Menachot Daf 85 (מנחות דף פ״ה)
Daf: 85 | Amudim: 85a – 85b | Date: 8 Shevat 5786
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (85a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
But according to R. Yochanan, the first baraita (which says bring and recite) is difficult!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, קַשְׁיָא?
English Translation:
Having reconciled all the apparent contradictions between the two baraitot according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, the Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yochanan, who holds inferior produce cannot be consecrated as first fruits, the first baraita is difficult, as it states that inferior produce can be consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues from the discussion on 84b about bikkurim (first fruits) from suboptimal growing conditions. The Gemara has successfully resolved the contradictions between the baraitot for Reish Lakish, but R. Yochanan’s position remains problematic. According to R. Yochanan, who holds that inferior produce cannot be consecrated at all, the first baraita — which allows bringing and reciting — directly contradicts his view. The Gemara now needs to find an alternative explanation to defend R. Yochanan’s position.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = R. Yochanan, the great Amora of Eretz Yisrael, who holds that inferior produce cannot be consecrated as bikkurim
- בִּכּוּרִים = First fruits brought to the Temple
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
It is a tannaitic dispute: a third baraita distinguishes roof/ruin (bring and recite) from flowerpot/ship (do not bring at all)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: שֶׁבְּגַג וְשֶׁבְּחוּרְבָּה – מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא, שֶׁבְּעָצִיץ וְשֶׁבִּסְפִינָה – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא כׇּל עִיקָּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The baraitot cited above contradict Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion. But there is a dispute between tanna’im with regard to this issue, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, the owner brings it and recites the accompanying passage. With regard to produce that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship, the owner does not bring it at all. Rabbi Yochanan holds in accordance with that baraita.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves R. Yochanan’s difficulty by identifying a third baraita that aligns with his position. This baraita makes a critical distinction: produce from a roof or ruin — which is at least grown in soil connected to the ground — can be brought as bikkurim with the full recitation. But produce from a flowerpot or ship — which is entirely disconnected from the ground — cannot be brought at all. R. Yochanan follows this third baraita, which is stricter than the first two. The resolution is classic Talmudic methodology: when an Amora seems contradicted by a baraita, show that his view aligns with a different tannaitic tradition.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא = “It is a tannaitic dispute” — the standard phrase indicating that the Amora’s view follows one side of a pre-existing tannaitic disagreement
- עָצִיץ = A flowerpot, representing produce disconnected from the ground
- סְפִינָה = A ship, another case of produce disconnected from Eretz Yisrael’s soil
Segment 3
TYPE: אגדתא
Aforayim was famous for quality produce; Pharaoh’s necromancers Yochana and Mamre challenged Moses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכוּלָּן אֵינָן בָּאוֹת אֶלָּא מִן הַמּוּבְחָר כּוּ׳. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ יוֹחָנָא וּמַמְרֵא לְמֹשֶׁה: תֶּבֶן אַתָּה מַכְנִיס לְעֶפְרַיִים! אֲמַר לְהוּ: אָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי ״לְמָתָא יַרְקָא – יַרְקָא שְׁקוֹל״.
English Translation:
The mishna states: And all meal offerings come only from the optimal produce. One of the places the mishna mentions as having good-quality produce is Aforayim. The superior quality of its produce was so well known that Aforayim was used as an example in colloquial aphorisms. In Moses and Aaron’s first meeting with Pharaoh, Aaron cast his staff to the ground, whereupon it turned into a serpent. Pharaoh’s necromancers then duplicated the feat using their incantations, only to then be confounded when Aaron’s staff swallowed up all of theirs (see Exodus 7:10-12). The Gemara relates the conversation that took place: Pharaoh’s two leading necromancers, Yochana and Mamre, said to Moses: Are you are bringing straw to Afarayim? Performing necromancy in Egypt, the world leader in sorcery, is like bringing straw to Afarayim, which is rich in the finest grains. Moses said to them: It is as people say: To a city rich in herbs, take herbs. If you want to guarantee that people will appreciate your merchandise, bring it to a place where they are familiar with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
This aggadic aside illustrates how Aforayim’s agricultural reputation was so well-known that it became proverbial. Pharaoh’s necromancers Yochana and Mamre (identified in rabbinic tradition as the sorcerers who challenged Moses) mocked him with what we might call “carrying coals to Newcastle” — performing magic in Egypt, the world capital of sorcery, is pointless. Moses’s retort is shrewd: true experts appreciate quality when they see it. The deeper message connects to the mishna’s theme: just as one brings the finest produce to those who can appreciate it, so too the Temple offerings must come from the very best.
Key Terms:
- יוֹחָנָא וּמַמְרֵא = Yochana and Mamre, identified as Pharaoh’s chief necromancers (cf. II Timothy 3:8 “Jannes and Jambres”)
- עֶפְרַיִים / אֲפָרַיִם = Aforayim, a place famous for superior grain quality
- לְמָתָא יַרְקָא – יַרְקָא שְׁקוֹל = Proverb: “To a city of herbs, bring herbs” — experts appreciate quality
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
New mishna (8:2): Do not bring from fertilized field, irrigated field, or field with trees; if brought, it is valid
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא מִבֵּית הַזְּבָלִים, וְלֹא מִבֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִים, וְלֹא מִבֵּית הָאִילָן, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Even when selecting grain for meal offerings from the locations mentioned in the previous mishna, one may not bring as a meal offering grain from a fertilized field, nor from an irrigated field, nor from a field of trees, as such fields do not produce grain of optimal quality. But if one did bring a meal offering of grain from such fields, it is fit.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna (Menachot 8:2) shifts from geography (which regions produce the best grain) to agronomy (which farming conditions are ideal). Three field types are ruled out le-khathila (ab initio): fertilized fields (where the manure affects grain flavor), irrigated fields (where artificial watering produces softer, inferior grain), and fields with trees (where the trees compete for nutrients and sunlight). Critically, all three are only disqualified le-khathila — if someone brought grain from such fields, the offering is valid be-di’avad (after the fact). This distinction between ideal and minimally acceptable is a recurring theme in the laws of korbanot.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית הַזְּבָלִים = A fertilized field, where manure has been used
- בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִים = An irrigated field, watered artificially rather than by rain
- בֵּית הָאִילָן = A field with trees, where grain grows between the tree rows
- לְכַתְּחִלָּה / בְּדִיעֲבַד = Ab initio (ideally) vs. after the fact — a fundamental halachic distinction
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
How to produce optimal grain: plow first year, sow second year 70 days before Pesach
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? נָרָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וּבְשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה זוֹרְעָהּ קוֹדֶם לַפֶּסַח שִׁבְעִים יוֹם, וְהִוא עוֹשָׂה סוֹלֶת מְרוּבָּה.
English Translation:
How does one produce optimal-quality grain? He plows the field during the first year, but he does not sow it, and in the second year, he sows it seventy days before Passover, and in that manner it produces grain that will provide an abundance of fine, high-quality, flour.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna now provides a practical agricultural protocol for producing the finest flour for menachot. The method involves a two-year cycle: in the first year, the field is plowed but left fallow (allowing nutrients to accumulate). In the second year, it is sown precisely 70 days before Pesach. The timing is deliberate — sowing 70 days before Pesach (roughly mid-January) ensures the grain matures during the optimal spring conditions with increasing sunlight, producing abundant, high-quality solet (fine flour). This reflects the Torah’s expectation that Temple offerings represent the best that human effort and divine blessing can produce together.
Key Terms:
- נָרָהּ = Plowed the field (leaving it fallow)
- סוֹלֶת מְרוּבָּה = An abundance of fine flour — the highest quality flour for menachot
- שִׁבְעִים יוֹם = Seventy days before Pesach — the optimal sowing window
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
How the treasurer inspects: inserts hand in flour; if powder rises, unfit until sifted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד בּוֹדֵק הַגִּזְבָּר? מַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. עָלָה בָּהּ אָבָק – פְּסוּלָה, עַד שֶׁיְּנַפֶּנָּה.
English Translation:
How does the Temple treasurer inspect the flour to determine whether it is of sufficiently high quality? The treasurer inserts his hand into the flour. If, when he removes his hand, flour powder covers it, the flour is unfit, until one sifts it with a fine sifter, so that no powder will remain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna describes a remarkably hands-on quality control process. The gizbar (Temple treasurer) literally thrusts his hand into the flour and examines it upon withdrawal. If fine dust (avak) clings to his hand, the flour has not been sufficiently refined — it still contains particles of bran or other impurities. The flour is not permanently disqualified; it simply needs to be sifted again until it passes the hand test. This physical inspection method reflects the Temple’s meticulous standards: every offering must meet tangible, verifiable criteria of excellence.
Key Terms:
- גִּזְבָּר = Temple treasurer, responsible for inspecting offerings
- אָבָק = Powder/dust — an indication that the flour still contains impurities
- יְנַפֶּנָּה = Sift it (with a fine sifter) — the remedy for flour that fails inspection
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
If flour became wormy, it is unfit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם הִתְלִיעָה – פְּסוּלָה.
English Translation:
And if the flour became wormy, it is unfit for use in a meal offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
This brief but significant ruling establishes that wormy flour is categorically unfit (pesulah) for menachot. Unlike the dusty flour in the previous segment (which can be remedied by sifting), worm-infested flour cannot be rehabilitated — the biological contamination renders it permanently disqualified. The Gemara will explore the parameters of this rule: how much must be wormy? Does the concept of “blemish” (ba’al mum) — typically applied to animals — extend to flour and other non-animal offerings? These questions drive the subsequent discussion on 85b.
Key Terms:
- הִתְלִיעָה = Became wormy / infested with worms
- פְּסוּלָה = Unfit / disqualified for use in the Temple
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Dilemma: Does the mishna mean plow in year 1 AND year 2, or only year 1?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה? נָרָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? נָרָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה נָרָהּ וְזוֹרְעָהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא נָרָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה זוֹרְעָהּ בְּלֹא נָרָהּ?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states: How does one produce optimal-quality grain? He plows the field during the first year, and in the second year he sows it. The Gemara clarifies what should be done in the second year: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the tanna saying? Is he saying that he plows the field during the first year, and in the second year he plows it and sows it? Or perhaps he is saying that he plows the field during the first year, and in the second year he sows it without plowing it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara identifies an ambiguity in the mishna’s terse language. When the mishna says “he plows in the first year and in the second year he sows,” does it mean: (a) plow in year 1, then plow again AND sow in year 2, or (b) plow only in year 1, then sow without plowing in year 2? The practical difference is significant: plowing aerates and loosens the soil, and a second plowing in year 2 would further improve soil quality. The question is whether the mishna considers the first year’s plowing sufficient preparation, or whether the field needs additional work in the second year before sowing.
Key Terms:
- אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ = A dilemma was raised before them — the standard formula introducing an unresolved question
- נָרָהּ = Plowed it — from the root נ.ו.ר, referring to breaking up the soil
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
R. Yosei: Wheat from Kerazayim and Kefar Ahim would have been used if closer to Jerusalem; omer from southern sun-exposed fields
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף חִיטֵּי כָּרָזִיִּים וּכְפַר אַחִים, אִלְמָלֵא סְמוּכוֹת לִירוּשָׁלַיִם – הָיוּ מְבִיאִין מֵהֶן, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין אֶת הָעוֹמֶר אֶלָּא מִן הַשָּׂדוֹת הַמּוּדְרָמוֹת וְהַמְנוֹנָרוֹת לְכָךְ, שֶׁבָּהֶן חַמָּה זוֹרַחַת, וּמֵהֶן חַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Also concerning grain grown in Kerazayim and Kefar Ahim, if only those places had been close to Jerusalem, they would have brought barley from them for the omer. As the halakha is that one brings the omer only from the southern fields and those that were plowed for that purpose, as upon such fields, the sun rises and shines, and from those fields, the sun also sets. In other words, those fields are exposed to a lot of sunlight, so they produce a superior-quality crop. Kerazayim and Kefar Ahim were such fields, but they were too far from Jerusalem for their barley to be used for the omer offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yosei’s testimony adds both geographical and agricultural detail. He identifies two specific locations — Kerazayim and Kefar Ahim — whose grain was of exceptional quality but were too distant from Jerusalem for practical use. This reveals that proximity to Jerusalem was a factor alongside quality: the omer had to be reaped on the night of the 16th of Nisan and brought to the Temple promptly, so distance was a real constraint. The baraita also specifies two requirements for omer fields: they must be “mudramot” (southern/sun-facing) and “menunarot” (specially plowed), establishing that both geography and cultivation method matter.
Key Terms:
- כָּרָזִיִּים = Kerazayim, a location known for excellent grain but far from Jerusalem
- כְּפַר אַחִים = Kefar Ahim, another distant location with excellent grain
- מוּדְרָמוֹת = Southern-facing fields, receiving maximum sun exposure
- מְנוֹנָרוֹת = Fields specially plowed and prepared (from the root נ.ו.ר)
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
How to produce: plow year 1, plow TWICE in year 2, sow 70 days before Pesach; stalk of 1 handspan, ear of 2 handspans
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה? נָרָהּ שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וּשְׁנִיָּה חוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹנֶה, וְזוֹרְעָהּ קוֹדֶם לַפֶּסַח שִׁבְעִים יוֹם, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא סְמוּכָה לַחַמָּה, וְעוֹשָׂה קָנֶה זֶרֶת וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת זִרְתַּיִים.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: How does one produce optimal-quality grain? He plows the field during the first year, and in the second year, he plows it once and then repeats the plowing a second time, and he sows it seventy days before Passover. It is done this way in order that the sowing will be done close to the time when the strength of the sun reaches its climax, and will thereby produce a high-quality crop in which the length of a stalk is a handspan and the ear itself is two handspans.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita provides a more detailed version of the mishna’s agricultural protocol, and critically, it explicitly states that the field is plowed twice in the second year (“choresh ve-shoneh”). This addresses the dilemma from Segment 8: the baraita seems to support the view that plowing is required in year 2 as well. The baraita also explains the rationale for the 70-day timing: sowing close to when the sun’s strength peaks ensures the grain matures quickly and optimally, producing the ideal proportions — a stalk one handspan long and an ear two handspans long.
Key Terms:
- חוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹנֶה = Plows and repeats — indicating a double plowing in the second year
- זֶרֶת = A handspan (approximately 9-10 cm), a standard Talmudic unit of measurement
- שִׁיבּוֹלֶת = An ear of grain
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Full process: reap, gather, thresh, winnow, sort, grind, sift, bring to treasurer; R. Natan: treasurer oils hand first
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקוֹצֵר וּמְעַמֵּר, וְדָשׁ, וְזוֹרֶה, וּבוֹרֵר, וְטוֹחֵן, וּמְרַקֵּד, וּמֵבִיא אֵצֶל גִּזְבָּר, וְגִזְבָּר מַכְנִיס יָדוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. אִם עָלְתָה בָּהּ אָבָק – אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״חֲזוֹר וְנַפֵּה אוֹתָהּ שְׁנִיָּה״. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי נָתָן אָמְרוּ: גִּזְבָּר סָךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁמֶן, וּמַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ עַד שֶׁמַּעֲלֶה כׇּל אֲבָקָהּ.
English Translation:
And then one reaps the grain and gathers it together into a pile, and then he threshes the grain and winnows it, and then he sorts the inedible admixture from the edible grain, and then he grinds the grain and sifts it and brings the flour produced to the Temple treasurer. And the treasurer inserts his hand into it in order to check its quality. If upon removing his hand powder covers it, the treasurer says to the owner: Go back and sift it a second time. The Sages say in the name of Rabbi Natan that the treasurer would perform a more thorough examination of the flour’s quality. He douses his hand with oil and then inserts it into the flour until all of its powder will be brought up.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita provides the complete chain of grain processing for Temple menachot — from harvest to final inspection. The sequence (reap, gather, thresh, winnow, sort, grind, sift) lists seven distinct stages, each essential for producing the finest solet. The quality control step at the end is elaborated beyond the mishna’s version: R. Natan adds that the treasurer would oil his hand before inserting it into the flour. The oil acts as an adhesive, catching even the finest powder particles that a dry hand might miss. This enhancement demonstrates the principle of hiddur — going beyond the minimum to ensure the highest possible quality for Temple offerings.
Key Terms:
- קוֹצֵר, מְעַמֵּר, דָּשׁ, זוֹרֶה, בּוֹרֵר, טוֹחֵן, מְרַקֵּד = Reap, gather, thresh, winnow, sort, grind, sift — the seven stages of grain processing
- סָךְ יָדוֹ שֶׁמֶן = Anoints his hand with oil — R. Natan’s enhanced inspection method
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution attempt: baraita says “plows and repeats,” proving plowing is needed in year 2
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת חוֹרֵשׁ וְשׁוֹנֶה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that the baraita provides a resolution to the dilemma: In any event, the baraita teaches that during the second year, the owner of the field plows it once and then repeats the plowing. It is explicit, then, that during the second year the field should be plowed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the dilemma from Segment 8 and attempts to resolve it from the baraita just cited. Since the baraita explicitly states “choresh ve-shoneh” (plows and repeats) in the second year, it would seem clear that plowing is indeed required in year 2. This would resolve the dilemma in favor of the first interpretation: the mishna means plow in year 1 AND plow again in year 2 before sowing. However, as the next segment will show, this proof is not conclusive.
Key Terms:
- קָתָנֵי מִיהַת = “In any event, it teaches…” — introducing the key textual proof
Segment 13
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: the mishna and baraita may disagree — the mishna does not say “repeats”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, מַתְנִיתִין לָא קָתָנֵי ״שׁוֹנֶה״,
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: But even according to your reasoning, ultimately the mishna does not teach that he plows the field and then repeats the plowing;
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the proof from the baraita with a characteristic counter-argument: “according to your reasoning” (u-le-ta’amakh). The mishna conspicuously omits the word “shoneh” (repeats), suggesting that the mishna may actually hold a different view from the baraita. Perhaps the mishna requires only first-year plowing, while the baraita requires plowing in both years. If so, the two sources disagree, and the baraita cannot prove what the mishna means. This rejection keeps the original dilemma open and sets up the resolution that will come at the beginning of amud bet.
Key Terms:
- וּלְטַעְמָיךְ = “According to your reasoning” — a standard Talmudic refutation formula that turns the opponent’s logic against them
- שׁוֹנֶה = “Repeats” — the key word present in the baraita but absent from the mishna
Amud Bet (85b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The mishna and baraita may disagree: mishna = cultivated field (no need to plow again); baraita = uncultivated field
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּרַיְיתָא קָתָנֵי ״שׁוֹנֶה״.
English Translation:
it is only the baraita that teaches that he plows and then repeats the plowing. It would appear, then, that the mishna and baraita express different opinions, and it may be that according to the mishna one does not need to plow in the second year at all.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment completes the rejection begun in 85a Segment 13. Since only the baraita mentions “shoneh” (repeating the plowing) while the mishna does not, it appears the two sources may disagree. The mishna might hold that first-year plowing alone is sufficient, while the baraita requires additional plowing in year 2. The Gemara has now established that the baraita cannot be used to interpret the mishna, since they may represent different tannaitic views on optimal grain cultivation for menachot.
Key Terms:
- בָּרַיְיתָא = A tannaitic teaching not included in the Mishna, which may reflect a different opinion
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Final resolution: plow half and sow half in year 1; plow the other half and sow it in year 2 — field IS plowed in year 2
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בַּעֲבוּדָה, כָּאן בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲבוּדָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara dismisses this suggestion: This is not difficult; it is possible that the mishna and the baraita do not disagree, and here, the mishna, which does not require plowing a second time, is referring to a cultivated field, whereas there, the baraita is referring to an uncultivated field, and therefore it requires that the field be plowed a second time.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a harmonization: the mishna and baraita need not disagree at all. The mishna speaks of an already-cultivated field (ba-avudah) — soil that has been worked before and is relatively loose, requiring only first-year plowing. The baraita speaks of an uncultivated field (she-einah avudah) — harder, less-worked soil that needs the additional plowing in year 2 to reach the same level of preparation. This elegant distinction preserves both sources as authoritative while explaining their different prescriptions as applying to different starting conditions.
Key Terms:
- עֲבוּדָה = Cultivated / worked (field that has been previously tilled)
- שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲבוּדָה = Uncultivated / unworked (field requiring more preparation)
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Definitive resolution: baraita teaches plow half and sow half, then reverse — field IS plowed in year 2
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: נָר חֶצְיָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ חֶצְיָהּ, נָר חֶצְיָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ חֶצְיָהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear the resolution from that which is taught in a baraita: For the first year, one plows the entire field during the first half of the year, and then he sows half of the field, leaving the other half fallow. For the second year, one again plows the entire field during the first half of the year, and then he sows the half of the field that was left fallow in the previous year. It is evident from this baraita that during the second year as well, the field is plowed before it is sown.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reaches a definitive conclusion with an elegant agricultural system: a rotation method where the field is divided in half. In year 1, the entire field is plowed but only half is sown. In year 2, the entire field is plowed again and the other half is sown. This means each half of the field lies fallow for a full year before being sown, and the field is indeed plowed in both years. This resolves the original dilemma: the field IS plowed in year 2, and the rotation ensures that each plot gets the full benefit of a year of rest while maintaining continuous production.
Key Terms:
- נָר חֶצְיָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ חֶצְיָהּ = Plows half and sows half — describing the rotation system
- מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ = “What was concluded about this?” — the standard formula for reaching a final resolution
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
R. Yochanan: Omer only from southern fields of Eretz Yisrael (sun-exposed)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין מְבִיאִין אֶת הָעוֹמֶר אֶלָּא מִן הַשָּׂדוֹת הַמּוּדְרָמוֹת שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁבָּהֶן חַמָּה זוֹרַחַת, וּמֵהֶן חַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yochanan says: One brings the omer only from the southern fields of Eretz Yisrael, as upon those fields, the sun rises and shines, and from those fields, the sun also sets. Those fields are exposed to abundant sunlight, and so they produce a superior-quality crop.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan formalizes the preference mentioned in the baraita of R. Yosei (Seg. 9 of amud aleph) into a binding ruling. The omer must come specifically from south-facing fields that receive maximum sunlight throughout the day — “the sun rises upon them and sets from them.” This is not mere preference but a requirement: the omer, as the first communal grain offering of the year, must represent the absolute best that Eretz Yisrael’s agriculture can produce. The emphasis on solar exposure reflects ancient agricultural wisdom that sun-drenched fields produce denser, more flavorful grain.
Key Terms:
- שָׂדוֹת הַמּוּדְרָמוֹת = Southern fields — fields facing south for maximum sun exposure
- חַמָּה זוֹרַחַת…חַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת = The sun rises…the sun sets — poetic description of all-day sun exposure
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
Abba Shaul: Omer came from the valley of Beit Mikle, a three-se’a field with the same plow-half/sow-half rotation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: עוֹמֶר הָיָה בָּא מִבִּקְעַת בֵּית מִקְלָה, כְּבַת שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין הָיְתָה, וְשָׂדֶה מוּדְרֶמֶת הָיְתָה, וּבָהּ חַמָּה זוֹרַחַת וּמִמֶּנָּה חַמָּה שׁוֹקַעַת. נָיר חֶצְיָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ חֶצְיָהּ, נָיר חֶצְיָהּ וְזוֹרֵעַ חֶצְיָהּ.
English Translation:
This is also taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says that the omer would come from grain grown in the valley of Beit Mikle. The field there was about three se’a, and it was a southern field, and the sun would rise and shine upon it, and the sun would set from it. During the first year, the farmer plowed the entire field during the first half of the year, and he then sowed half of the field, leaving the other half fallow. During the second year, he again plowed the entire field during the first half of the year, and he then sowed the half of the field that was left fallow in the previous year.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abba Shaul provides a concrete historical example that confirms both R. Yochanan’s ruling and the rotation system. The valley of Beit Mikle was a specific, named field of approximately three se’a in area (roughly 1,250 square meters) used for the omer. It met all the criteria: south-facing, sun-exposed, and cultivated using the plow-half/sow-half rotation. This level of specificity — naming the exact field, its size, and its orientation — reflects the Temple-era precision in agricultural practice. The three-se’a field was modest in size but managed with care to produce the finest barley for the most important communal grain offering.
Key Terms:
- בִּקְעַת בֵּית מִקְלָה = The valley of Beit Mikle, the specific field used for the omer
- בַּת שָׁלֹשׁ סְאִין = About three se’a in area (a se’a = approx. 415 sq. meters)
- אַבָּא שָׁאוּל = Abba Shaul, a Tanna who provides detailed practical information about Temple procedures
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Hilkiya bar Tovi used the plow-half/sow-half method: his field produced double, sold as fine flour for Temple menachot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי הֲוָה לֵיהּ קַרְנָא דְּאַרְעָא, נָר חֶצְיָהּ וְזָרַע חֶצְיָהּ, נָר חֶצְיָהּ וְזָרַע חֶצְיָהּ, וַעֲבַדָה עַל חַד תְּרֵי, וּמְזַבֵּין לְהוּ לְחִיטֵּי לִסְמִידָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara demonstrates the efficacy of this method: Rav Hilkiya bar Tovi had a tract of land. He plowed the field during the first half of the year and then sowed half of it. The next year, he plowed the field during the first half of the year and then sowed the other half of it. And this method was so effective that his field produced twice as much wheat as other fields its size, and it was of such a superior quality that he sold the wheat to be used as fine flour [lismida] for the meal offerings in the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
This anecdote brings the abstract agricultural law to life with a practical success story. Rav Hilkiya bar Tovi personally employed the plow-half/sow-half rotation on his own land and achieved remarkable results: double the yield compared to standard cultivation, and quality high enough to sell as semida (fine flour) for Temple menachot. This serves both as proof of the method’s efficacy and as a model of how individual farmers could contribute to the Temple service through excellence in agriculture. The story bridges the gap between theoretical halacha and real-world agricultural practice.
Key Terms:
- רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִי = An Amora who personally practiced the rotation method
- עַל חַד תְּרֵי = “One for two” — produced double the normal yield
- סְמִידָא = Fine flour (semolina) — the highest quality flour, suitable for Temple menachot
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Wormy flour: majority wormy = unfit. R. Yirmeya’s dilemma: majority of individual kernel or majority of a se’a? Teiku.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם הִתְלִיעָה – פְּסוּלָה. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: סוֹלֶת שֶׁהִתְלִיעָה רוּבָּהּ – פְּסוּלָה, וְחִיטִּין שֶׁהִתְלִיעוּ רוּבָּן – פְּסוּלוֹת. בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: בְּרוֹב חִטָּה, אוֹ בְּרוֹב סְאָה? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: And if the flour became wormy, it is unfit for use in a meal offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: Fine flour the majority of which became wormy is unfit. And similarly, wheat kernels the majority of which became wormy are unfit, and they may not be used to produce fine flour for meal offerings. Rabbi Yirmeya asks: What is the meaning of this latter ruling? Is it saying only that if the majority of an individual wheat kernel becomes wormy the flour produced from it is unfit, or is it saying that when the majority of a se’a of kernels becomes wormy the entire se’a is unfit? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara elaborates on the mishna’s brief ruling about wormy flour. The baraita clarifies that “majority wormy” renders flour unfit, but R. Yirmeya asks an incisive question about the unit of measurement: does “majority” refer to the majority of a single kernel (i.e., more than half of one grain is worm-eaten) or the majority of a se’a-measure (i.e., more than half the kernels in a batch)? The practical difference is enormous: under the first interpretation, even a few heavily-damaged kernels would disqualify, while under the second, it would require most of the batch to be infested. The question is left as teiku — unresolved.
Key Terms:
- רוֹב חִטָּה = Majority of a single wheat kernel
- רוֹב סְאָה = Majority of a se’a measure (a much larger quantity)
- תֵּיקוּ = The dilemma stands unresolved — one of the Talmud’s most famous terms for irresolvable questions
Segment 8
TYPE: בעיא
Rava: If one consecrated wormy wheat, does he receive lashes for ba’al mum (blemished offering)? Teiku.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִקְדִּישָׁן, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּלְקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם? כֵּיוָן דְּפָסֵיל – כְּבַעַל מוּם דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין בַּעַל מוּם אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rava asks: If one consecrated grains of wormy wheat for use in a meal offering, what is the halakha with regard to whether he should be flogged for consecrating them due to the prohibition against consecrating a flawed item as an offering? One is flogged for consecrating a blemished animal as an offering (see Temura 6b); does the same apply to consecrating wormy wheat? Does one say that since the wheat is unfit, it is comparable to a blemished animal? Or perhaps, the prohibition against consecrating a flawed item applies only to an animal. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava raises a fascinating conceptual question that pushes the boundaries of the ba’al mum (blemished offering) prohibition. The Torah explicitly forbids consecrating blemished animals for sacrifice, and one who does so receives malkot (lashes). But does this prohibition extend to non-animal offerings? Wormy wheat is clearly unfit for menachot — but is its unfitness analogous to a physical blemish on an animal, triggering the same prohibition and punishment? Or is ba’al mum a category that applies exclusively to living creatures? This teiku highlights a fundamental question about whether the prohibitions governing animal sacrifices can be mapped onto meal offerings by analogy.
Key Terms:
- בַּעַל מוּם = A blemished offering — specifically refers to physical defects that disqualify an animal for sacrifice
- מַלְקוֹת = Lashes — the punishment for violating certain Torah prohibitions
- הִקְדִּישָׁן = Consecrated them — the act of dedicating items for Temple use
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Mishna Middot 2:5: Wormy wood log is unfit for altar. Shmuel: Only wet logs; dry logs can be scraped and are fit.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל עֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת – פָּסוּל לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לַח, אֲבָל יָבֵשׁ – גּוֹרְרוֹ וְכָשֵׁר.
English Translation:
We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Middot 2:5) with regard to the wood logs that are burned on the altar: Priests inspect them before they are used and any log in which a worm is found is unfit for use on the altar. In reference to this mishna, Shmuel says: They taught this halakha only with regard to a wet log, as a wormy section cannot be removed. But if a wormy section is found in a dry log, the priest scrapes the wormy spot away, and the log is fit for use.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a parallel between wormy grain (just discussed) and wormy wood for the altar. Mishna Middot 2:5 states that any wormy log is unfit for the altar — but Shmuel limits this rule to wet logs, where the worm damage has permeated the wood and cannot be cleanly removed. Dry logs, by contrast, can be scraped to remove the affected area, rendering them fit. This distinction between wet and dry parallels the earlier discussion about flour: in both cases, the question is whether the damage can be isolated and removed or whether it has compromised the entire item. Shmuel’s leniency for dry wood reflects a practical approach to Temple resource management.
Key Terms:
- עֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת = A log in which a worm was found
- לַח = Wet (log) — where worm damage cannot be cleanly removed
- יָבֵשׁ = Dry (log) — where the wormy section can be scraped away
- גּוֹרְרוֹ = Scrapes it — the physical removal of the damaged portion
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא
Rava: Same question for wormy wood logs — lashes for ba’al mum? Teiku.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: הִקְדִּישׁוֹ, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּלְקֶה עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם בַּעַל מוּם? כֵּיוָן דְּפָסוּל כְּבַעַל מוּם דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֵין בַּעַל מוּם אֶלָּא בִּבְהֵמָה? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rava asks: If one consecrated a wormy log to be used on the altar, what is the halakha with regard to whether he should be flogged for consecrating it due to the prohibition against consecrating a flawed item as an offering? Does one say that since the log is unfit, it is comparable to a blemished animal? Or perhaps, the prohibition against consecrating a flawed item applies only to an animal. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava now poses the identical question about wood that he asked about wheat in Segment 8: does the ba’al mum prohibition extend to wormy wood consecrated for the altar? The Gemara leaves this as a second teiku. Tosafot explains why Rava asks separately about wheat and wood rather than combining them: the question about wood is particularly relevant according to R. Eliezer (Menachot 20b), who holds that wood placed on the altar constitutes a complete offering (korban gamur) in its own right, not merely a facilitator of the animal sacrifice. If wood is a korban, the ba’al mum prohibition is more likely to apply.
Key Terms:
- הִקְדִּישׁוֹ = Consecrated it (the log) — dedicated it for altar use
Segment 11
TYPE: משנה
New mishna (8:3): Tekoa is primary for oil. Abba Shaul: Regev (east bank of Jordan) is secondary. All regions valid but these preferred.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ תְּקוֹעַ – אַלְפָּא לַשֶּׁמֶן. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: שְׁנִיָּה לָהּ רֶגֶב בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן. כׇּל הָאֲרָצוֹת הָיוּ כְּשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא מִיכָּן הָיוּ מְבִיאִין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Olive trees in Tekoa are the primary source of oil to be used in meal offerings. Abba Shaul says: Secondary to Tekoa is Regev on the east bank of the Jordan River. All the regions were valid for oil to be brought from them, but it was from here that they would bring it.
קלאוד על הדף:
This new mishna (Menachot 8:3) transitions from grain to oil, the other essential ingredient in menachot. Just as the previous mishna ranked regions for grain quality, this mishna ranks regions for olive oil. Tekoa — the small town in the Judean hills southeast of Bethlehem — is “alpha” (first rank) for oil. Abba Shaul adds that Regev in Transjordan comes second. The mishna’s concluding statement is important: all regions of Eretz Yisrael produce valid oil, but these particular sources were preferred for their superior quality. This mirrors the grain rule: the preference for excellence is not an absolute disqualification of other sources.
Key Terms:
- תְּקוֹעַ = Tekoa, a town in the Judean hills famous for its olive oil
- אַלְפָּא = Alpha / first rank — the primary, best source
- רֶגֶב = Regev, a location in Transjordan (east bank of the Jordan)
- עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן = The east bank of the Jordan River (Transjordan)
Segment 12
TYPE: משנה
Oil restrictions: not from fertilized/irrigated grove or between trees. If brought = valid. Not anpiktan. Not soaked/pickled/boiled olives — if brought = INVALID.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא מִבֵּית הַזְּבָלִים, וְלֹא מִבֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִים, וְלֹא מִן מַה שֶּׁנִּזְרַע בֵּינֵיהֶם, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר. אֵין מְבִיאִין אַנְפַּקְטָן, וְאִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר. אֵין מְבִיאִין מִן הַגַּרְגְּרִין שֶׁנִּשְׁרוּ בְּמַיִם, וְלֹא מִן הַכְּבָשִׁים, וְלֹא מִן הַשְּׁלוּקִים, וְאִם הֵבִיא – פָּסוּל.
English Translation:
One may not bring a meal offering containing oil from olives taken from a fertilized olive grove, nor from olives taken from an irrigated olive grove, nor from olives taken from an olive grove where grain was sown between the trees. But if one did bring a meal offering containing oil from such groves, it is valid. One may not bring a meal offering containing oil from unripe olives [anpiktan], but if one did bring it, it is valid. One may not bring a meal offering containing oil from olives that were soaked in water, nor from pickled olives, nor from boiled olives, and even if one did bring it, it is not valid.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment of the mishna applies to oil the same categories that the earlier mishna (Seg. 4) applied to grain, but with a crucial additional tier of disqualification. The first set of restrictions (fertilized, irrigated, inter-planted) are identical to the grain rules: do not bring le-khathila, but valid be-di’avad. Oil from unripe olives (anpiktan) is similarly valid after the fact. However, the mishna then introduces a stricter category: oil from soaked, pickled, or boiled olives is pasul (invalid) even be-di’avad. These processing methods fundamentally alter the oil’s character — it is no longer natural olive oil but a manufactured product, crossing a line that mere suboptimal growing conditions do not.
Key Terms:
- אַנְפַּקְטָן = Oil from unripe olives — suboptimal but valid after the fact
- גַּרְגְּרִין שֶׁנִּשְׁרוּ בְּמַיִם = Olives soaked in water — fundamentally alters the oil
- כְּבָשִׁים = Pickled olives
- שְׁלוּקִים = Boiled olives
- פָּסוּל = Invalid even after the fact — a more severe disqualification
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Joab sent to Tekoa for a wise woman (II Samuel 14:2); R. Yochanan: because they used olive oil, wisdom was prevalent there
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ ״וַיִּשְׁלַח יוֹאָב תְּקוֹעָה וַיִּקַּח מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה״, מַאי שְׁנָא תְּקוֹעָה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרְגִילִין בְּשֶׁמֶן זַיִת, חָכְמָה מְצוּיָה בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Gemara notes the effect of Tekoa’s oil on those living there: The verse states: “And Joab sent to Tekoa, and fetched from there a wise woman” (II Samuel 14:2). What is different about Tekoa that Joab chose to bring a woman from there? Rabbi Yochanan says: Since the residents of Tekoa are accustomed to use olive oil, wisdom is prevalent there.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yochanan makes a remarkable connection between Tekoa’s olive oil and its reputation for wisdom. When Joab needed a clever woman to convince King David to recall Absalom (II Samuel 14), he specifically sent to Tekoa. R. Yochanan attributes this not to accident but to diet: the regular consumption of olive oil enhanced the intellectual capacity of Tekoa’s residents. This reflects an ancient and widely-held belief in the cognitive benefits of olive oil. The comment also enriches the mishna’s identification of Tekoa as “alpha for oil” — its oil was not only the finest for Temple use but also literally made its citizens wiser.
Key Terms:
- יוֹאָב = Joab, King David’s general and nephew
- תְּקוֹעָה = Tekoa — the same town identified in the mishna as the best source of olive oil
- שֶׁמֶן זַיִת = Olive oil — believed to promote wisdom
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא
“He will immerse his foot in oil” (Deut 33:24) = portion of Asher; Laodicea needed 1 million maneh of oil; sent a messenger
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְטֹבֵל בְּשֶׁמֶן רַגְלוֹ״ – זֶה חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל אָשֵׁר, שֶׁמּוֹשֵׁךְ שֶׁמֶן כְּמַעְיָן. אָמְרוּ: פַּעַם אַחַת נִצְרְכוּ לָהֶן אַנְשֵׁי לוּדְקִיָּא (בְּשֶׁמֶן) [לְשֶׁמֶן], מִינּוּ לָהֶן פּוּלְמוֹסְטוּס אֶחָד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֵךְ וְהָבֵא לָנוּ שֶׁמֶן בְּמֵאָה רִיבּוֹא.
English Translation:
The Gemara digresses to discuss the tribal portion of Asher, in which the city of Tekoa is located: The Sages taught in a baraita: In his blessing to the tribe of Asher, Moses said: “He will be pleasing to his brothers, and immerse his foot in oil” (Deuteronomy 33:24). This is referring to the portion of Asher, as the oil flows there like a spring. The Gemara relates: They said that once, the people of Laodicea were in need of oil. They appointed a gentile messenger [polmostos] and said to him: Go and bring us one million maneh worth of oil.
קלאוד על הדף:
This begins one of the most charming aggadic narratives in Menachot. The Gemara connects the mishna’s discussion of Tekoa’s oil to Moses’s blessing of the tribe of Asher: “He will immerse his foot in oil” — meaning Asher’s territory would be so rich in olive oil that it would flow like a spring. The story that follows illustrates this blessing with a vivid tale: the city of Laodicea (a major Greco-Roman city in Asia Minor) needed a staggering quantity of oil — one million maneh — and dispatched a special messenger to procure it. The sheer scale of the order sets up the surprise that a single Jewish farmer in Eretz Yisrael could fill it.
Key Terms:
- וְטֹבֵל בְּשֶׁמֶן רַגְלוֹ = “He will immerse his foot in oil” (Deut. 33:24) — Moses’s blessing to Asher
- לוּדְקִיָּא = Laodicea, a wealthy Greco-Roman city (in modern-day Turkey)
- פּוּלְמוֹסְטוּס = A messenger or agent (Greek loanword)
- מֵאָה רִיבּוֹא = One million maneh — an enormous quantity of oil
Segment 15
TYPE: אגדתא
Messenger’s journey: Jerusalem to Tyre to Gush Halav; found a farmer hoeing under olive trees
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָלַךְ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֵךְ לְצוֹר, הָלַךְ לְצוֹר, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֵךְ לְגוּשׁ חָלָב, הָלַךְ לְגוּשׁ חָלָב, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֵךְ אֵצֶל פְּלוֹנִי לְשָׂדֶה הַלָּז, וּמְצָאוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עוֹזֵק תַּחַת זֵיתָיו. אָמַר לוֹ: יֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁמֶן בְּמֵאָה רִיבּוֹא שֶׁאֲנִי צָרִיךְ? אָמַר לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן לִי עַד שֶׁאֲסַיֵּים מְלַאכְתִּי, הִמְתִּין עַד שֶׁסִּיֵּים מְלַאכְתּוֹ.
English Translation:
He first went to Jerusalem to procure the oil, but residents there did not have that quantity of oil. They said to him: Go to Tyre, which was a commercial city. He went to Tyre, but they also did not have enough oil. They said to him: Go to Gush Halav, which is located in the portion of Asher. He went to Gush Halav, and they said to him: Go to so-and-so, to that field. He went there and found someone hoeing [ozek] under his olive trees. The messenger said to that man: Do you have the one million maneh worth of oil that I need? The man said to him: Wait for me until I complete my labor, i.e., hoeing. The messenger waited until the man completed his labor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The messenger’s journey traces a path through the major trade centers of the ancient Near East — Jerusalem, then Tyre — before arriving at the small town of Gush Halav (Gischala) in the Galilee, in the territory of Asher. The narrative deliberately builds suspense: neither the holy city nor the great commercial port can fill the order. Only a humble farmer in Asher’s territory, found hoeing in his olive grove, has the capacity. The farmer’s response — “Wait until I finish my work” — is a masterful detail: he does not drop everything at the mention of an enormous sale but calmly finishes his labor first, suggesting both industriousness and quiet confidence in his resources.
Key Terms:
- צוֹר = Tyre, the great Phoenician port city and commercial hub
- גּוּשׁ חָלָב = Gush Halav (Gischala), a town in the Upper Galilee in Asher’s territory
- עוֹזֵק = Hoeing / digging around the roots of trees to remove stones and aerate soil
Segment 16
TYPE: אגדתא
After work: farmer slung tools, removed stones (looked like poor laborer). Messenger doubted. At home: maidservant brought hot water, golden basin of oil.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַחַר שֶׁסִּיֵּים מְלַאכְתּוֹ, הִפְשִׁיל כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְהָיָה מְסַקֵּל וּבָא בַּדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: יֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁמֶן בְּמֵאָה רִיבּוֹא? כִּמְדוּמֶּה אֲנִי שֶׁשְּׂחוֹק שָׂחֲקוּ בִּי הַיְּהוּדִים. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעִירוֹ, הוֹצִיאָה לוֹ שִׁפְחָתוֹ קוּמְקְמוֹס שֶׁל חַמִּין, וְרָחַץ בּוֹ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. הוֹצִיאָה לוֹ סֵפֶל שֶׁל זָהָב מְלֵיאָה שֶׁמֶן, וְטָבַל בּוֹ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְטוֹבֵל בַּשֶּׁמֶן רַגְלוֹ״.
English Translation:
After he completed his labor, the man slung his tools over his shoulders behind him, a manner typical of poor laborers, and started walking, and he was removing stones from his orchard as he went along the path. Upon seeing this behavior, which suggested the man was merely a laborer, the messenger questioned whether the man was truly able to provide him with the oil. He said to the man: Can it be that you really have the one million maneh worth of oil that I need? It seems to me that the Jews of Gush Halav are making a laughingstock of me by sending me here. When he reached his city, the man’s maidservant brought out to him a kettle [kumkemos] of hot water, and he washed his hands and his feet. Afterward, she brought out to him a golden basin filled with oil, in which he immersed his hands and feet, in fulfillment of that which is stated with regard to the Tribe of Asher: “And immerse his foot in oil” (Deuteronomy 33:24).
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative reaches its dramatic climax with a sharp contrast between appearance and reality. The farmer looks like a poor laborer — slinging tools on his back, picking stones from the path — and the gentile messenger begins to suspect he has been made a fool. But upon arriving home, the farmer’s true wealth is revealed: a maidservant brings hot water, then a golden basin filled with oil in which he literally “immerses his foot.” The Gemara explicitly connects this to Moses’s blessing: “ve-tovel ba-shemen raglo.” The story is a parable about the hidden blessings of Eretz Yisrael and the deceptive modesty of its righteous inhabitants.
Key Terms:
- קוּמְקְמוֹס = A kettle (Greek loanword, kumkemos)
- סֵפֶל שֶׁל זָהָב = A golden basin — symbol of the farmer’s hidden wealth
- הִפְשִׁיל כֵּלָיו לַאֲחוֹרָיו = Slung his tools behind him — the manner of a humble worker
Segment 17
TYPE: אגדתא
After eating: measured 1 million maneh. “Need more?” “Yes, but no money.” “Take it, I will come collect.” Additional 180,000 maneh. Rented every animal in Eretz Yisrael.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ, מָדַד לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בְּמֵאָה רִיבּוֹא. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּלוּם אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לְיוֹתֵר? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לִי דָּמִים. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אַתָּה רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח – קַח, וַאֲנִי אֵלֵךְ עִמְּךָ וְאֶטּוֹל דָּמָיו. מָדַד לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר רִיבּוֹא. אָמְרוּ: לֹא הִנִּיחַ אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ לֹא סוּס וְלֹא פֶּרֶד וְלֹא גָּמָל וְלֹא חֲמוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא שְׂכָרוֹ.
English Translation:
After they ate and drank, the man measured out for the messenger one million maneh worth of oil. The man said to him: Are you sure that you do not need any more oil? The messenger said to him: Yes, I do need more, but I do not have the money for it. The man said to him: If you wish to take more oil, take it and I will go back to Laodicea with you and collect the money for the extra oil there. The messenger agreed and the man measured out an additional 180,000 maneh worth of oil. Concerning this incident, people said: The messenger had such an enormous burden of oil that he left neither a horse, nor a mule, nor a camel, nor a donkey in all of Eretz Yisrael that he did not rent in order to help transport the oil back to Laodicea.
קלאוד על הדף:
The farmer’s generosity and wealth are staggering. Not only does he effortlessly produce one million maneh worth of oil, but he proactively offers more — and when the messenger admits he cannot pay, the farmer extends credit on trust, adding 180,000 maneh. The detail about renting every beast of burden in all of Eretz Yisrael is a hyperbolic flourish that underscores the astronomical quantity involved. The story celebrates both the agricultural bounty of Eretz Yisrael (fulfilling Moses’s blessing to Asher) and the generous, trusting character of its inhabitants — a farmer who extends massive credit to a stranger from Laodicea.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר רִיבּוֹא = 180,000 maneh — the additional oil given on credit
- דָּמִים = Money / payment
Segment 18
TYPE: אגדתא
At Laodicea: citizens came to praise the messenger. He said: “Praise this man, not me!” Fulfilling Proverbs 13:7.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְעִירוֹ, יָצְאוּ אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ לְקַלְּסוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶם: לֹא לִי קַלְּסוּנִי, אֶלָּא לָזֶה שֶׁבָּא עִמִּי, שֶׁמָּדַד לִי שֶׁמֶן בְּמֵאָה רִיבּוֹא, וַהֲרֵי נוֹשֶׁה בִּי בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה רִיבּוֹא, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יֵשׁ מִתְעַשֵּׁר וְאֵין כֹּל מִתְרוֹשֵׁשׁ וְהוֹן רָב״.
English Translation:
When the messenger finally reached his city, the people of his city came out to praise him [lekaleso] for achieving this tremendous feat. The messenger said to them: Do not praise me. Rather, praise this man who has come with me, as it is he who measured for me one million maneh worth of oil, and he extended a debt to me for 180,000 maneh worth of oil. This incident was in fulfillment of that which is stated: “There is one who seems to be rich, yet has nothing; there is one who seems to be poor, yet has great wealth” (Proverbs 13:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The story concludes with a powerful moral. The citizens of Laodicea rush out to praise their messenger, but he redirects the honor to the Jewish farmer who actually provided the oil — and who is still owed 180,000 maneh. The concluding verse from Proverbs 13:7 encapsulates the story’s lesson: appearances deceive. The farmer who looked like a poor laborer hoeing under his trees possessed unimaginable wealth, while the great city of Laodicea, which appeared so prosperous, had to come begging for oil. This aggadic passage glorifies Eretz Yisrael’s bounty and the humble piety of its inhabitants, connecting beautifully to the mishna’s statement that Tekoa was “alpha for oil.”
Key Terms:
- לְקַלְּסוֹ = To praise him (Greek loanword, from kalos)
- יֵשׁ מִתְעַשֵּׁר וְאֵין כֹּל, מִתְרוֹשֵׁשׁ וְהוֹן רָב = “There is one who seems rich yet has nothing; one who seems poor yet has great wealth” (Proverbs 13:7)
Segment 19
TYPE: גמרא
Discussion of anpiktan (unripe olive oil) and fertilized-field oil begins; continues on next daf
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא מִבֵּית הַזְּבָלִים, וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מְבִיאִין אַנְפַּקְטָן,
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: One may not bring a meal offering containing oil made from olives from a fertilized olive grove. The mishna continues to state that one may not bring a meal offering containing oil from unripe olives, and, according to one version of the mishna’s text, it adds that even if one did bring a meal offering containing such oil, it is not valid. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One may not bring a meal offering containing oil made from unripe olives,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns from the extended aggadic digression to resume the halachic analysis of the mishna’s oil restrictions. It begins examining the status of anpiktan (oil from unripe olives), noting an apparent discrepancy between versions of the mishna regarding whether such oil is valid be-di’avad (after the fact) or completely invalid. This discussion, which continues onto the next daf (86a), will clarify the precise boundaries between suboptimal oil that remains valid and processed oil that is fundamentally disqualified.
Key Terms:
- אַנְפַּקְטָן = Oil from unripe olives — its be-di’avad status is now under discussion
- בֵּית הַזְּבָלִים = Fertilized field — one of the suboptimal growing conditions mentioned in the mishna