Menachot Daf 66 (מנחות דף ס״ו)
Daf: 66 | Amudim: 66a – 66b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (66a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Continuation of the anti-Boethusian proof from Deuteronomy 16:9 — “you shall number for you” implies court-dependent counting
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״תִּסְפׇּר לָךְ״, סְפִירָה תְּלוּיָה בְּבֵית דִּין, יָצְתָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית שֶׁסְּפִירָתָהּ בְּכׇל אָדָם.
English Translation:
as the verse states: “Seven weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). By using the term “for you,” the verse indicates that the counting of the weeks is dependent upon the decision of the court, as they know how to calculate the new months. This serves to exclude the possibility that the counting starts after the Shabbat of Creation, whose counting can be performed by every person, not only the court.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the proof from the previous daf that “shabbat” in the omer-counting verses refers to the Festival, not the weekly Shabbat. The phrase “for you” (לך) in Deuteronomy 16:9 implies that the counting depends on the court’s calendar determination — specifically, the declaration of the new month that fixes Passover’s date. Since a regular Shabbat requires no court involvement (everyone knows when Saturday is), the verse must be referring to the Festival day, whose date is set by the court.
Key Terms:
- תִּסְפׇּר לָךְ = “You shall number for you” — the phrase implying court-dependent counting
- שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית = The weekly Shabbat (Shabbat of Creation)
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yosei’s first proof: the ambiguity of “hashabbat” proves it must mean the Festival
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת״ – מִמָּחֳרַת יוֹם טוֹב. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִמָּחֳרַת יוֹם טוֹב, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִמָּחֳרַת שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית? אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי נֶאֱמַר ״מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַפֶּסַח״? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא ״מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת״, דְּכׇל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ מְלֵאָה שַׁבָּתוֹת, צֵא וּבְדוֹק אֵיזוֹ שַׁבָּת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei says that the verse: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat]” (Leviticus 23:15), means from the morrow after the festival of Passover. Do you say it means from the morrow after the festival of Passover, or is it only referring to from the morrow after Shabbat of Creation, i.e., Sunday? You can say in response: Is it stated: From the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat] that is during Passover? No, it is stated only: “From the morrow after the day of rest [hashabbat].” Considering that the entire year is full of Shabbatot, go and try to examine to which Shabbat the verse is referring. How does one know which Shabbat this means? Clearly, then, this “day of rest” is the Festival, not Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei offers a compelling logical argument: if “hashabbat” meant the weekly Shabbat, the verse would need to specify which Shabbat, since every week has one. The verse simply says “from the morrow of hashabbat” without any qualifier linking it to Passover. This ambiguity would make the commandment impossible to fulfill if it referred to the weekly Shabbat. Therefore, it must refer to a specific, identifiable day — the first day of Passover, which is called “shabbat” (a day of rest).
Key Terms:
- מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת = “From the morrow of the Shabbat” — the pivotal phrase in the Pharisee-Boethusian dispute
- יוֹם טוֹב = Festival day (here, the first day of Passover)
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yosei’s second proof: a gezera shava linking “shabbat” above and below to the Festival
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד, נֶאֶמְרָה ״שַׁבָּת״ לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרָה ״שַׁבָּת״ לְמַעְלָה. מָה לְהַלָּן – רֶגֶל וּתְחִילַּת רֶגֶל, אַף כָּאן – רֶגֶל וּתְחִילַּת רֶגֶל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei cites another proof: And furthermore, it is stated “shabbat” below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot (Leviticus 23:16), and it is also stated “shabbat” above (Leviticus 23:15), with regard to starting the counting of the omer. Just as below, with regard to the festival of Shavuot, it is stated: “Even until the morrow after the seventh week [shabbat] you shall number fifty days,” and the word shabbat is referring to a time at the beginning of the Festival; so too here, with regard to the bringing of omer, the word shabbat means Festival, and the counting starts near the beginning of the Festival, on the second day of Passover. According to the Boethusians, sometimes the commencement of the counting is well after the start of Passover.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is Rabbi Yosei’s stronger, secondary proof — a textual comparison (gezera shava) between two uses of “shabbat” in the same passage. In verse 16, “shabbat” clearly refers to the completed weeks of counting, not a day of rest. Rabbi Yosei argues that “shabbat” in verse 15 should be understood the same way — as referring to the Festival. Additionally, the counting must begin near the start of the Festival, which would not be the case if it depended on a random Shabbat falling during Passover.
Key Terms:
- נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבָּת לְמַטָּה / לְמַעְלָה = Gezera shava — comparing the use of “shabbat” in two verses
- רֶגֶל = Festival (pilgrimage holiday)
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s proof: reconciling “six days” vs. “seven days” of matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מַצּוֹת תֹּאכֵלוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַצָּה שֶׁאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְאוֹכְלָהּ שִׁבְעָה מִן הֶחָדָשׁ – אַתָּה יָכוֹל לְאוֹכְלָהּ שִׁשָּׁה מִן הֶחָדָשׁ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says there is yet another proof: One verse states: “Six days you shall eat unleavened bread” (Deuteronomy 16:8), and one verse states: “Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread” (Exodus 12:15). How can these texts be reconciled? Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explains that there is matza that you are unable to eat for all seven days of Passover, due to the prohibition of harvesting and eating from the new crop of grain that ripened before Passover until after the omer offering. But you are able to eat that same matza for six days, although it is from the new crop, as it is permitted after the bringing of the omer offering on the second day of Passover. This resolution of the verses is possible only if the omer offering is brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, not on any other date.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar presents an elegant resolution to a textual contradiction. One verse says matza is eaten for seven days, another says six. He explains that matza from the new grain crop (chadash) cannot be eaten on the first day of Passover because the omer has not yet been offered. Once the omer is brought on the 16th of Nisan (the second day), the new grain becomes permitted — yielding exactly six days of matza from new grain. This proof only works if the omer is always on the 16th (the day after the Festival), not on a variable Sunday.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ = New grain crop — forbidden until the omer offering is brought
- שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים / שִׁבְעַת יָמִים = Six days vs. seven days — the apparent contradiction in matza-eating
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Shimon ben Elazar: deriving that harvesting, counting, and bringing must all coincide
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם … תִּסְפְּרוּ״ – יָכוֹל יִקְצוֹר וְיָבִיא, וְאֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יִסְפּוֹר?
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar clarifies another two verses that deal with the counting of the omer: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that you brought the sheaf [omer] of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete; even until the morrow after the seventh week you shall number fifty days; and you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:15–16). One might have thought that although one must harvest and bring the omer meal offering on the second day of Passover, the sixteenth of Nisan, he may start to count the omer from whenever he wishes after that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment begins a step-by-step derivation linking harvesting, bringing the omer, and counting — showing they must all occur at specific, coordinated times. The question here is whether the counting could be deferred to any later date, disconnected from the actual bringing of the offering. The verse “from the day you brought” will be used to tie counting to the day the omer is brought.
Key Terms:
- מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם = “From the day you brought” — linking counting to the offering
- עֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה = The omer of the waving — the barley offering
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
Deriving that harvesting and counting must happen at the same time as bringing
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ בַּקָּמָה תָּחֵל לִסְפֹּר״. אִי ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ תָּחֵל לִסְפּוֹר״ – יָכוֹל יִקְצוֹר וְיִסְפּוֹר, וְאֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה יָבִיא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם״.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “Seven weeks you shall number for you; from the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). This verse indicates that the counting should commence upon the reaping of the grain for the omer offering. If one would read just this verse: “From the time the sickle is first put to the standing grain you shall begin to number,” one might have thought that one can harvest and count and then bring the omer offering whenever he wishes. Therefore, the other verse states: “From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving…you shall number fifty days,” indicating that the counting should start on the day the omer offering is brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara masterfully weaves together two verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to demonstrate that harvesting, bringing, and counting must all be synchronized. Deuteronomy ties counting to harvesting; Leviticus ties counting to bringing the offering. Together, they establish that all three activities are connected to the same moment — the night/day of the 16th of Nisan.
Key Terms:
- מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ = “From when the sickle is first put” — linking counting to harvesting
- חֶרְמֵשׁ = Sickle — the harvesting tool
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Deriving that counting must begin at night for the weeks to be “complete”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי ״מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם״ – יָכוֹל יִקְצוֹר וְיִסְפּוֹר וְיָבִיא בַּיּוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת תִּהְיֶינָה״. אֵימָתַי אַתָּה מוֹצֵא שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימוֹת? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאַתָּה מַתְחִיל לִימְנוֹת מִבָּעֶרֶב.
English Translation:
If one would derive the halakha from this verse: “From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving,” one might have thought that he should harvest and count and bring the omer offering during the day, not on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan. Therefore, the verse states: “From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving; seven weeks there shall be complete.” When do you find that there are seven complete weeks? You find it at the time when you begin to count from the evening. Only if the counting commences at night, at the start of the sixteenth of Nisan, will the seven weeks of counting be complete, without missing that first evening.
קלאוד על הדף:
The requirement for “complete” (תמימות) weeks provides the crucial derivation for nighttime counting. If counting began during the day, the first day would be incomplete — missing the preceding evening. Only by beginning at nightfall (the start of the Jewish day) can the weeks be truly “complete.” This has profound halachic implications for the practice of counting the omer, which to this day is performed at night.
Key Terms:
- תְּמִימֹת = Complete — the requirement that the seven weeks be whole
- מִבָּעֶרֶב = From the evening — counting begins at nightfall
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא
Final resolution: harvesting and counting at night, bringing the offering by day
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יִקְצוֹר וְיָבִיא וְיִסְפּוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם״, הָא כֵּיצַד? קְצִירָה וּסְפִירָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וַהֲבָאָה בַּיּוֹם.
English Translation:
If so, one might have thought that all of the rites of the omer should be at night, and therefore one should harvest and bring the omer offering and start to count at night. Therefore the verse states: From the day that you brought the sheaf of the waving. How can these texts be reconciled? Does one start at night or in the day? Harvesting and counting should be performed at night, and the bringing of the omer offering is during the day.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment elegantly resolves the apparent contradiction between “day” and “evening” references. The word “day” in “from the day you brought” indicates that the actual bringing of the omer to the Temple occurs during daytime — as all sacrifices do. Meanwhile, the requirement for “complete” weeks means the counting and harvesting happen the preceding evening. The final rule: harvest and count at night on the 15th/16th boundary; bring the offering the next morning.
Key Terms:
- קְצִירָה = Harvesting — performed at night
- הֲבָאָה = Bringing the offering — performed during the day
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rava evaluates all the anti-Boethusian proofs: only the last two in each baraita are irrefutable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: כּוּלְּהוּ אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא, בַּר מִתַּרְתֵּי תַּנָּאֵי בָּתְרָאֵי, בֵּין בְּמַתְנִיתָא קַמַּיְיתָא בֵּין בְּמַתְנִיתָא בָּתְרָיְיתָא, דְּלֵית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara has presented two baraitot with ten proofs between them countering the Boethusian claim that the counting of the omer begins on the Sunday after Passover. Rava said: For all of the suggested proofs there is a possible refutation except for those of the two last tanna’im cited, both in the first baraita and in the second baraita, for which there is no refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s critical analysis is remarkable for its intellectual honesty. Despite the Pharisaic position being the accepted halacha, Rava does not simply validate every proof offered. He systematically evaluates each argument and admits that most are technically refutable — only the final proofs in each baraita (those of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira in the first, and Rabbi Yosei’s second proof and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second) withstand scrutiny. This demonstrates the Talmudic commitment to rigorous argumentation even when defending the consensus position.
Key Terms:
- פִּירְכָא = Refutation — a logical challenge to a proof
- תַּנָּאֵי בָּתְרָאֵי = The last tanna’im cited — whose proofs are irrefutable
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Rava refutes R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s proof using Abaye’s principle of counting both days and weeks
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִדְּרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, דִּלְמָא כִּדְאַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי יוֹמֵי, וּמִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי.
English Translation:
Rava elaborates: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said, that there is a contradiction between two verses, as one indicates that there is an obligation to count fifty days and another that the obligation is to count seven weeks, perhaps this contradiction can be resolved in accordance with the statement of Abaye. As Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count seven weeks. When one counts, he should track both the number of days and the number of weeks.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava shows that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s proof — which pointed to a contradiction between counting “days” and counting “weeks” — can be resolved without invoking the Festival interpretation. Abaye’s principle simply says both verses are operative: one commands counting individual days, the other commands counting weeks. There is no contradiction at all, just two complementary obligations. This elegant resolution undermines the proof’s force against the Boethusians.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי יוֹמֵי = It is a mitzva to count days
- מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי = It is a mitzva to count weeks
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Rava refutes R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua: perhaps “shabbat” means the last day of the Festival
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מִמַּאי דִּבְיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן קָאֵי? דִּלְמָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב אַחֲרוֹן קָאֵי!
English Translation:
Rabbi Eliezer derived that the counting is dependent upon the court, not the individual. Therefore, he claimed that when the verse mentions shabbat it must be referring to the Festival, not a regular Shabbat, which does not require a court for its determination. Rabbi Yehoshua derived that just as the counting and sanctifying of the New Moon is performed at a distinct time, so too the counting of the omer and start of Shavuot that follows must occur on a specific date. Rava refutes both of these claims: If the proof is from that which Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua said, granted that their proofs successfully demonstrate that the counting should start after the Festival, not after Shabbat, but from where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, i.e., the seventh day of Passover?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava identifies a critical gap in the proofs of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. While they successfully demonstrate that “shabbat” refers to a Festival and not the weekly Shabbat, they fail to specify which Festival day. Passover has two days that qualify as “shabbat” (days of rest) — the first and the seventh. Without further proof, one could argue that counting begins after the last day of Passover, not the first. This is a subtle but devastating objection.
Key Terms:
- יוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן = The first day of the Festival
- יוֹם טוֹב אַחֲרוֹן = The last day of the Festival (7th of Passover)
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Rava affirms that R. Yishmael and R. Yehuda ben Beteira’s proofs (from the first baraita) are irrefutable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא – לֵית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא.
English Translation:
Rava now addresses the statements of the final two the tanna’im cited in the first baraita: With regard to the proof given by Rabbi Yishmael from the two loaves that are brought at the beginning of a Festival, and the proof mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira from the usage of the word shabbat in connection with Shavuot, Rava said: They have no refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava confirms that in the first baraita, the final two proofs — Rabbi Yishmael’s argument from the two loaves of Shavuot and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s textual argument — are logically airtight. These proofs not only demonstrate that “shabbat” means the Festival but also specifically pinpoint the first day of the Festival. This represents the strongest rabbinic argumentation against the Boethusian position.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = His proof from the two loaves of Shavuot is irrefutable
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא = His proof from the word “shabbat” in connection with Shavuot is irrefutable
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rava refutes R. Yosei b. R. Yehuda’s proof about the fifty-day count
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: דִּלְמָא חַמְשִׁין לְבַר מֵהָנֵי שִׁיתָּא.
English Translation:
Continuing with the proofs of the tanna’im from the second baraita, Rava said: If one seeks to disprove the Boethusian claim from that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said, that if the counting starts from Shabbat then Shavuot can occur anywhere from fifty to fifty-six days from the date the counting had started the previous year, I would say that perhaps the verse means fifty days excluding these six extra days.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda had argued that if counting starts from Shabbat (which varies), the gap between consecutive Shavuot celebrations could range from 50 to 56 days, contradicting the Torah’s fixed “fifty days.” Rava shows this can be deflected: perhaps “fifty days” means fifty counting days, excluding any extra days that fall before the Shabbat in question. Though strained, the interpretation is technically possible, making this proof refutable.
Key Terms:
- חַמְשִׁין לְבַר מֵהָנֵי שִׁיתָּא = Fifty excluding those six — a forced interpretation to deflect the proof
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rava refutes R. Yehuda ben Beteira’s proof from the second baraita — same objection as R. Eliezer/Yehoshua
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא – מִמַּאי דִּבְיוֹם טוֹב רִאשׁוֹן קָאֵי? דִּלְמָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב אַחֲרוֹן קָאֵי!
English Translation:
Rava continues: If one seeks to prove from that which Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said in the second baraita, that the verse indicates that the counting is dependent upon the decision of the court, not an individual, this can too be refuted: From where does one know that it is referring to the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it is referring to the last day of the Festival, the seventh day of Passover?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava applies the same objection to R. Yehuda ben Beteira’s proof in the second baraita as he did to R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in segment 11: even if “shabbat” means the Festival rather than the weekly Shabbat, how do we know it is the first day of Passover and not the seventh? This proof demonstrates the Festival connection but fails to pin down which Festival day — making it technically refutable.
Key Terms:
- יוֹם טוֹב אַחֲרוֹן = The last Festival day — the alternative that weakens this proof
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rava explains why R. Yosei offered two proofs — he himself saw the weakness of his first proof
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי נָמֵי חָזֵי לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא, וְהַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר ״וְעוֹד״.
English Translation:
Rava concludes: The first proof cited by Rabbi Yosei was that if the counting starts the day after a regular Shabbat then it would be impossible to determine which Shabbat is meant. Rabbi Yosei himself saw that it is also subject to refutation, and this is why Rabbi Yosei continued and said: Furthermore, and suggested a second proof. As Rava declared, the last two proofs cited in the second baraita, the second proof provided by Rabbi Yosei and the proof of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, stand without refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava explains the literary structure of R. Yosei’s argument: the word “furthermore” (ועוד) signals that R. Yosei himself recognized his first proof was vulnerable. That is why he offered a second, stronger proof. Rava’s final conclusion: four proofs survive scrutiny — Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira from the first baraita, and Rabbi Yosei’s second proof and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar from the second baraita.
Key Terms:
- וְעוֹד = “Furthermore” — a literary marker indicating the author recognized the prior argument’s weakness
- פִּירְכָא = Refutation — the measure by which Rava evaluates each proof
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye’s principle analyzed: counting days and weeks; Ameimar counts only days as a commemoration
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי יוֹמֵי, וּמִצְוָה לְמִימְנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי. רַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי מָנוּ יוֹמֵי וּמָנוּ שָׁבוּעֵי, אַמֵּימָר מָנֵי יוֹמֵי וְלָא מָנֵי שָׁבוּעֵי, אָמַר: זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ הוּא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself of Abaye’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Abaye said: It is a mitzva to count days, and it is also a mitzva to count weeks. The Gemara notes that in fact the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi counted days and they also counted weeks. Ameimar counted days but not weeks. In explanation of his practice, Ameimar said: Since there is no longer an omer offering, the counting is performed only in commemoration of the Temple. Therefore, one does not need to be so scrupulous to count both days and weeks.
קלאוד על הדף:
This passage has enormous practical halachic significance, as it directly shapes how Jews count the omer to this day. Abaye establishes that the ideal practice involves counting both individual days and weeks (e.g., “Today is twenty-three days, which is three weeks and two days of the omer”). Ameimar’s dissenting practice — counting only days — reflects his view that post-Temple counting is merely commemorative (zecher lamikdash), not a full biblical obligation. The halacha follows Abaye and the Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy, who counted both.
Key Terms:
- זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ = In commemoration of the Temple — Ameimar’s rationale for a simplified counting
- מָנוּ יוֹמֵי וּמָנוּ שָׁבוּעֵי = They counted days and they counted weeks — the practice of Rav Ashi’s academy
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
Mishna: the process of preparing the omer — parching, beating, and the dispute between R. Meir and the Rabbis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ קְצָרוּהוּ וּנְתָנוּהוּ בְּקוּפּוֹת, הֱבִיאוּהוּ לָעֲזָרָה, וְהָיוּ מְהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאוּר, כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בּוֹ מִצְוַת קָלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּקָנִים וּבְקוֹלָחוֹת חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְמַעֵךְ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: After they harvested the omer and placed it in the baskets, they brought it to the Temple courtyard. And they would singe in the fire the kernels of barley while they were still on the stalks, in order to fulfill the mitzva of parched grain, as it is written: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire” (Leviticus 2:14). This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Prior to parching the kernels, they would remove them from the stalks by beating them with soft, moist reeds and with cabbage stalks, not with sticks, so that the kernels would not be crushed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Mishna shifts from the theoretical dispute about when to count to the practical Temple procedure for processing the omer. The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis centers on the sequence of operations: Rabbi Meir says the grain was singed while still on the stalks (fulfilling “grain in the ear, parched with fire”), while the Rabbis say the kernels were first removed by gentle beating with reeds and cabbage stalks — soft enough to avoid crushing the grain — and only then parched.
Key Terms:
- קוּפּוֹת = Baskets — used to transport the harvested barley
- מְהַבְהֲבִין = Singeing/parching — passing the grain through fire
- קָלִי = Parched grain — a biblical requirement for the omer
- קוֹלָחוֹת = Cabbage stalks — used as soft beaters
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה
Mishna: the hollow vessel, grinding, sifting through 13 sieves, and the dispute about halla and tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נְתָנוּהוּ לְאַבּוּב, וְאַבּוּב הָיָה מְנוּקָּב, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הָאוּר שׁוֹלֵט בְּכוּלּוֹ. שְׁטָחוּהוּ בָּעֲזָרָה, וְהָרוּחַ מְנַשֶּׁבֶת בּוֹ. נְתָנוּהוּ לְרֵיחַיִם שֶׁל גָּרוֹסוֹת, וְהוֹצִיאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עִשָּׂרוֹן, שֶׁהוּא מְנוּפֶּה בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָפָה, וְהַשְּׁאָר נִפְדֶּה וְנֶאֱכָל לְכׇל אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בַּחַלָּה וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.
English Translation:
They then placed the grain into a hollow vessel [le’abuv], and this vessel was perforated so that the fire would take hold of the grain in its entirety. After parching the kernels, they would spread the kernels in the Temple courtyard and the wind would blow upon the kernels, cooling and drying them. They then placed the kernels in a mill used to grind grits, so that the barley would not be ground so fine that the shell would be mixed with the grain. And they produced from the ground barley a tenth of an ephah of barley flour that was sifted through thirteen sifters, and the rest is redeemed and may be eaten by any person. And dough from this barley flour is obligated in the separation of halla, and the grain is exempt from the separation of tithe. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having halla and tithes separated from it.
קלאוד על הדף:
This Mishna provides a remarkably detailed description of the Temple’s omer-processing operation — from the perforated parching vessel (abuv) to the wind-drying in the courtyard, the grit mill, and the thirteen stages of sifting to extract one tenth-ephah of fine flour. The remainder was redeemed and became available for general consumption. The dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Akiva about tithes on the leftover grain introduces a fundamental question: does consecration to the Temple exempt grain from tithing obligations even after it is redeemed?
Key Terms:
- אַבּוּב = Hollow vessel — a perforated parching container
- עִשָּׂרוֹן = A tenth of an ephah — the required measure of flour for the omer offering
- נָפָה = Sieve/sifter — thirteen stages of sifting to produce fine flour
- חַלָּה = Dough offering — obligatory on the redeemed flour
- מַעֲשֵׂר = Tithe — the disputed obligation (R. Akiva vs. Rabbis)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Gemara opens discussion on the Mishna: the dispute about parching — R. Meir vs. the Rabbis on “kalui ba’esh”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אָבִיב״ – זֶה אָבִיב, ״קָלוּי בָּאֵשׁ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מְהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאֵשׁ כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּים בּוֹ מִצְוַת קָלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna cited a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis as to whether the barley kernels were first singed while they were in their stalks or only after they were beaten and removed from their stalks, when they were placed in a hollow vessel. The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). “Grain in the ear”; this is a reference to the grain, i.e., the barley kernel. “Parched [kalui] with fire”; this teaches that the Jewish people would singe it in fire, in order to fulfill the mitzva of bringing parched grain. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara unpacks the biblical source for the Mishna’s dispute. The verse in Leviticus 2:14 contains several key terms: “aviv” (grain in the ear), “kalui ba’esh” (parched with fire), and “geres karmel” (groats of the fresh ear). Rabbi Meir reads “kalui ba’esh” straightforwardly — the grain is parched directly with fire while still on the stalks. The Rabbis will offer a different interpretation of “kalui” in the next segment on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- אָבִיב = Grain in the ear — fresh barley still on the stalk
- קָלוּי בָּאֵשׁ = Parched with fire — the disputed term
- גֶּרֶשׂ כַּרְמֶל = Groats of the fresh ear — another element of the verse
Amud Bet (66b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The Rabbis’ interpretation: “kalui” means not direct fire but parching in a burnished vessel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין אוּר לְשׁוֹן קָלִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר אַחֵר (הָא כֵּיצַד וְכוּ׳), אֵין לְשׁוֹן קָלִי אֶלָּא דָּבָר (אַחֵר) קָלִיל. הָא כֵּיצַד? אַבּוּב שֶׁל קְלָיוֹת הָיָה שָׁם, וְהָיָה מְנוּקָּב כִּכְבָרָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הָאוּר שׁוֹלֶטֶת בְּכוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
Fire is not the proper interpretation of the term kali in the verse. Rather, kali means something else, i.e., the barley was parched inside a receptacle and not directly in the fire. How so? The term kali means only that something else, a vessel made from burnished [kalil] brass was used in the process of parching the grains. How so, i.e., how was this performed? There was a hollow vessel there, in the Temple, which was used for making parched grains. And it was perforated with holes like a sieve, in order to allow the fire to take hold of it in its entirety.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis offer a creative reinterpretation of “kalui”: rather than meaning “parched directly with fire,” they connect it to “kalil” (burnished/polished), referring to the brass vessel used for parching. This means the grain was not singed directly by flame while on the stalks (as R. Meir holds) but was first removed and then parched in the perforated abuv vessel. The practical difference is significant: direct fire could burn the grain unevenly, while the vessel provides controlled, uniform heat.
Key Terms:
- קָלִיל = Burnished — the Rabbis’ etymology for “kalui”
- כִּכְבָרָה = Like a sieve — describing the perforations in the abuv vessel
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Analyzing the verse structure: “parched with fire” interrupts to create a new clause about grain in the ear
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אָבִיב קָלוּי … גֶּרֶשׂ״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם ״אָבִיב קָלוּי״ אִם ״גֶּרֶשׂ קָלוּי״, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״בָּאֵשׁ״ – הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
The baraita analyzes the verse: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). This indicates that the grain used for the omer offering must be parched with fire, but is unclear if that clause modifies the earlier or later part of the verse. In other words, I do not know if grain in the ear is to be parched before it is ground, or if the ground groats are to be parched. The baraita explains that when the verse states: With fire, it interrupted the previous matter and is now introducing a new clause. Accordingly, the instructions to parch with fire is referring to the grain still in the stalks, not the ground groats.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita engages in close syntactic analysis of Leviticus 2:14. The verse could be parsed as “grain-in-the-ear parched-with-fire, groats-of-the-fresh-ear” or as “grain-in-the-ear, parched-with-fire groats-of-the-fresh-ear.” The phrase “with fire” (ba’esh) functions as a clause break, resolving the ambiguity: parching applies to the grain still in its ear (aviv), not to the already-ground groats (geres). This determines the sequence of operations in the omer processing.
Key Terms:
- הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן = Interrupted the matter — a hermeneutical principle of verse division
- גֶּרֶשׂ = Groats — coarsely ground grain
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Interpreting “karmel” as a compound word: rakh umal (soft and malleable), with supporting examples
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כַּרְמֶל״ – רַךְ וּמָל, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאִישׁ בָּא מִבַּעַל שָׁלִשָׁה וַיָּבֵא לְאִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים לֶחֶם בִּכּוּרִים וְעֶשְׂרִים לֶחֶם שְׂעֹרִים וְכַרְמֶל בְּצִקְלֹנוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר תֵּן לָעָם וְיֹאכֵלוּ״, בָּא וְיָצַק לָנוּ וְאָכַלְנוּ, וְנָוֶה הָיָה.
English Translation:
The verse states that the omer offering should be of the fresh ear [karmel]. The baraita defines karmel as soft and malleable [rakh umal]. And likewise there are other examples of terms that are interpreted as shortened terms, as the verse states: “And there came a man from Baal Shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain [karmel] in his sack [betziklono]. And he said: Give to the people, that they may eat” (II Kings 4:42). This verse mentions the word karmel in connection with the word betziklono, which is interpreted as an abbreviation for: He came [ba] and he poured for us [veyatzak lanu], and we ate [ve’akhalnu] and it was fine [venaveh haya].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a fascinating linguistic method: interpreting biblical words as compound abbreviations (notarikon). “Karmel” is broken into “rakh” (soft) + “mal” (malleable), indicating that the omer grain should be from fresh, tender ears. The supporting example from II Kings 4:42 demonstrates this method with “betziklono,” expanded into a whole narrative: “he came, poured for us, we ate, and it was fine” — describing Elisha’s miraculous feeding.
Key Terms:
- רַךְ וּמָל = Soft and malleable — the notarikon interpretation of “karmel”
- נוֹטָרִיקוֹן = Abbreviation method — reading words as compressed phrases
- בְּצִקְלֹנוֹ = “In his sack” — expanded to a narrative abbreviation
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Another notarikon example: “nitalesa” from Proverbs 7:18
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאוֹמֵר: ״נִתְעַלְּסָה בָּאֳהָבִים״, נִשֵּׂא וְנִתֵּן, וְנַעֲלֶה, וְנִשְׂמַח וְנִתְחַטֵּא בָּאֳהָבִים.
English Translation:
The baraita presents further examples of words that are interpreted as shortened terms of an expanded phrase. And the verse states: “Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning; let us solace ourselves [nitalesa] with love” (Proverbs 7:18). The word nitalesa is short for: We shall converse [nissa veniten] and we shall go up [vena’aleh] to bed and we shall rejoice [venismaḥ] and be pampered [venitḥata] with loves.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a second example of the notarikon method, this time applied to a word from Proverbs. The word “nitalesa” is expanded into four separate actions: conversing, ascending, rejoicing, and being pampered. While the context in Proverbs is quite different from the omer offering, the Gemara is demonstrating that the method of reading words as abbreviations is a legitimate and widespread hermeneutical tool.
Key Terms:
- נִתְעַלְּסָה = “Let us solace ourselves” — another example of a compound word
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
A third notarikon example: “ne’elasa” from Job 39:13 describing the ostrich
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאוֹמֵר: ״כְּנַף רְנָנִים נֶעֱלָסָה״, נוֹשֵׂא, עוֹלֶה, וְנִתְחַטֵּא.
English Translation:
The baraita provides an example of a similar shortened word: “The wing of the ostrich beats joyously [ne’elasa]” (Job 39:13). The word ne’elasa is a combination of the words: Carries [noseh], goes up [oleh], and places down [venitḥata]. This bird carries its egg, flies upward, and places it in its nest.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third notarikon example from Job, describing the ostrich’s behavior with its eggs. The word “ne’elasa” is expanded into three actions: carrying, ascending, and placing down. The Sifri provides an alternative reading that emphasizes gentle placement. This series of examples validates the method that was used to interpret “karmel” — showing that such compressed words are a recognized feature of biblical Hebrew.
Key Terms:
- נֶעֱלָסָה = “Beats joyously” — interpreted as a compound of carrying, ascending, and placing
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
A fourth notarikon example: “yarat” from Numbers 22:32 describing Balaam’s donkey
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי יָרַט הַדֶּרֶךְ לְנֶגְדִּי״ – יָרֵאתָה, רָאֲתָה, נָטְתָה.
English Translation:
Likewise, the verse states, after Balaam struck his donkey: “And the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me” (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is also a shortened term: The donkey feared [yirata], it saw [ra’ata], and it turned aside [nateta].
קלאוד על הדף:
The final notarikon example comes from the Balaam narrative. The word “yarat” is expanded to describe the donkey’s three reactions upon seeing the angel: it feared, it saw, and it turned aside — perfectly matching the three incidents in Numbers 22 where the donkey deviated from the path. This elegant reading shows how notarikon can reveal hidden narrative structure within single words.
Key Terms:
- יָרַט = “Was contrary” — expanded to three actions: feared, saw, turned aside
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
The school of R. Yishmael offers an alternative interpretation: “karmel” means “kar maleh” — a full kernel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״כַּרְמֶל״ – כַּר מָלֵא.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to discuss the word karmel. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that karmel means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., that the shell of the kernel should be filled with the ripened kernel inside.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael offers a different notarikon reading of “karmel”: not “soft and malleable” (rakh umal) but “a full kernel” (kar maleh). This interpretation emphasizes that the barley grain must be sufficiently ripened that its husk is full of developed grain. Both readings agree on the underlying point — the omer must come from fresh, properly developed grain — but differ in emphasis: the first stresses texture, the second stresses ripeness.
Key Terms:
- כַּר מָלֵא = A full kernel — R. Yishmael’s school’s interpretation of karmel
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Kahana’s explanation of R. Akiva: smoothing a pile of consecrated grain does not exempt from tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בַּחַלָּה וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מֵירוּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having halla and the tithes separated from it. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Akiva would say: The smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from the obligation to separate tithes if it is later redeemed for common use. This is despite the halakha that the smoothing of the pile is what causes the obligation of separating tithes to take effect.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now transitions to a complex halachic analysis of R. Akiva’s view on the leftover omer grain. Rav Kahana formulates R. Akiva’s principle broadly: when grain undergoes meiruach (smoothing of the pile — the act that triggers tithing obligations) while in consecrated (hekdesh) status, that consecrated status does not permanently exempt the grain from tithes. So when the leftover omer grain is later redeemed, the tithing obligation “revives.” The Rabbis disagree: they hold that meiruach hekdesh does exempt.
Key Terms:
- מֵירוּחַ = Smoothing/leveling the grain pile — the act that triggers the obligation to tithe
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ = Consecrated property — belonging to the Temple
- פּוֹטֵר = Exempts — whether consecration at the critical moment removes the tithing obligation
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Sheshet challenges Rav Kahana’s formulation from a baraita about the leftover omer grain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹתַר שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין הַלָּלוּ, מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בּוֹ? נִפְדֶּה וְנֶאֱכָל לְכׇל אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בַּחַלָּה וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: פּוֹדֶה מִיַּד גִּזְבָּר יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁחַיָּיב בַּחַלָּה וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: What would they do with the leftover of these three se’a of barley, i.e., the portion not used for the tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? It is redeemed and eaten by any person, and it is obligated in the separation of halla and exempt from the separation of tithes. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having halla and the tithes separated from it. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: The halakha of one who redeems produce from the possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar] proves otherwise, as he is obligated in the separation of halla but exempt from the separation of tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet poses a sharp challenge to Rav Kahana’s broad formulation of R. Akiva’s view. The baraita shows that the Rabbis countered R. Akiva with a parallel case: someone who redeems produce from the Temple treasurer (gizbar) must separate halla but not tithes. If R. Akiva’s principle were simply “meiruach hekdesh does not exempt,” then R. Akiva should agree with the treasurer case too — but the Rabbis would not cite it as a counterproof if R. Akiva already agreed with it.
Key Terms:
- גִּזְבָּר = Temple treasurer — who oversees consecrated property
- מוֹתַר שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין = The leftover of the three se’a — the surplus from the omer processing
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The logical problem: if meiruach hekdesh never exempts, then the gizbar case proves nothing new
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אִיתָא דְּמֵירוּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, מַאי קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ? הִיא הִיא!
English Translation:
Rav Sheshet explains his objection: And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva holds that smoothing a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, what is the significance of that which the Rabbis said to him? Rabbi Akiva would simply disagree with their premise, as it is the same ruling itself: Just as a pile of consecrated grains that was smoothed is not exempt from tithes, so too, Rabbi Akiva would maintain that produce redeemed from the Temple treasury is not exempt from tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Sheshet drives the point home: if Rav Kahana’s broad formulation of R. Akiva’s view is correct, then the Rabbis’ counter-argument from the gizbar case would be nonsensical. R. Akiva would simply dismiss it as the same principle — “meiruach hekdesh never exempts, whether for the omer or for the gizbar.” The Rabbis’ argument only makes sense if R. Akiva’s rationale for requiring tithes on the omer grain is more specific than a blanket rejection of meiruach hekdesh’s exempting power.
Key Terms:
- הִיא הִיא = “It is the same thing!” — the refutation of Rav Kahana’s formulation
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Kahana bar Tahlifa’s additional objection: R. Akiva’s real reason is that the money only covered what was needed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעוֹד אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא (בַּר מַתִּתְיָה): רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בַּחַלָּה וּבַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנוּ מָעוֹת אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ לָהֶן.
English Translation:
And furthermore, Rav Kahana bar Tahlifa raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Kahana bar Matitya, who reported that Rabbi Akiva holds that consecrated grain is not exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Akiva obligates one in the separation of halla and in the separation of tithes, as the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. Only the requisite tenth of an ephah out of the entire three se’a was paid from the Temple treasury, and was therefore its property. This indicates that had the entire crop been purchased by the Temple, it would be exempt from the obligation to separate tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
This objection provides the real reason behind R. Akiva’s ruling. The Temple treasury paid only for the tenth of an ephah actually used in the offering. The remaining grain was never truly consecrated — the purchase money covered only the needed portion. Therefore, the leftover grain retained its private status and was always subject to tithing. This is a much narrower rationale than “meiruach hekdesh does not exempt” — it is specific to the omer’s partial-purchase arrangement.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנוּ מָעוֹת אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ לָהֶן = The money was given only for what was needed — the actual basis for R. Akiva’s ruling
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
R. Yochanan’s resolution: R. Akiva had a settled tradition that only the needed portion was purchased
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּלְמוּד עָרוּךְ הוּא בְּפִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנוּ מָעוֹת אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ לָהֶן.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Yohanan says: It is a settled, accepted tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Akiva that the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. In other words, Rav Kahana’s version of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, that in all cases the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, is rejected.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan settles the matter: R. Akiva’s ruling is not based on a general principle about meiruach hekdesh but on a specific tradition (talmud arukh) about how the omer purchase worked. The Temple only paid for what it needed. The surplus grain was never consecrated, so it was always subject to tithing. This limits R. Akiva’s ruling to this specific case and preserves the general principle that meiruach hekdesh does exempt from tithes.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמוּד עָרוּךְ = A settled/organized tradition — a received teaching, not a derivation
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rava concludes: meiruach hekdesh does exempt — even R. Akiva agrees generally
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי דְּמֵירוּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹטֵר, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָא קָא מְחַיֵּיב הָתָם אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנוּ מָעוֹת אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ לָהֶן, אֲבָל מֵירוּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּעָלְמָא פּוֹטֵר.
English Translation:
Rava likewise said: It is obvious to me that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain exempts one from any subsequent obligation to separate tithes. And even Rabbi Akiva, who requires the separation of tithes from the remainder of the grain not used for the omer offering, obligates one to separate tithes only there, where the money was given only to pay for that which they required for the offering. But he concedes that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain generally exempts one from the obligation to separate tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava states the final, authoritative conclusion: meiruach hekdesh does exempt grain from tithes. This is universally agreed — even R. Akiva, who requires tithing the omer surplus, does so only because of the specific purchase arrangement, not because of a general rejection of the meiruach hekdesh exemption. This principle has wide application: grain that becomes consecrated before the point of tithing is reached, and then undergoes meiruach as hekdesh, is permanently exempt from tithes.
Key Terms:
- מֵירוּחַ הֶקְדֵּשׁ בְּעָלְמָא פּוֹטֵר = Smoothing of consecrated grain generally exempts — the accepted principle
Segment 14
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rava: whether meiruach by a gentile exempts from tithes is a Tannaitic dispute
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: תּוֹרְמִין מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִשֶּׁל גּוֹיִם עַל שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, וּמִשֶּׁל כּוּתִיִּים עַל שֶׁל כּוּתִיִּים, וּמִשֶּׁל כֹּל עַל שֶׁל כֹּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
Rava continues: The status of a pile of grain after smoothing performed by a gentile owner is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt other produce bought from gentiles, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt other produce bought from Samaritans. Furthermore, one may separate teruma from the produce of any of the above to exempt the produce of any of the above. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, as they maintain that produce that belonged to gentiles or Samaritans is obligated in tithes and has the same status as produce that initially belonged to a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that meiruach hekdesh exempts, Rava pivots to a related but distinct question: does meiruach performed by a gentile owner exempt the grain from tithes when a Jew later acquires it? This is a Tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that gentile-owned produce in Eretz Yisrael is fully obligated in tithes — meaning meiruach by a gentile does not exempt. They allow teruma separation from any category to exempt any other category, treating all produce equally.
Key Terms:
- מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי = Smoothing by a gentile — whether this creates or removes tithing obligations
- כּוּתִיִּים = Samaritans — a group with ambiguous Jewish status
- תּוֹרְמִין = Separating teruma — indicating the produce is subject to tithes
Segment 15
TYPE: מחלוקת
R. Yosei and R. Shimon: gentile/Samaritan produce is a separate category — meiruach by a gentile does exempt
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: תּוֹרְמִין מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמִשֶּׁל גּוֹיִם עַל שֶׁל כּוּתִיִּים, וּמִשֶּׁל כּוּתִיִּים עַל שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אֲבָל לֹא מִשֶּׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל שֶׁל גּוֹיִם וְשֶׁל כּוּתִיִּים, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל גּוֹיִם וְשֶׁל כּוּתִיִּים עַל שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt produce bought from Samaritans, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt produce bought from gentiles. But one may not separate teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans, nor from produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans to exempt produce of a Jew. According to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael, produce that belonged to a gentile or a Samaritan is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. Therefore one may not separate tithes from produce of a Jew, to which the obligation of tithes applies, to exempt such produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon hold the opposite view: gentile-owned produce in Eretz Yisrael is exempt from tithes because the verse says “your grain” (deganekha) — excluding gentile grain. Since Jewish and gentile produce have different tithing statuses, one cannot separate from one to exempt the other. Gentile and Samaritan produce can cross-exempt each other (both exempt), but cannot cross-exempt with Jewish produce (which is obligated). This effectively means that meiruach by a gentile does create an exemption — derived from “your threshing” (digunekha), not “a gentile’s threshing.”
Key Terms:
- דְּגָנְךָ = “Your grain” — the verse excluding gentile-owned produce from tithes
- דִּיגוּנְךָ = “Your threshing” — the verse excluding gentile smoothing from creating obligations