'os'?

(c)And why does the Tana forbid leaving them as tied sheaves?

1)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the word "Ketzirchem", in the Pasuk in Emor "Vahveisem es ha'Omer, Reishis Ketzirchem"[as opposed to "ha'Katzir"]) - that the prohibition of cutting the crops before the Omer does not pertain to 'K'tzir Mitzvah', such as for a Beis Aveil or a Beis-Hamedrash, as we learned there.

(b)This might also pertain to 'Kotzrin Mipnei ha'Neti'os' - assuming that one is permitted to cut them in order to avoid Kil'ayim (as we learned there).

(c)The reason that the Tana forbids leaving them as tied sheaves is - in order to restrict the Tircha (the bother).

2)

(a)Bedi'eved, our Mishnah permits bringing the Omer from barley that has already been cut, from dry barley and from barley that was cut by day. On what grounds does the Tana learn all three from "ve'Im Takriv (written in connection with the Omer)?

(b)The Tana also learns 'Kol-Sh'hu' and 'mi'Kol Makom' from the same source. If 'Kol-Sh'hu' refers to barley that has already been cut, what does 'mi'Kol Makom' mean?

(c)Besides the obligation to cut the Omer even on Shabbos (should Pesach fall on Friday), what final Limud do we learn from "ve'Im Takriv"?

2)

(a)Bedi'eved, our Mishnah permits bringing the Omer from barley that has already been cut, from dry barley and from barley that was cut by day. The Tana learns all three - from "ve'Im Takriv" (written in connection with the Omer) - because, the fact that the Torah writes later in the same Pasuk "Takriv es Minchas Bikurecha' renders the first "Takriv' superfluous (to include the three above cases).

(b)The Tana also learns 'Kol-Sh'hu' and 'mi'Kol Makom' from the same source. 'Kol-Sh'hu' refers to barley that has already been cut, 'mi'Kol Makom' - to barley that grew far from Yerushalayim.

(c)Besides the obligation to cut the Omer even on Shabbos (should Pesach fall on Friday), we also learn from "ve'Im Takriv" - that in case of emergency, the Kohen may even bring the Omer that became Tamei.

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Megilah permits two 'Avodos' to be performed at night-time. One of them is cutting the Omer. What is the other?

(b)What principle does the Tana present, concerning all Mitzvos that are performed specifically by day, and those Mitzvos that are performed by night?

(c)What do we learn from the Hekesh of the Mitzvos that are performed by night to those that are performed by day?

(d)How does that clash with our Mishnah?

(e)How do we reconcile the two? If the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who is then the author of our Mishnah?

3)

(a)The Mishnah in Megilah permits two 'Avodos' to be performed at night-time. One of them is cutting the Omer, the other - the burning of the Chalavim and the Evarim.

(b)The Tana presents the principle - that all Mitzvos that are performed specifically by day may be performed all day; and that those Mitzvos that are performed by night, may be performed all night.

(c)We learn from the Hekesh of the Mitzvos that are performed by night to those that are performed by day - that just as the latter are Pasul even Bedieved, so too are the former ...

(d)... clashing with our Mishnah - which validates Niktzar ba'Yom Bedieved.

(e)We reconcile the two by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, whereas the author of our Mishnah - is Rebbi.

4)

(a)If the Omer became Tamei as the Kohen was bringing it, assuming that no other barley is available, what do both Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon agree that one tells the Kohen to do? Why is that?

(b)If however, there is more barley available, Rebbi rules that he has to declare the Omer Tamei, and bring other barley in its place. Does this apply even if the barley has not yet been cut?

(c)On what grounds does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagree with Rebbi?

4)

(a)If the Omer became Tamei as the Kohen was bringing it, assuming that no other barley is available, both Rebbi and Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon agree that one tells the Kohen - to better remain silent and to continue with what he is doing (due to the Limud from "ve'Im Takriv that we just learned).

(b)If however, there is more barley available, Rebbi rules that he has to bring it - even if the barley has not yet been cut, and it means cutting it now (in daytime).

(c)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon disagrees with Rebbi, because he holds that - all the Torah's specifications regarding the Omer apply Bedieved too (and it is therefore forbidden to cut the Omer in daytime).

5)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon like ...

1. ... his father's Rebbi, Rebbi Akiva. What does Rebbi Akiva say in the Mishnah in Pesachim (in connection with the B'ris Milah) about a Melachah that could have been performed before Shabbos?

2. ... Rebbi Yishmael. How does Rebbi Yishmael Darshen the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Charish u'va'Katzir Tishbos"? In which regard does he learn Katzir on Shabbos from Charish?

(b)How does all this prove that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon must hold that if the Omer is cut not according to the Torah's specification, it is Pasul (not like our Mishnah)?

(c)What problem do we have with the reference to Rebbi Akiva as the Rebbi of Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's father?

5)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan establishes Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon like ...

1. ... his father's Rebbi, Rebbi Akiva, who rules in the Mishnah in Pesachim (in connection with the B'ris Milah) - that any Melachah that could have been performed before Shabbos, does not override Shabbos (if it was not).

2. ... Rebbi Yishmael, who Darshens the Pasuk "be'Charish u'va'Katzir Tishbos" to mean - that Katzir, like Charish (which is always R'shus [not a Mitzvah]), does not override Shabbos, when it is R'shus, precluding Katzir shel Mitzvah (i.e. that of the Omer, which overrides Shabbos.

(b)This proves that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon must hold that if the Omer is cut not according to the Torah's specification, it is Pasul (not like our Mishnah) - because otherwise, it would not override Shabbos (like Rebbi Akiva, as we just explained).

(c)The problem with the reference to Rebbi Akiva as the Rebbi of Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon's father is - that this implies that Rebbi did not enjoy the same distinction; whereas we know that Rebbi learned under Rebbi Shimon, making Rebbi Akiva his Rebbe's Rebbi too.

6)

(a)What did Rebbi testify that the Talmidim used to do when they were learning under Rebbi Shimon in Teko'a, when he needed oil and a towel whilst bathing?

(b)On what grounds did they do that?

(c)So we equate Rebbi with another statement of Rebbi Shimon. What does he say with regard to burning the Chalavim and the Evarim throughout Shabbos even though they may still be burned after nightfall?

6)

(a)Rebbi testified that, when the Talmidim were learning before Rebbi Shimon in Teko'a, and he needed oil and a towel whilst bathing - they would bring him these articles via the Chatzer, the roof-tops and the enclosures along the way ...

(b)... because they are all considered one domain as far as Keilim that were lying in one of them when Shabbos enters is concerned.

(c)So we equate Rebbi with another statement of Rebbi Shimon - who permits burning the Chalavim and the Evarim throughout Shabbos, even though they may still be burned after nightfall, due to the principle 'Chavivah Mitzvah be'Sha'atah' (that a Mitzvah is more precious when it is performed in its right time Lechatchilah).

7)

(a)What have we achieved by equating Rebbi with that statement of Rebbi Shimon?

(b)How does this pose a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?

(c)To answer this Kashya, we differentiate between the two cases. What makes the latter ruling of Rebbi Shimon (permitting the burning of the Chalavim and the Evarim) different than the Ketziras ha'Omer?

(d)Seeing as Rebbi cannot deny this distinction, what must he hold regarding overriding Shabbos, now that he holds that Ketziras ha'Omer is Kasher by day?

7)

(a)By equating Rebbi with that statement of Rebbi Shimon, we have explained why Rebbi holds that even a Mitzvah that could have been performed before Shabbos, overrides Shabbos if it was not.

(b)But this poses a Kashya on Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - who must have known this, yet he would have forbidden cutting the Omer on Shabbos if not for the fact that it may not be cut beforehand.

(c)To answer this Kashya, we justify Rebbi Shimon's stringent ruling by Ketziras ha'Omer, by differentiating between the burning of the Chalavim and the Evarim - which only overrides Shabbos because we already had no choice but to override Shabbos with regard to the Shechitah (since that cannot be performed in advance), and it (seeing as it does not share this distinction).

(d)Seeing as Rebbi cannot deny this distinction, we are forced to say that since Ketziras ha'Omer is Kasher by day - it does not override Shabbos.

72b----------------------------------------72b

8)

(a)How do we reconcile our conclusion that, according to Rebbi, the cutting of the Omer does not override Shabbos ...

1. ... with the various Mishnos in 'Kol ha'Menachos' earlier, which discuss how the Omer was brought on Shabbos (e.g. 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Echad Shabbos ve'Echad Chol, mi'Shalosh Hayah Ba)'?

2. ... with our Mishnah 'Niktzar be'Yom, Kasher ve'Docheh es ha'Shabbos'? If the Tana (who clearly follows the opinion of Rebbi) is not referring to the cutting of the Omer, then what is he referring to?

(b)We query this however, from a Beraisa, which learns from the word "be'Mo'ado", 'Afilu be'Shabbos ... Afilu be'Tum'ah'. In connection with which two Korbanos does the Torah write "be'Mo'ado"?

8)

(a)We reconcile our conclusion that, according to Rebbi, the cutting of the Omer does not override Shabbos ...

1. ... with the various Mishnahs in 'Kol ha'Menachos' earlier, which discuss how the Omer was brought on Shabbos (e.g. 'va'Chachamim Omrim, Echad Shabbos ve'Echad Chol, mi'Shalosh Hayah Ba)' - by establishing them not like Rebbi.

2. ... with our Mishnah 'Niktzar be'Yom, Kasher ve'Docheh es ha'Shabbos' - by establishing the Mishnah (which clearly follows the opinion of Rebbi, not with regard to the cutting of the Omer, but) - with regard to the Hakravah (which cannot be performed earlier).

(b)We query this however, from a Beraisa, which learns from the word "be'Mo'ado" - written in connection with both the Tamid and the Pesach, "be'Mo'ado, Afilu be'Shabbos ... Afilu be'Tum'ah'.

9)

(a)The Tana then learns from "be'Mo'adeichem" (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "Eileh Ta'asu la'Hashem be'Mo'adeichem") - that the same applies to other Korb'nos Tzibur. What does the Tana then learn from the word "Mo'adei" (in the Pasuk there "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hash-m el B'nei Yisrael")? What does that incorporate?

(b)What does 'that what comes with it/them' come to include?

(c)Why can this not refer to the Hakravah of those items?

(d)So to what do we suggest that it does refer ...

1. ... regarding the Sh'tei ha'Lechem

2. ... regarding the Omer (posing a Kashya on our interpretation of Rebbi)?

9)

(a)The Tana then learns from "be'Mo'adeichem" (in the Pasuk in Pinchas "Eileh Ta'asu la'Hashem be'Mo'adeichem") - that the same applies to other Korb'nos Tzibur, and from the word "Mo'adei" (in the Pasuk there "Vayedaber Moshe es Mo'adei Hash-m el B'nei Yisrael") - that it also incorporates the Omer and that what comes with it, and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and that what comes with them.

(b)'That what comes with it/them' comes to include - the lamb that accompanies the Omer and the two lambs that accompany the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

(c)This cannot refer to the Hakravah of those items - since the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are eaten by the Kohanim and not sacrificed.

(d)So we suggest that it refers ...

1. ... to grinding and sifting the Sh'tei ha'Lechem.

2. ... cutting the Omer (posing a Kashya on our interpretation of Rebbi, who holds that the cutting of the Omer does not override Shabbos).

10)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we establish the Din of the Omer overriding Shabbos with regard to baking. Why is it essential for baking the Omer to take place on Shabbos?

(b)And why, unlike the cutting, can it not take place earlier?

(c)We already discussed the Beraisa where, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the Kivsei Atzeres sanctify the Sh'tei ha'Lechem only if both the Shechitah and the Zerikas ha'Dam have been performed li'Sheman. In which additional case does Rebbi hold ...

1. ... 'Kadash ha'Lechem'?

2. ... 'Kadosh ve'Eino Kadosh'?

(d)In any event, Rebbi seems to hold that it is the Shechitah of the lambs that sanctifies the loaves, and not the oven. How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak amend the Beraisa? How does he now read 'Kadash' and 'Lo Kadash' (there where neither the Shechitah nor the Zerikah was performed 'li'She'mah')?

(e)What are the ramifications of 'Hukbe'u'.

10)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we establish the Din of the Omer overriding Shabbos with regard to baking, which must take place on Shabbos - because that is what sanctifies the loaves.

(b)And, unlike the cutting, it cannot take place earlier - because once the loaves have been sanctified, they will become Pasul be'Linah (by remaining intact overnight).

(c)We already discussed the Beraisa where, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, the Kivsei Atzeres sanctify the Sh'tei ha'Lechem only if both the Shechitah and the Zerikas ha'Dam have been performed li'Sheman. Rebbi holds ...

1. ... 'Kadash ha'Lechem' also in the case where - the Kohen performed the Shechitah she'Lo li'Shemah, and the Zerikah li'Shemah.

2. ... 'Kadosh ve'Eino Kadosh' - in the reverse case, where he performed the Shechitah li'Shemah, but not the Zerikah.

(d)In any event, Rebbi seems to hold that it is the Shechitah of the lambs that sanctifies the loaves, and not the oven. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak amends the Beraisa to read (not 'Kadash' and 'Lo Kadash' (which applies specifically neither the Shechitah nor the Zerikah was performed 'li'She'mah', but ) - 'Hukbe'u' (which means that those loaves are now attached to the lambs that were Shechted) and 'Lo Hukbe'u'.

(e)The ramifications of 'Hukbe'u' are - that the loaves may no longer accompany any lambs other than those.

Hadran Alach 'Rebbi Yishmael'

Perek ve'Eilu Menachos Nikmatzos

11)

(a)In what connection does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah list Minchas So'les, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikin, Ovdei-Kochavim, Nashim, ha'Omer, Chotei and Kena'os? What dual Halachah do they all have in common?

(b)What does Rebbi Shimon say about a Minchas Chotei of Kohanim?

(c)What do the Chachamim hold in that case?

(d)Whose opinion is Rav Papa coming to exclude, when he says that whenever this list appears it always incorporates ten types of Minchah?

11)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah lists Minchas So'les, Machavas, Marcheshes, Chalos, Rekikin, Ovdei-Kochavim, Nashim, ha'Omer, Chotei and Kena'os - as the Menachos that require a. Kemitzah and b. the Shirayim to be eaten by Kohanim.

(b)Rebbi Shimon includes a Minchas Chotei of Kohanim among the Menachos - that require Kemitzah, even though the two parts are then brought on the Mizbe'ach (independently, and not eaten).

(c)The Chachamim hold - that any Minchah that is not eaten, does not require a Kemitzah to be taken from it either, but is burned whole on the Mizbe'ach.

(d)When Rav Papa says that whenever this list appears it always incorporates ten types of Minchah, it comes to exclude - Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion there are eleven, in that he incorporates a Minchah comprising half loaves and half wavers (as we learned above).

12)

(a)What does the Torah explicitly write by the first five cases in our Mishnah, but not by the others?

(b)From which Pasuk in Tzav do we then include a Minchas Ovdei-Kochavim and a Minchas Chotei?

(c)Why is it obvious that, according to the Rabbanan, the Shirayim of a Minchas Chotei are also eaten by Kohanim?

(d)Then how do we explain the Kashya 'Minalan' in this regard?

12)

(a)The Torah explicitly writes - that the Shirayim are eaten by the Kohen, in connection with the first five cases in our Mishnah, but not in connection with the others.

(b)And we include a Minchas Ovdei-Kochavim and a Minchas Chotei - from the Pasuk "ve'Zos Toras ha'Minchah ... ve'ha'Noseres mimenah Yochlu Aharon u'Vanav".

(c)It is obvious that, according to the Rabbanan, the Shirayim of a Minchas Chotei are also eaten by Kohanim - because the Torah requires a Kemitzah to be taken from it.

(d)Consequently, when we ask 'Minalan' - we must be referring to Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion the Torah does not necessarily equate the Kemitzah with the Kohanim eating the Shirayim.

13)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Pasuk (Ibid.) "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" is not needed for itself, since we already know that the Kohanim receive a portion of all the Minchos Chitin (as we just explained). How does Chizkiyah therefore explain it? What do we learn from ...

1. ... "Belulah ba'Shemen"?

2. ... "va'Chareivah"?

13)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Pasuk (Ibid.) "ve'Chol Minchah Belulah ba'Shemen va'Chareivah le'Chol B'nei Aharon Tih'yeh" is not needed for itself, since we already know that the Kohanim receive a portion of all the Minchos Chitin (as we just explained). Chizkiyah therefore explains that from ...

1. ... "Belulah ba'Shemen" - we incorporate the Minchas ha'Omer (which consists of barley and which contains oil) in the Din of Minchas Chitin, whose Shirayim are given to the Kohanim; whereas from ...

2. ... "va'Chareivah" - we learn that the same applies to Minchas Kena'os (which consists of barley and which does not contain oil).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF