Menachot Daf 71 (מנחות דף ע״א)
Daf: 71 | Amudim: 71a – 71b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (71a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation from previous daf — question about the source for the omer permitting grain that has taken root
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה דְּדָרֵיהּ: לָא תֵּיתֵב אַכַּרְעָיךָ עַד דִּמְפָרְשַׁתְּ לֵיהּ לְהָא מַתְנִיתִין, מִנַּיִין לָעוֹמֶר שֶׁמַּתִּיר בְּהַשְׁרָשָׁה?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoshiya of his generation, i.e., not the tanna of the same name: Do not sit on your knees until you have explained to me the source for that latter clause in the mishna: From where is it derived that the omer offering permits the consumption of the new crop upon its taking root in the ground?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues the discussion from the end of daf 70, where the mishna taught that the omer permits consumption of grain that has merely taken root. A scholar demands of Rabbi Yoshiya a scriptural source for this seemingly surprising leniency. The urgency of the phrasing — “do not sit on your knees” — conveys the importance of grounding halakhic rulings in biblical text rather than relying on tradition alone. The question sets up a series of attempted derivations that will occupy the opening sugya of this daf.
Key Terms:
- הַשְׁרָשָׁה (hashrashah) = Taking root — the stage at which a planted seed first establishes roots in the soil
- עוֹמֶר (omer) = The barley offering brought on 16 Nisan that permits consumption of the new year’s grain
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yoshiya’s first attempted derivation from the term “aviv” (grain in the ear)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״אָבִיב״, לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּלָאו ״אָבִיב״?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoshiya responded: From where do we derive, you ask? The source is that 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, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). Can one not learn from here by inference that although the omer offering must be from fully formed grain, there is less-developed grain at an earlier stage that is not “grain in the ear,” i.e., grain that may not be used for the omer offering but is nevertheless permitted by the omer?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoshiya attempts to derive the halakha from Leviticus 2:14, which specifies that the omer must come from “aviv” — fully ripened grain in the ear. His reasoning is: since the Torah specifies a particular stage of ripeness for the omer itself, by implication there must be an earlier stage of grain that is not suitable for the omer offering yet is still permitted for consumption once the omer is brought. He identifies this earlier stage as grain that has merely taken root.
Key Terms:
- אָבִיב (aviv) = Grain in the ear; ripened grain that has formed ears, the required state for the omer offering
Segment 3
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection — the inference from “aviv” could refer to grain that has grown one-third, not merely taken root
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּלָאו ״אָבִיב״, וּלְעוֹלָם דְּעַיֵּיל שְׁלִישׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this claim. Perhaps one can infer from here only that there is less-developed grain that is not “grain in the ear” but is at a further stage than simply taking root. Rather, it actually grew one-third of its full growth. If so, merely taking root is not enough for the omer offering to permit the consumption of that grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yoshiya’s derivation by pointing out that the inference is not precise enough. The term “not aviv” could refer to any earlier stage of grain development, not necessarily grain that has just taken root. Perhaps it refers to grain that has already grown one-third of its full growth — a more developed stage than mere hashrashah. This rejection demonstrates the Gemara’s insistence on finding a source that specifically and unambiguously proves that the omer permits grain from the moment of taking root.
Key Terms:
- עַיֵּיל שְׁלִישׁ (ayil shelish) = Reached one-third of its growth — a significant halakhic threshold for grain development
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ ודחייה
Shmuel’s derivation from “the sickle” and its rejection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״מֵהָחֵל חֶרְמֵשׁ״, לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא דְּלָאו בַּר חֶרְמֵשׁ? דְּלָאו בַּר חֶרְמֵשׁ, וּלְעוֹלָם שַׁחַת.
English Translation:
Rather, Shmuel said that this halakha is derived from a verse discussing the counting of the omer: “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). Can one not learn from here by inference that there is grain at an earlier stage that cannot be cut with a sickle, which nevertheless is permitted by the omer offering? This description applies to grain that has taken root. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: Perhaps the inference is to grain at an earlier stage that cannot be cut with a sickle but is actually fodder, i.e., produce that has grown stalks but is not yet ripe.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel offers a second attempt, deriving the halakha from the phrase “from the time the sickle is first put” (Deuteronomy 16:9). His logic is that the Torah specifies grain ready for the sickle, implying by contrast that there is grain not yet ready for the sickle but still permitted by the omer — namely, grain that has just taken root. The Gemara again rejects this, noting that “not ready for the sickle” could refer to shachat (fodder) — grain that has grown stalks but is too young to be harvested with a sickle, yet more developed than grain that has merely taken root.
Key Terms:
- חֶרְמֵשׁ (chermesh) = Sickle — the harvesting tool, used here as a benchmark for grain maturity
- שַׁחַת (shachat) = Fodder — young, unripe grain with stalks but not yet ready for harvest
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ ודחייה
Rabbi Yitzchak’s derivation from “standing grain” and its rejection
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״קָמָה״ – לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּלָאו בַּר קָמָה? דְּלָאו בַּר קָמָה, וּלְעוֹלָם אֲגַם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One can derive that grain that has taken root is permitted by the omer offering from the term: “The standing grain” (Deuteronomy 16:9). Can one not learn from here by inference that there is grain that is too soft and unable to stand, which may not be used for the omer offering and yet is permitted by the omer? The Gemara rejects this claim as well: Perhaps the inference is to grain that is unable to stand but is actually soft grain like that of a marsh; it has grown somewhat but is still soft enough that it bends rather than stands.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak offers a third derivation from the same verse, focusing on the word “kamah” (standing grain). If the Torah specifies grain that stands upright, then by inference there must be grain that cannot yet stand, which is nevertheless permitted by the omer. The Gemara rejects this too: “not standing” could refer to agam — soft, marsh-like grain that bends rather than stands but is further along than mere hashrashah. The pattern of repeated attempts and rejections underscores how difficult it is to find an airtight scriptural basis for this halakha.
Key Terms:
- קָמָה (kamah) = Standing grain — mature grain that stands upright in the field
- אֲגַם (agam) = Marsh grain — soft, flexible grain that has grown somewhat but still bends
Segment 6
TYPE: מסקנא
Rava’s accepted derivation from “which you sow in the field” — the conclusive source
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: ״אֲשֶׁר תִּזְרַע״ – מִשְּׁעַת זְרִיעָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: אִי הָכִי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא הִשְׁרִישׁ נָמֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סוּדָנִי, ״בַּשָּׂדֶה״ כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
Rather, Rava said that the source of the halakha is the verse: “And the feast of harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field” (Exodus 23:16). This verse is referring to grain from the time of sowing, i.e., from when the grain takes root. Rav Pappa said to Rava: If so, then even though the grain had not taken root it should be permitted by the omer offering. The verse mentions grain at the time of sowing, but it does not indicate that it is necessary for that grain to have taken root in order to be permitted by the omer. Rava said to Rav Pappa in reply: Wise one [sudni]! It is written: “In the field,” which indicates that the verse is referring to freshly sown produce that has become part of the field, i.e., it has taken root.
קלאוד על הדף:
After three failed attempts, Rava provides the accepted derivation from Exodus 23:16 — “which you sow in the field.” The word “sow” indicates the omer relates to grain from the time of planting, not just mature grain. Rav Pappa objects that mere sowing without taking root should then suffice, but Rava cleverly responds that “in the field” implies the grain has become integrated with the field — i.e., it has taken root. The phrase “sudni” (wise one) used affectionately by Rava shows the warmth of the master-student exchange even in sharp dialectic.
Key Terms:
- סוּדָנִי (sudni) = Wise one — an affectionate term Rava uses for his student Rav Pappa
- בַּשָּׂדֶה (basadeh) = In the field — indicates the grain has become part of the field by taking root
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Reaping before the omer — irrigated fields, the residents of Jericho, and reaping for fodder
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ קוֹצְרִין בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין שֶׁבָּעֲמָקִים, אֲבָל לֹא גּוֹדְשִׁין. אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ קוֹצְרִין בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, וְגוֹדְשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, וְלֹא מִיחוּ בְּיָדָם. קוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת, מַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּתְחִיל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִקְצוֹר וְיַאֲכִיל אַף מִשֶּׁהֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Even before the omer offering is brought, one may reap a crop that grows in an irrigated field in the valleys, but one may not arrange the reaped stalks in a pile. The residents of Jericho, whose fields were categorized as irrigated fields in a valley, reaped the crops with the approval of the Sages and arranged the crops in a pile without the approval of the Sages, but the Sages did not reprimand them. One may reap crops in any field for fodder and feed it to an animal. Rabbi Yehuda said: When may one do so? At a time when he begins reaping before the crop reaches one-third of its potential growth. Rabbi Shimon says: One may reap and feed the crops to animals even after they reached one-third of their potential growth.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna addresses exceptions to the general prohibition against reaping grain before the omer offering. Irrigated valley fields may be reaped because their grain is unsuitable for the omer (which must come from rain-fed fields), and the residents of Jericho pushed this further by also piling the grain. The mishna then introduces a three-way dispute about reaping for animal fodder: the anonymous first tanna permits it, Rabbi Yehuda limits the permission to grain that has not yet reached one-third growth, and Rabbi Shimon permits it even after one-third growth. This dispute about the halakhic significance of the one-third growth threshold will drive the Gemara’s lengthy discussion on amud bet.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין (beit hashalachin) = Irrigated field — a field watered artificially rather than by rainfall
- גּוֹדְשִׁין (godshin) = Piling grain into stacks — arranging reaped grain in a pile, a further step beyond mere reaping
- שַׁחַת (shachat) = Fodder — grain reaped for animal feed before it is fully ripe
- הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ (hevi’a shelish) = Reached one-third growth — a key threshold in grain development
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
Additional reasons for reaping before the omer — saplings, mourning, and the study hall
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקוֹצְרִין מִפְּנֵי נְטִיעוֹת, מִפְּנֵי בֵּית הָאֵבֶל, מִפְּנֵי בִּיטּוּל בֵּית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָן כְּרִיכוֹת, אֲבָל מַנִּיחִין צְבָתִים.
English Translation:
And one may reap crops prior to the omer due to potential damage to saplings growing alongside the crops; and due to the place of mourning, i.e., to create room for those consoling mourners, who would bless them upon their return from the cemetery; and due to the need to create room for students to study, as failure to do so would lead to dereliction of Torah study in the study hall. After reaping the crops for any of these reasons, one may not fashion them into sheaves, but he leaves them unbound.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna lists three additional cases where reaping before the omer is permitted due to pressing need: protecting saplings that might be harmed by surrounding grain, making room for the mourning ceremony, and preventing the disruption of Torah study. These leniencies reflect the principle that certain communal and agricultural needs override the prohibition against pre-omer reaping. However, the mishna carefully limits the permission — the reaped grain may not be bound into sheaves but must be left loosely in the field, preventing it from being confused with grain processed for human consumption.
Key Terms:
- נְטִיעוֹת (neti’ot) = Saplings — young trees that could be damaged by surrounding grain
- בֵּית הָאֵבֶל (beit ha’avel) = House/place of mourning — the location where mourners are comforted
- כְּרִיכוֹת (kerikhot) = Sheaves — bound bundles of grain
- צְבָתִים (tzvatim) = Unbound piles — loose groupings of grain left in the field
Segment 9
TYPE: משנה
The ideal and fallback conditions for the omer offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִצְוַת הָעוֹמֶר לָבֹא מִן הַקָּמָה. לֹא מָצָא – יָבִיא מִן הָעֳמָרִים. מִצְוָתוֹ לָבֹא מִן הַלַּח, לֹא מָצָא – יָבִיא יָבֵשׁ. מִצְוָתוֹ לִקְצוֹר בַּלַּיְלָה, נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר. וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.
English Translation:
The mitzva of the omer is for the barley to come from standing grain. If one did not find standing grain, he brings from sheaves. Its mitzva is for it to come from fresh, moist grain. If one did not find moist grain, he brings from dry grain. Its mitzva is for one to reap the grain at night, but if it was reaped during the day, it is fit. And reaping the grain for the omer overrides Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna establishes a hierarchy of preferences for the omer offering while ensuring the mitzva is never prevented by circumstances. Ideally the omer comes from standing, fresh grain reaped at night — but each of these is a preference (lechatchila), not an absolute requirement (be’di’avad). The principle is that the mitzva of the omer is so important that it overrides even Shabbat restrictions. This hierarchy illustrates a common Talmudic pattern: distinguishing between the ideal fulfillment of a commandment and its minimum valid requirements.
Key Terms:
- קָמָה (kamah) = Standing grain — grain still growing in the field, the preferred source for the omer
- עֳמָרִים (omarim) = Sheaves — previously harvested grain bundles, acceptable be’di’avad
- לַח (lach) = Fresh/moist — freshly ripened grain, preferred for the omer
- דוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת (docheh et haShabbat) = Overrides Shabbat — the omer reaping may be performed even on Shabbat
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Gemara on the mishna — Rabbi Binyamin identifies a contradiction between two parts of the same verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וּקְצַרְתֶּם אֶת קְצִירָהּ וַהֲבֵאתֶם אֶת עֹמֶר״, וּכְתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: With regard to the ruling of the mishna that one may reap a crop that grows in an irrigated field in the valleys, the Gemara cites that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Binyamin says that one verse states: “When you come into the land that I give to you and shall reap its harvest, then you shall bring the omer” (Leviticus 23:10). This verse indicates that one may reap his grain before bringing the omer offering. But it is also written in the continuation of the same verse: “Of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest,” from which it may be inferred that the omer is brought from the first reaped grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now turns to the second mishna’s ruling that irrigated fields may be reaped before the omer. Rabbi Binyamin identifies an internal contradiction within Leviticus 23:10: the first half (“and you shall reap its harvest and bring the omer”) implies that personal reaping precedes the omer offering, while the second half (“the first fruits of your harvest”) implies the omer must be the first grain reaped. This apparent contradiction sets up the resolution that distinguishes between different types of fields, providing the scriptural basis for the mishna’s leniency regarding irrigated fields.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְכֶם (reishit ketzirkhem) = The first fruits of your harvest — indicating the omer should be from the first grain reaped
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — distinguish between places suitable and unsuitable for the omer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא – אִי אַתָּה קוֹצֵר, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא – אַתָּה קוֹצֵר.
English Translation:
How can these texts be reconciled? With regard to a place from which you bring the omer grain for the sacrifice, i.e., from a field that is saturated with rainwater, you may not reap there. But with regard to a place from which you may not bring the omer grain, an irrigated field, you may reap there.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution elegantly resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between types of fields. In rain-fed fields (beit ha’baal), from which the omer grain is sourced, private reaping before the omer is prohibited — the omer must be the “first” harvest there. But in irrigated fields, from which the omer may not be brought, there is no restriction on reaping before the omer. This provides the scriptural foundation for the mishna’s rule about irrigated fields in the valleys.
Key Terms:
- מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא (mimakom she’ata mevi) = From a place from which you bring — rain-fed fields suitable for the omer
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Alternative reading rejected — the distinction is by place, not by grain type
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: מִמִּין שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא – אִי אַתָּה קוֹצֵר, מִמִּין שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מֵבִיא – אַתָּה קוֹצֵר? הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara questions this resolution: Why not say instead: With regard to the type of grain from which you bring the omer, i.e., barley, you may not reap it; but with regard to the type of grain from which you may not bring the omer, e.g., wheat, you may reap it? The Gemara answers: You cannot say that resolution, due to that which Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches. On 70a it was stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan derives a verbal analogy between the halakhot of ḥalla and the omer offering, from which he learns that the prohibition against reaping the new crop before the omer sacrifice applies to all five types of grain. Therefore, the reconciliation of the verses must be as first suggested, that one may reap in a place from which the omer grain may not be brought.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises an alternative way to resolve the contradiction: perhaps the distinction is not between types of fields but between types of grain — barley (from which the omer is brought) versus wheat and other grains. The Gemara quickly rejects this based on Rabbi Yochanan’s gezera shava from daf 70a, which establishes that the prohibition against reaping before the omer applies to all five grain types, not just barley. This forces the resolution back to the place-based distinction: the leniency applies to irrigated fields, not to different grain species.
Key Terms:
- מִמִּין (mimin) = From the type — referring to the species of grain
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezera shava) = Verbal analogy — a hermeneutical principle linking two laws through shared wording
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Identifying the tanna — the language of “reprimand” points to Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ קוֹצְרִין בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, וְגוֹדְשִׁין שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים וְכוּ׳. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר ״מִיחוּ״ וְ״לֹא מִיחוּ״? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: The residents of Jericho, whose fields were irrigated fields in a valley, reaped their crops with the approval of the Sages and arranged the crops in a pile without the approval of the Sages, but the Sages did not reprimand them. The Gemara asks: Whom did you hear who said: The Sages reprimanded them, or: They did not reprimand them? In other words, who is the tanna who, in the context of the customs of the residents of Jericho, addresses whether or not the Sages reprimanded them, as opposed to whether or not their actions were in accordance with the Sages’ will? The Gemara states: It is Rabbi Yehuda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to a new topic within the mishna — the customs of the residents of Jericho. The key question is which tanna authored this mishna, because the language of “reprimand” (michu) versus “approval” (ratzon) is distinctive. The Gemara identifies Rabbi Yehuda as the author, since he is known from the parallel baraita to use the framework of “reprimand/did not reprimand” rather than “with/without approval.” Identifying the tanna is critical because it will create a contradiction that the Gemara must resolve.
Key Terms:
- מִיחוּ (michu) = Reprimanded — actively protested against a practice
- אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ (anshei Yericho) = The residents of Jericho — known for their distinctive local customs that sometimes diverged from mainstream practice
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction — the baraita says Rabbi Yehuda holds all six acts were without approval
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְצִירָה דְּאַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הֲוַאי? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים עָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי יְרִיחוֹ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים.
English Translation:
Upon identifying the tanna of the mishna, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that the reaping of the residents of Jericho was performed with the approval of the Sages? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Pesaḥim 3:15): The people of Jericho performed six actions, three with the approval of the Sages and three without the approval of the Sages.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established that the mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara identifies a contradiction: our mishna says the reaping was done “with the approval of the Sages,” but a well-known baraita about the six customs of Jericho presents a different framework. In that baraita, Rabbi Yehuda argues that all six actions were done without the Sages’ approval — he merely distinguishes between those for which the Sages reprimanded them and those for which they did not. This sets up a detailed examination of the baraita.
Key Terms:
- שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים (shisha devarim) = Six actions — the well-known list of distinctive practices of the residents of Jericho
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Meir’s version — three acts with approval, three without
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים: מַרְכִּיבִין דְּקָלִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם, וְכוֹרְכִין אֶת ״שְׁמַע״, וְקוֹצְרִין לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר – בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים: גּוֹדְשִׁין לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר, וּמַתִּירִין גַּמְזִיּוֹת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁל חָרוּב וְשֶׁל שִׁקְמָה, וּפוֹרְצִין פְּרָצוֹת בְּגַנּוֹתֵיהֶן ובְפַרְדְּסוֹתֵיהֶן לְהַאֲכִיל נֶשֶׁר לַעֲנִיִּים בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
And these are the actions they performed with the approval of the Sages: They would graft palm trees the entire day of the fourteenth of Nisan, and they would bundle Shema, and they would reap grain before the omer offering was brought; all of these were with the approval of the Sages. And these are the actions that they performed without the approval of the Sages: They would pile the harvest before the omer, and they would permit the use of consecrated branches [gamziyyot] of carob and of sycamore trees, and they would make breaches in the walls of their gardens and in their orchards to feed fallen fruit to the poor during drought years, so that the poor could take the fruit that had fallen even on Shabbatot and Festivals. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita presents Rabbi Meir’s categorization of the six customs of Jericho. In his framework, three were performed with the Sages’ approval (grafting palms on erev Pesach, bundling Shema, and reaping before the omer) and three were not (piling before the omer, using consecrated branches, and making wall breaches for the poor on Shabbat). This is a famous passage that appears in several places in the Talmud. The customs of Jericho reflect a community that pushed halakhic boundaries, sometimes legitimately and sometimes not.
Key Terms:
- מַרְכִּיבִין דְּקָלִים (markivin dekalim) = Grafting palm trees — agricultural work performed on erev Pesach
- כּוֹרְכִין אֶת שְׁמַע (korkhin et Shema) = Bundling Shema — reciting the paragraphs of Shema without pausing between them
- גַּמְזִיּוֹת (gamziyyot) = Branches — branches of consecrated carob and sycamore trees that Jericho residents permitted for personal use
Segment 16
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Yehuda’s reframing — all six were without approval, but three were tolerated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִם בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הֵן עוֹשִׂין, יְהוּ כׇּל אָדָם עוֹשִׂין כֵּן! אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים, וְעַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִיחוּ בְּיָדָם, וְעַל שְׁלֹשָׁה לֹא מִיחוּ בְּיָדָם.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Meir: This is an inaccurate formulation, since if they acted with the approval of the Sages, then every person would do so, not only the residents of Jericho. Rather, you should formulate it in this manner: Both these three acts and those three acts were performed without the approval of the Sages. With regard to three of them the Sages reprimanded them, and with regard to the other three the Sages did not reprimand them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda’s objection to Rabbi Meir is logically sharp: if the Sages truly approved of certain Jericho practices, why were they unique to Jericho? Everyone would have adopted them. Rabbi Yehuda therefore reframes the entire list: all six practices were done without the Sages’ approval, but the Sages chose their battles — reprimanding the residents for three but tolerating the other three. This distinction between “approval” and “tolerance” reveals a nuanced approach to communal religious authority, where the Sages sometimes allowed borderline practices to persist rather than provoke confrontation.
Key Terms:
- בִּרְצוֹן (birtzon) = With approval — full endorsement by the Sages
- לֹא מִיחוּ (lo michu) = Did not reprimand — tolerated without endorsing
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi Yehuda’s list — the three tolerated and three reprimanded practices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא מִיחוּ בְּיָדָם: מַרְכִּיבִין דְּקָלִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם, וְכוֹרְכִין אֶת ״שְׁמַע״, וְקוֹצְרִין וְגוֹדְשִׁין לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁמִּיחוּ בְּיָדָם:
English Translation:
And these are the actions they performed for which the Sages did not reprimand them: They would graft palm trees the entire day, and they would bundle Shema, and they would reap and pile grain before the omer offering was brought. And these are the actions they performed for which the Sages reprimanded them:
קלאוד על הדף:
In Rabbi Yehuda’s version, the tolerated practices include grafting palms, bundling Shema, and both reaping and piling before the omer. Critically, Rabbi Yehuda combines reaping and piling into a single tolerated practice — whereas in Rabbi Meir’s version, reaping was approved but piling was not. This is the key detail that will generate the apparent contradiction: our mishna says reaping was done “with approval,” but Rabbi Yehuda says it was merely tolerated. The segment ends mid-sentence, leading into 71b where the reprimanded practices are listed.
Key Terms:
- קוֹצְרִין וְגוֹדְשִׁין (kotzrin vegodshin) = Reaping and piling — Rabbi Yehuda treats these as a single practice, unlike Rabbi Meir who separates them
Amud Bet (71b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
Continuation — the three reprimanded practices, and the contradiction is formalized
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתִּירִין גַּמְזִיּוֹת שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁל חָרוּב וְשֶׁל שִׁקְמָה, וּפוֹרְצִין פְּרָצוֹת בְּגַנּוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפַרְדְּסוֹתֵיהֶן כְּדֵי לְהַאֲכִיל נֶשֶׁר לַעֲנִיִּים בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וּבְיָמִים טוֹבִים, וְנוֹתְנִין פֵּאָה לַיָּרָק, וּמִיחוּ בְּיָדָם.
English Translation:
They would permit the use of consecrated branches of carob and of sycamore trees; they would make breaches in the walls of their gardens and orchards, in order to feed fallen fruit to the poor during drought years on Shabbatot and Festivals; and they would designate for the poor the produce in the corner [pe’a] in a field of vegetables. And the Sages reprimanded them for those actions. It is clear from the baraita that according to Rabbi Yehuda the reaping of the grain before the omer offering was performed without the approval of the Sages. So why does the mishna, which represents Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, teach that it was with the approval of the Sages?
קלאוד על הדף:
The three reprimanded practices are now listed: using consecrated branches, breaching walls to feed the poor on Shabbat, and designating pe’a for vegetables. The Gemara highlights the core contradiction: in this baraita, Rabbi Yehuda places reaping before the omer among the “tolerated-but-not-approved” practices, while our mishna — attributed to Rabbi Yehuda — says the reaping was done “with the approval of the Sages.” The inclusion of pe’a for vegetables as a reprimanded practice is noteworthy, as the residents of Jericho extended the obligation of pe’a beyond its biblically mandated scope.
Key Terms:
- פֵּאָה לַיָּרָק (pe’a layarak) = Pe’a for vegetables — the practice of designating corner portions of vegetable fields for the poor, which the Sages considered an improper extension of the pe’a obligation
- נֶשֶׁר (nesher) = Fallen fruit — produce that has dropped from trees
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution — the baraita’s count of six proves “reaping” is a textual error and should be removed
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, שִׁשָּׁה? שִׁבְעָה הָווּ! אֶלָּא סְמִי מִכָּאן קְצִירָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, why did the baraita say that the residents of Jericho performed six actions without the approval of the Sages? Counting the cases listed in the baraita, there were in fact seven actions, as reaping and piling count as two actions. Evidently, the text of the baraita is problematic. The Gemara concludes: Rather, omit from here the case of the reaping of the grain before the omer offering was brought. If so, then in the baraita Rabbi Yehuda never commented about the reaping of the grain before the omer, and therefore it does not contradict the mishna’s statement that it was performed with the approval of the Sages.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the contradiction with a clever textual argument. If Rabbi Yehuda’s version lists both reaping and piling as a single tolerated practice, there would be seven acts total — but the baraita explicitly says six. The mismatch in count reveals that “reaping” was erroneously included in the baraita. Once it is removed, only piling (godshin) remains among the tolerated practices, and Rabbi Yehuda never actually commented on the reaping at all. Therefore, the mishna’s statement that reaping was done with the Sages’ approval is not contradicted by the baraita. This is a classic example of the Gemara using internal numerical inconsistencies to emend texts.
Key Terms:
- סְמִי מִכָּאן (semi mikan) = Remove from here — a textual emendation removing a word or phrase from a received baraita
- לִיטַעְמָיךְ (litaamikh) = According to your reasoning — a rhetorical device turning the questioner’s logic against the question
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
New sugya — linking reaping for fodder to the laws of pe’a (field division)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת וּמַאֲכִיל לַבְּהֵמָה. תְּנַן הָתָם: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד, וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, וּשְׁבִיל הָרַבִּים, וּשְׁבִיל הַיָּחִיד הַקָּבוּעַ בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וּבִימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְהַבּוֹר, וְהַנִּיר, וְזֶרַע אַחֵר.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: One may reap crops in any field for fodder and feed it to an animal even before the omer offering. The Gemara notes that we learned in a mishna there (Pe’a 2:1): And these divide a field for the purpose of pe’a, i.e., the presence of any of these separates a field so that each section constitutes a distinct field from which pe’a must be allocated independently: A stream that passes through the field, and a canal [vehashelulit], and a private road that is four cubits wide, and a public road that is at least sixteen cubits wide, and a permanent public trail or a private trail that is used whether in the summer or in the rainy season, i.e., winter, and an uncultivated field, and a plowed field, and a seed of a different kind of plant, e.g., a section of barley seed in a field full of wheat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now shifts to an entirely new halakhic discussion, connecting the mishna’s rule about reaping for fodder to the unrelated topic of pe’a (the corner of the field left for the poor). The link is the concept of “dividing a field” — if reaping a section for fodder creates a physical interruption in the field, does it divide the field into two separate units for pe’a obligations? The Gemara first cites the comprehensive list from Mishnah Pe’a 2:1 of natural and man-made features that divide a field, establishing the framework within which the dispute about fodder-reaping will be considered.
Key Terms:
- מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה (mafsikin lape’a) = Divide for pe’a — features that separate a field into distinct units, each requiring its own pe’a allocation
- שְּׁלוּלִית (shelulit) = Canal — a man-made water channel
- נִיר (nir) = Plowed field — an area that has been plowed but not planted
- פֵּאָה (pe’a) = Corner — the portion of a field left unharvested for the poor
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages — does reaping for fodder divide a field for pe’a?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקוֹצֵר לְשַׁחַת מַפְסִיק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַפְסִיק אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָרַשׁ.
English Translation:
In all of the aforementioned instances a field is considered divided into two distinct fields. Another type of separation is subject to dispute: And in the case of one who reaps crops in a field for fodder, this action also divides a field in two. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It does not divide a field unless one also plowed the area that he reaped. Only then is the field divided, as it is a plowed field.
קלאוד על הדף:
This dispute is the pivot for the lengthy sugya that follows. Rabbi Meir holds that reaping a section of a field for fodder is sufficient to divide it — the reaped strip effectively creates a boundary between two separate fields for pe’a purposes. The Sages disagree, holding that reaping alone is not a permanent enough change to the landscape; only plowing the reaped area creates the kind of division that separates pe’a obligations. The underlying question is whether the act of reaping for fodder is considered “real” reaping, which will connect directly to the omer discussion.
Key Terms:
- מַפְסִיק (mafsik) = Divides — creates a halakhic separation between two sections of a field
- חָרַשׁ (charash) = Plowed — turning the soil, a more permanent alteration than mere reaping
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation — Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Shimon: fodder-reaping is not “real” reaping
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: יִקְצוֹר וְיַאֲכִיל אַף מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר כֹּל לְשַׁחַת לָאו קְצִירָה הִיא.
English Translation:
With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Meir said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the mishna: One may reap and feed the crops to animals even after they reached one-third of their potential growth. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon holds that any reaping performed for fodder is not considered reaping. Likewise, Rabbi Meir maintains that reaping for fodder, even after the crop has reached one-third of its potential growth, is not considered the start of the reaping of the entire field, and therefore it divides the field.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan, transmitted through Rabba bar bar Chana, connects the pe’a dispute to our mishna about the omer. He suggests that Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Shimon’s principle: reaping for fodder is categorically not considered “reaping.” Since it is not reaping, it does not connect the reaped section to the rest of the field’s harvest, which is why Rabbi Meir says it divides the field for pe’a. This elegant cross-referencing between Menachot and Pe’a shows how the Talmud identifies shared underlying principles across seemingly unrelated legal domains.
Key Terms:
- לָאו קְצִירָה הִיא (lav ketzira hi) = It is not considered reaping — fodder harvesting has a different legal status than grain harvesting
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from a baraita — natural destruction of crops requires plowing to divide, contradicting the Shimon link
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַבָּה וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא לְרָבָא: אֲכָלָהּ חָגָב, קַרְסְמוּהָ נְמָלִים, שִׁבְּרַתָּהוֹ הָרוּחַ – הַכֹּל מוֹדִים חָרַשׁ מַפְסִיק, לֹא חָרַשׁ אֵינוֹ מַפְסִיק. ״הַכֹּל מוֹדִים״ – מַאן? רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
Rabba sat and stated this halakha. Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: If a section of crops in a field was consumed by grasshoppers, or ants nibbled away at those crops [kirsemuha], or the wind broke it down, all concede that if that section was subsequently plowed, it divides the field, and if it was not plowed, it does not divide the field. When the baraita states: All concede, to whom is it referring? It must be referring to Rabbi Meir, who maintains that usually, reaping for fodder divides a field without subsequent plowing, yet in this case he admits that it divides the field only if it is subsequently plowed.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Acha bar Huna raises a powerful objection. A baraita states that when crops are destroyed naturally (by grasshoppers, ants, or wind), everyone — including Rabbi Meir — agrees that the destruction alone does not divide the field; plowing is required. If Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Shimon’s view that all fodder-reaping is categorically not “reaping,” then natural destruction should be an even easier case for him: if human reaping does not divide the field, how much more so should natural destruction not divide it? Yet the baraita says Rabbi Meir requires plowing even then, creating an internal contradiction.
Key Terms:
- חָגָב (chagav) = Grasshopper — an insect that consumes crops
- קַרְסְמוּהָ נְמָלִים (karsemuha nemalim) = Ants nibbled it — damage by insects
- הַכֹּל מוֹדִים (hakol modim) = All concede — a phrase indicating even the more lenient view agrees
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Acha’s reasoning — the contradiction works if Rabbi Meir distinguishes by growth stage, not if he follows Rabbi Shimon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ, בָּרַיְיתָא דְּחָרַשׁ – אִין, לֹא חָרַשׁ – לֹא, בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ.
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa bar Huna explains his objection to the opinion that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon: Granted, Rabbi Meir’s opinion can be explained if you say that the mishna, where Rabbi Meir maintains that reaping fodder is not considered reaping, is referring to a case where the fodder had not yet reached one-third of its potential growth, and the baraita, where he maintains that only if it was plowed, yes, it divides the field, but if was not plowed, no, it does not divide the field, is referring to a case where the fodder had already reached one-third of its growth. If so, the difference between the rulings of Rabbi Meir is clear, as it all depends on the growth of the produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Acha bar Huna now presents his alternative explanation. If Rabbi Meir does not follow Rabbi Shimon but rather distinguishes based on growth stage, everything works: the mishna (where reaping for fodder divides the field) deals with grain that has not yet reached one-third growth, while the baraita (where natural destruction does not divide without plowing) deals with grain that has already reached one-third growth. When grain has passed one-third, removing it — whether by human action or by nature — is considered real reaping, and so natural destruction alone should suffice. But the baraita still requires plowing, which makes sense only if the grain was already at one-third and the natural destruction was not by human hand.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁלָמָא (bishlama) = Granted — introducing a satisfactory explanation for one side of a dialectical argument
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
The kal vachomer problem — if human reaping for fodder is not reaping, natural destruction is certainly not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי בְּשֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ, הַשְׁתָּא וּמָה הָתָם דִּקְצִירָה דְּהָתָם אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: לֹא שְׁמָהּ קְצִירָה, הָכָא – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
English Translation:
But if you say that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, and the mishna is also referring to a case where the fodder had reached one-third of its growth, how can his ruling in the baraita be explained? Now, if with regard to reaping there, in a case where it involves human intervention, Rabbi Meir said: It is not called reaping; here in the baraita, where the reaping is performed by grasshoppers or ants, is it not clear all the more so that Rabbi Meir would not consider it reaping? And yet the baraita indicates that all agree that it is considered reaping, as it does not divide the field without plowing.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment delivers the devastating kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that demolishes the Shimon-Meir connection. If Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Shimon’s categorical principle that fodder-reaping is never “real” reaping — even for grain that has reached one-third growth — then natural destruction by insects or wind should be even less of a “reaping.” Yet the baraita says all agree (including Rabbi Meir) that natural destruction does not divide the field without subsequent plowing. This creates an irreconcilable contradiction, forcing the Gemara to abandon the Rabbi Shimon explanation and seek a new framework for understanding Rabbi Meir.
Key Terms:
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (kal vachomer) = A fortiori — an argument from a lighter to a heavier case
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
New proposal — Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Yehuda, distinguishing by growth stage
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִתְחִיל עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ, אֲבָל אִם הִתְחִיל עַד שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ – אָסוּר.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says, with regard to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna that one may reap fodder and feed it to an animal: When [eimatai] may one do so? At a time when he began reaping before the crop reaches one-third of its potential growth. But if he began after the crop reached one-third, it is prohibited. If so, the discrepancy between Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the mishna and in the baraita can be resolved, as the mishna is referring to a case where the crops had not yet reached one-third of their growth, whereas the baraita is speaking of crops that had already reached one-third of their growth and therefore their harvesting is considered the start of the reaping of the field, which divides it only if he subsequently plows.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now proposes that Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Yehuda rather than Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda’s approach is conditional: reaping for fodder is not considered “reaping” only when the grain has not yet reached one-third growth. Once it passes one-third, even fodder-reaping is halakhically significant reaping. This neatly resolves the contradiction: the pe’a mishna (where reaping divides) deals with pre-one-third grain, while the baraita about natural destruction deals with post-one-third grain, where even Rabbi Meir requires plowing.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָתַי (eimatai) = When — Rabbi Yehuda’s qualifying term, understood as either clarifying or restricting the previous opinion
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge — “eimatai” means clarification, not disagreement, so Rabbi Yehuda cannot extend beyond the first tanna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לִבְהֵמָה, לְאָדָם מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? דְּאִם כֵּן, הָווּ לְהוּ תְּלָתָא תַּנָּאֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: You can say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express his opinion with regard to fodder that is reaped for the purposes of feeding an animal, but did you hear him say so with regard to a case where the reaping is performed for human consumption? That cannot be his opinion, since if it were so, then there would be three disputing opinions among the tanna’im: The opinion of the first tanna, who holds that reaping fodder for animal consumption is permitted; the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it may be reaped even for human consumption provided that it has not grown one-third; and the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that it is permitted for human consumption even in a case where it had grown one-third. This is problematic, as the Gemara in tractate Sanhedrin (25a) states a principle that whenever Rabbi Yehuda says in a mishna: When [eimatai], he is clarifying, rather than disagreeing with, the opinion of the previous tanna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a subtle objection based on a structural principle of mishnaic composition. When Rabbi Yehuda uses “eimatai” (when), he is typically understood as clarifying the first tanna’s position, not disagreeing with it. If Rabbi Yehuda were adding a new dimension (permitting reaping even for human consumption before one-third growth), that would create three distinct opinions, which would make “eimatai” function as disagreement rather than clarification. Furthermore, the first tanna only discusses animal fodder, so Rabbi Yehuda’s comments should be limited to the same scope.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָתָא תַּנָּאֵי (telata tanna’ei) = Three disputing tanna’im — a structural indicator that suggests the “eimatai” is functioning as a new opinion rather than a clarification
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Dimi’s resolution — Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Akiva: even harvesting for humans is not “reaping”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אָמַר, אַף לְאָדָם נָמֵי לָא הָוְיָא קְצִירָה. דִּתְנַן: הַמְנַמֵּר שָׂדֶה וְשִׁיֵּיר בּוֹ קְלָחִים לַחִים, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: פֵּאָה לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.
English Translation:
Rather, when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: Rabbi Meir stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher. Rabbi Akiva holds that even harvesting for human consumption is not considered reaping with regard to the halakhot of pe’a, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:2): With regard to one who reaps alternate rows of his field, and he leaves in it moist stems that are not yet fully grown, Rabbi Akiva says: One must separate pe’a in each and every row, as each one is considered a separate field.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi, bringing a tradition from Eretz Yisrael, offers a third proposal: Rabbi Meir follows his teacher Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva’s position in Mishnah Pe’a 3:2 — that when someone reaps alternate rows of a field, each row requires separate pe’a — implies that harvesting a section of a field (even for human consumption, if the produce is unripe) is not considered part of the field’s overall reaping process. This is broader than Rabbi Shimon’s view and avoids the “eimatai” problem with Rabbi Yehuda, since it is grounded in a different halakhic tradition entirely.
Key Terms:
- הַמְנַמֵּר שָׂדֶה (hamenamer sadeh) = One who reaps alternate rows — harvesting a field in a striped pattern, leaving some rows standing
- קְלָחִים לַחִים (kelachim lachim) = Moist stems — unripe stalks left standing in the field
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Shmuel’s limitation of Rabbi Akiva — only unripe grains for roasting, not fully grown produce
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מֵאֶחָד עַל הַכֹּל, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא חִיֵּיב רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בִּמְנַמֵּר לִקְלָיוֹת, אֲבָל בִּמְנַמֵּר לָאוֹצָר – לֹא.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say: One separates pe’a from one row for the whole field, as they are all considered a single field. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Rabbi Akiva maintained that one is obligated to separate pe’a from each row only when he reaps alternate rows and the grain is unripe kernels used for making roasted grains. But when one reaps alternate rows and the grain is fully grown produce for his storehouse, there is no obligation to separate pe’a from each row, as all the rows are considered part of one field. Rav Dimi is suggesting that Rabbi Meir holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and therefore the discrepancy between the mishna and the baraita can be resolved: The mishna is discussing unripe grains that have not yet grown one-third, similar to unripe kernels used for roasted grains, whereas the baraita is discussing fully grown, ripened grains.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara adds critical nuance to the Rabbi Akiva position through Shmuel’s interpretation. According to Shmuel, Rabbi Akiva’s ruling — that each reaped row is a separate field for pe’a — applies only when the grain is harvested as unripe kernels for roasting (kelayot). When fully grown grain is harvested for storage, even Rabbi Akiva treats the entire field as one unit. This distinction maps onto the one-third growth threshold: unripe grains for roasting correspond to pre-one-third growth, while storehouse grain corresponds to post-one-third. Rav Dimi’s proposal thus works: Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Akiva, and the apparent inconsistency resolves along the same growth-stage distinction.
Key Terms:
- קְלָיוֹת (kelayot) = Roasted grains — unripe kernels roasted for consumption, similar to modern parched grain
- אוֹצָר (otzar) = Storehouse — fully ripened grain harvested for long-term storage
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Ravin’s contradictory report — Rabbi Akiva requires separate pe’a even for fully grown storehouse grain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְחַיֵּיב הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אַף בִּמְנַמֵּר לָאוֹצָר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Akiva deems one obligated in the separation of pe’a from each row even where he reaped fully grown fodder in alternative sections of his field for the purposes of storing in a storehouse. According to Ravin, Rabbi Akiva holds that reaping even fully grown fodder is not considered the start of the entire field’s reaping process, but only of the individual row. Therefore, one must separate pe’a from each row. This is inconsistent with Rabbi Meir’s opinion that the harvesting of fodder that has grown one-third is considered reaping.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends with a powerful challenge that leaves the sugya unresolved. Ravin brings a conflicting tradition from Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Akiva requires separate pe’a from each row even when the grain is fully grown and destined for storage. This contradicts Shmuel’s limitation and collapses Rav Dimi’s neat resolution. If Rabbi Akiva holds that reaping fully grown grain still does not constitute “real” reaping for pe’a purposes, then Rabbi Meir cannot follow Rabbi Akiva, because the baraita showed Rabbi Meir does consider post-one-third reaping significant. The sugya thus remains in tension — a characteristic Talmudic ending that invites further investigation.
Key Terms:
- אִינִי (ini) = Is that so? — an expression of surprise introducing a contradictory source
- רָבִין (Ravin) = A prominent amora who transmitted traditions from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, often in tension with Rav Dimi’s reports