וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not know of this? He must have known of his father’s statement that a mitzva performed at its proper time overrides Shabbat. If so, his ruling that reaping at an improper time is unfit cannot be proven from the fact that reaping the omer overrides Shabbat, as claimed earlier.

אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.

Rather, it must be that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was aware of that principle, and nevertheless he maintains that the requirement to perform a mitzva at its optimal time does not apply to the case of the reaping of the omer. This is because there, in the case of the burning of the fats and limbs, it is different, as the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, it is dear to perform the burning of its fats and limbs at the proper time, even on Shabbat. One cannot apply this reasoning to the reaping of the omer, as there is no prior labor performed on Shabbat before the reaping. Consequently, the reason it may be performed on Shabbat must be that it would be unfit if reaped any other time.

וּלְרַבִּי, הָכִי נַמִי דָּחֲתָה שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת! אֶלָּא קָסָבַר רַבִּי: קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר לָא דָּחְיָא שַׁבָּת.

The Gemara asks: But if so, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he should agree that the case of the burning of the sacrifice’s fats and limbs is different from the omer, since also there, the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, the Gemara gives a new explanation: Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in fact the reaping of the omer crop does not override Shabbat, in contrast to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. For this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling that the omer is fit if reaped at an improper time does not conflict with the principle of his teacher, Rabbi Akiva, that any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat.

וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – מִשָּׁלֹשׁ הָיָה בָּא! דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (63b) in response to Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion that when the sixteenth of Nisan occurred during the week, five se’a of barley were reaped, and when it occurred on Shabbat only three se’a were reaped: And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week, the omer offering would come from three se’a? In any case, according 
to both opinions, the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: That mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

״וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד חוֹל – בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, בְּשָׁלֹשׁ קוּפּוֹת וּבְשָׁלֹשׁ מַגָּלוֹת״! דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the latter clause of that mishna. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual, with one sickle and one basket into which the barley was placed, whereas during the week it was reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. And the Rabbis say: Both on Shabbat and during the week it is reaped by three people, with three baskets and three sickles. According to both opinions the omer was reaped on Shabbat. The Gemara again responds: That clause of the mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

״וּבְשַׁבָּת – יֹאמַר לָהֶם שַׁבָּת זוֹ״! דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.

The Gemara raises another difficulty from a mishna (65a) that describes the series of questions posed by the court emissary who reaps the grain to those assembled to witness the process: And if the sixteenth of Nisan occurs on Shabbat, the court emissary says to those assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on this Shabbat? The assembly says in response: Yes. The Gemara answers: That clause of mishna is also not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

״נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם – כָּשֵׁר, וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת״. מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דַּאֲמַר: נִקְצַר בַּיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר? רַבִּי, וְקָתָנֵי: וְדוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, מַאי לָאו קְצִירָה! לֹא, לְהַקְרָבָה.

The Gemara raises a difficulty from the mishna (71a): If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit, and it overrides Shabbat. Now, whom did you hear who said: If the omer was reaped during the day, it is fit? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And yet it is taught in the mishna: And it overrides Shabbat. What, is it not referring to reaping? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to the sacrifice of the omer offering.

אֲבָל לִקְצִירָה – לֹא? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְתָמִיד וּפֶסַח שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת, ״בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּטוּמְאָה,

The Gemara asks: But with regard to reaping, does it not override Shabbat, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As, isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said the following halakha based upon the verse: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44): What is the meaning when the verse states this phrase? This phrase is necessary because we had learned only that the daily offering and the Paschal offering override Shabbat and ritual impurity, as it is stated concerning them: “In its appointed time” (see Numbers 9:2, 28:2), from which it is derived that each of them must be sacrificed in its appointed time and even on Shabbat; in its appointed time and even in ritual impurity.

שְׁאָר קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״.

The baraita continues: With regard to the rest of the communal offerings, from where is it derived that they likewise override Shabbat and ritual impurity? The verse states with regard to additional offerings that are brought on the Festivals: “These you shall sacrifice to the Lord in your appointed times” (Numbers 29:39).

מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹמֶר וְהַקָּרֵב עִמּוֹ, שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְהַקָּרֵב עִמָּהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳״ – הַכָּתוּב קָבַע מוֹעֵד לְכוּלָּן.

The baraita continues: From where is it derived to include in this halakha the omer and the lambs that are sacrificed with it, the two loaves sacrificed on Shavuot, and the communal peace offerings that are sacrificed with them? The verse states: “And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel,” after it lists Shabbat and the Festivals. This indicates that the verse established one time for all of them. All of these days are considered appointed times, and their offerings are not deferred.

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְהַקְרָבָה – שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בְּנֵי הַקְרָבָה נִינְהוּ?

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: With regard to what ritual does the baraita state that these offerings override Shabbat? If we say for actual sacrifice, this cannot be correct, as are the two loaves fit for sacrifice? The two loaves are not sacrificed on the altar at all. Rather, they are waved and later eaten by priests.

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא לִטְחִינָה וְהַרְקָדָה, וְדִכְוָתָהּ גַּבֵּי עוֹמֶר לִקְצִירָה, וְקָא דָּחֵי אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת!

The Gemara concludes its interpretation of the baraita, which leads to the question about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rather, it is obvious that the two loaves override Shabbat with regard to grinding and sifting. And if so, similarly, with regard to the omer offering, it overrides Shabbat with regard to the process of reaping the grains. And as the baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda 
HaNasi, evidently he maintains that the reaping of the omer overrides Sh abbat.

אֶלָּא, עוֹמֶר לְהַקְרָבָה, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לַאֲפִיָּה, וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי: תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ, אִי אָפֵי לָהּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל אִיפְסִילָה לָהּ בְּלִינָה.

The Gemara answers: Rather, one must say that the baraita is not referring to comparable cases. As far as the omer is concerned, it overrides Shabbat only with regard to its actual sacrifice, but when it comes to the two loaves, it overrides Shabbat with regard to its baking. And the reason why the two loaves must be baked on Shabbat is because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it. Therefore, if one were to bake from the previous day, on the eve of Shavuot, he would effectively be disqualifying it from being brought on Shavuot day, as it would be disqualified by being left overnight.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי: תַּנּוּר מְקַדֵּשׁ? וְהָתַנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת אֵין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה. כֵּיצַד? שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן – קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם,

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really hold that the oven consecrates that which is baked inside it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot consecrate the loaves that accompany them only by means of their slaughter. How so? If one slaughtered the lambs for their own sake, i.e., as lambs for Shavuot in the appropriate manner, and the priest sprinkled their blood for their own sake, the loaves are consecrated.

שְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – לֹא קָדַשׁ הַלֶּחֶם, שְׁחָטָן לִשְׁמָן וְזָרַק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – הַלֶּחֶם קָדוֹשׁ וְאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

The baraita continues: But if one slaughtered them not for their own sake, and the priest sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the loaves are not consecrated, as the factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were not properly performed. If one slaughtered them for their own sake and he sprinkled their blood not for their own sake, the fact that the lambs were properly slaughtered renders the loaves partially consecrated. Therefore, the loaves are consecrated to the extent that they cannot be redeemed, but they are not consecrated to the extent that they may be eaten. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט לִשְׁמָן וְיִזְרוֹק דָּמָן לִשְׁמָן!

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Actually, the loaves are consecrated only when one slaughters the offerings for their own sake and sprinkles their blood for their own sake, i.e., only if both factors indispensable in rendering the offering fit were properly performed. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is the slaughter of the lambs that consecrates the loaves, not baking the loaves in the oven.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הוּקְבְּעוּ וְלֹא הוּקְבְּעוּ קָא אָמַר. 
הדרן עלך רבי ישמעאל

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does hold that the oven consecrates the loaves. What the baraita is saying when it uses the categories of consecrated and not consecrated with regard to the slaughter of the lambs is that either the two loaves are fixed as Shavuot meal offerings and cannot be used for any other offering, or they are not fixed as Shavuot meal offerings. In other words, if the lambs were slaughtered and the blood sprinkled in the proper manner, one cannot change the designation of the loaves, whereas if they were not slaughtered and their blood was not sprinkled properly, one can change their designation. If the lambs were slaughtered properly but their blood was sprinkled improperly, the status of the loaves is subject to a dispute. This has nothing to do with when the loaves are consecrated.

מתני׳ וְאֵלּוּ מְנָחוֹת נִקְמָצוֹת וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים: מִנְחַת הַסֹּלֶת וְהַמַּחֲבַת וְהַמַּרְחֶשֶׁת, וְהַחַלּוֹת וְהָרְקִיקִין, מִנְחַת גּוֹיִם, וּמִנְחַת נָשִׁים, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר, וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת.

And these are the meal offerings from which a handful is removed and the remainder of the offering is eaten by the priests: The meal offering of fine flour; and the meal offering prepared in a pan; and the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of loaves; and the meal offering baked in an oven that is brought entirely of wafers; the meal offering of gentiles; and the meal offering of women; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the meal offering of a sinner; and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, וְקוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וְשִׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִים לְעַצְמָן.

Rabbi Shimon says: Although its remainder is not eaten by priests, as meal offerings of priests are burned in their entirety, as it is written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be offered in its entirety; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), nevertheless, with regard to the meal offering of a sinner brought by one of the priests, a handful is removed. And the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself.

גמ׳ אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: כָּל הֵיכָא דִּתְנַן – עֶשֶׂר תְּנַן. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן?

Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us, as this is already stated by Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna (76a)?

לְאַפּוּקֵי מֵרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דַּאֲמַר: מֶחֱצָה חַלּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה רְקִיקִין יָבִיא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּלָא.

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes, he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.

״וּשְׁיָרֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים״. מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיבָא – כְּתִיבָא, וּדְלָא כְּתִיבָא – כְּתִיב בָּהּ: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה הַקְרֵב אוֹתָהּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וגו׳ וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״!

§ The mishna teaches: And their remainder is eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara challenges the question: That which is written explicitly, is written. In the case of several meal offerings, including the gift meal offering brought by an individual, the Torah clearly states that the priests eat the remainder. And with regard to that which is not written explicitly, it is written of it: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord…And he shall take up from it his handful…and shall make the memorial part of it smoke upon the altar…. And the remainder of it shall Aaron and his sons eat” (Leviticus 6:7–9). These verses establish the principle that the priests eat the remainders of meal offerings, even where the Torah does not state this explicitly. Therefore, it is unnecessary to ask for a source.

בָּאָה חִיטִּין לָא קָמִיבָּעֲיָא לָן, כִּי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן – בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין. בָּאָה שְׂעוֹרִין נַמִי, מִדְּנִקְמֶצֶת, שְׁיָרֶיהָ לַכֹּהֲנִים!

The Gemara explains the original question: With regard to a meal offering that comes from wheat, we did not ask, as that is included in the cited verse. When we asked it was with regard to a meal offering that comes from barley, i.e., the omer meal offering and the meal offering brought by a sota: From where is it derived that the remainders of those offerings are given to the priests? The Gemara responds: With regard to one that comes from barley also, since a handful of it is removed, as the Torah states with regard to all meal offerings (see Leviticus 6:8), clearly its remainder is given to the priests, as why else would a handful be removed and offered?

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן לָא קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן, כִּי קָא מִיבָּעֲיָא לָן – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דַּאֲמַר: אִיכָּא מִנְחָה דְּמִיקַמְצָא וְלָא מִיתְאַכְלָא.

The Gemara clarifies: According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the priests eat the remainder of all meal offerings from which a handful is removed, we did not ask about the source. When we asked it was according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said: There is a type of meal offering of which a handful is removed but its remainder is not eaten.

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים נִקְמֶצֶת, הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַשִּׁירַיִם קְרֵיבִין בְּעַצְמָן. מְנָלַן?

As we learned in the mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: From the meal offering of a sinner brought by a priest, a handful is removed. Subsequently, the handful is sacrificed on the altar by itself, and the remainder is sacrificed on the altar by itself. Therefore, the question is: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests do not always eat the remainder when a handful is removed, from where do we derive that the priests eat the remainder of barley-based meal offerings?

אֲמַר חִזְקִיָּה, דַּאֲמַר קְרָא: ״וְכָל מִנְחָה בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן וַחֲרֵבָה לְכָל בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן תִּהְיֶה״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לִבְלוּלָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל חִיטִּין – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לַחֲרֵבָה שֶׁל שְׂעוֹרִין.

The Gemara answers. Ḥizkiyya said: The source is from a verse, as the verse states: “And every meal offering, mixed with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have” (Leviticus 7:10). The verse is analyzed: If it is not necessary for the matter of a mixed meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a mixed meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of the omer. And if the verse is not necessary for the matter of a dry meal offering of wheat, which is derived from the verse cited earlier, apply it to the matter of a dry meal offering of barley, i.e., the meal offering of a sota.

וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין חוֹלְקִין מְנָחוֹת כְּנֶגֶד זְבָחִים?

The Gemara asks: And this verse, does it come to teach this halakha? Isn’t the verse necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that priests may not receive a share of meal offerings in exchange for a share of animal offerings, i.e., one may not exchange his share of a meal offering for the equivalent value of meat from an animal offering of which he did not receive a share?