מנחות 64 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages. And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka only said so there, since the requirements for the Most — High have been fulfilled, so that there is no further need to profane the Sabbath; but here, since the requirements for the Most High have not yet been fulfilled, so that there is a need to profane the Sabbath, I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages! — Said Rabbah, R. Ishmael and R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest both hold the same view. For we have learnt: R. HANINA THE VICE-HIGH PRIEST SAYS, ON THE SABBATH IT WAS REAPED BY ONE MAN WITH ONE SICKLE INTO ONE BASKET, AND ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES. BUT THE SAGES SAY, WHETHER ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEKDAY IT WAS REAPED BY THREE MEN INTO THREE BASKETS AND WITH THREE SICKLES. Now did not R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest say there that where it is possible [to manage with one] we must not trouble [more to work on the Sabbath]? Here, too, since it is possible [to manage with less] we must not trouble [to do more on the Sabbath]. Whence [do you know this]? Perhaps R. Ishmael only said so here, since there is no opportunity for making the matter public, but there, since there is an opportunity for making the matter public, I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis. And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Hanina the Vice-High Priest only said so there, for after all, whether one man or three are employed, the service to the Most High is performed according to its prescribed rites, but here, since the service to the Most High is not performed according to its prescribed rites, I would say that he is in agreement with the Sages! — Rather. said R. Ashi, R. Ishmael and R. Jose both hold the same view. For we have learnt: Whether [the new moon] was clearly visible or not, they may profane the Sabbath because of it. But R. Jose says. If it was clearly visible they may not profane the Sabbath because of it. Now did not R. Jose say there that wherever it is possible [to manage without them] we do not trouble [them to profane the Sabbath]? Here, too, since it is possible [to manage with less] we must not trouble [to do more on the Sabbath]. Whence [do you know this]? Perhaps R. Ishmael only said so here, since the reason ‘it will result that you will prevent them from coming in the future’ does not apply, but there, since the reason ‘it will result that you will prevent them from coming in the future applies, I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis. And, on the other hand, perhaps R. Jose only said so there, since the matter in question is no service to the Most High, and moreover the Sabbath has not been overridden [by another service], but here, since it is a service to the Most High. and the Sabbath has already been overridden [by other acts of work]. I would say that he is in agreement with the Rabbis. It was stated: If a man slaughtered [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings for the community when only one was necessary, Rabbah (others say. R. Ammi) said, He is liable for the slaughtering of the second but not for the first, even though atonement was effected through the second offering. and even though the first proved to be a lean animal. But could Rabbah have really said so? Surely Rabbah has said, If a man had before him [on the Sabbath] two sin-offerings [for the community], one beast being fat and the other lean, and he first slaughtered the fat beast and then the lean one, he is liable; if he first slaughtered the lean beast and then the fat one, he is not liable; and not only that but we even bid him [after he has slaughtered the lean one]. Go at once and fetch a fat one and slaughter it! — If you wish, you can say, Strike out the clause about the lean beast in the first statement; or if you prefer you may say, That first statement was taught by R. Ammi. Rabina asked R. Ashi, What is the law if the first beast was found [after the slaughtering of the second] to be lean in its entrails? Are we to decide the issue by his intention and this man certainly intended to do what was forbidden, or by his actual deed? — He replied; Is this not the case agreed upon by Rabbah and Raba? For it was stated: If a man heard that a child had fallen into the sea and he spread nets [on the Sabbath] to catch fish and he caught fish, he is liable. If he spread nets to catch fish and he caught fish and also the child, Rabbah says, He is not liable; but Raba says, He is liable. Now only in that case says Rabbah that he is not liable, for since he heard [of this accident], we say that his intention was also concerning the child; but where he did not hear of it [Rabbah] would not [say that he was not liable]. Others say that he answered him as follows: This is a matter of dispute between Rabbah and Raba. For It was stated: If a man had not heard that a child had fallen into the sea and he spread a net [on the Sabbath] to catch fish and he caught fish, he is liable. If he spread the net to catch fish and he caught fish and also the child, Rabbah says, He is not liable; but Raba says, He is liable. ‘Rabbah says, He is not liable’ because we decide the matter by his actual deed. ‘Raba says, He is liable’ because we decide the matter by his intention. Rabbah said, If one fig was prescribed for a sick person and ten men ran and returned together bringing ten figs, they are all not liable, and [it is the same] even if they brought them one after the other, and even if the sick person had recovered after he had taken the first one. Raba raised this question. If two figs were prescribed for a sick person and there happened to be two figs on two stalks and also three figs on one stalk, which are we to bring? Should we bring the two figs as they only are required, or the three, for then there is less plucking? — Surely it is obvious that we should bring the three figs [on the one stalk].^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:That the whole must be flayed.
^ᵇnote:By the removal and offering of the sacrificial portions.
^ᶜnote:For it is more commendable to derive the tenth from a larger quantity, thereby obtaining the choicest.
^ᵈnote:That in regard to the ‘Omer there is no distinction between the Sabbath and a weekday. But the Sages are satisfied that the choicest is obtainable even out of three se'ahs.
^ᵉnote:For whether the ‘Omer is obtained out of five or three se'ahs the people will learn nothing of importance thereby.
^ᶠnote:The employment of more persons in the service of the ‘Omer obviously gives the matter greater publicity and impresses immediately the mind of the people with the Rabbinic standpoint that the ‘Omer must be offered on the second day of the Passover irrespective of the day of the week, thus creating stronger opposition to the Sadducees who held that the ‘Omer must always be offered on a Sunday; v. infra 65a.
^ᵍnote:That although one person would be sufficient three are to be employed to create greater publicity.
^ʰnote:For according to R. Ishmael the ‘Omer must be taken out of five se'ahs and not three in order to obtain the choicest flour.
^ⁱnote:V. supra n.1.
^ʲnote:Any who saw the new moon may transgress the Sabbath limits to go and give evidence before the court of the appearance of the new moon. As the calendar was not fixed the evidence of witnesses was a matter of the greatest importance for the determination of the dates of the Festivals.
^ᵏnote:As it is most probable that the members of the court themselves had also seen the appearance of the new moon, so that it would be unnecessary for any to profane the Sabbath for this purpose; R.H. 21b.
^ˡnote:For even when the new moon was not clearly visible to all, those who did see it might refrain from going to give their evidence believing that they were not justified in profaning the Sabbath on its account as others too might have seen the appearance of the new moon like themselves.
^ᵐnote:That whatever the circumstances people should be encouraged to go and give their evidence.
^ⁿnote:For it is no offering, neither is it an important need of the community since the new moon was seen clearly everywhere.
^ᵒnote:To offer the choicest of five se'ahs.
^ᵖnote:Viz., the reaping, winnowing, etc. of the three se'ahs.
^ᵠnote:Since he acted in error, believing that he may slaughter any number of beasts on the Sabbath for the community, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
^ʳnote:E.g., where the blood of the first beast was poured away after the second had been slaughtered, so that it was necessary in the end to use the blood of the second beast. In this case therefore it might be said that the slaughterer was not liable since in fact two beasts were necessary. On the other hand, when he slaughtered the second beast he had no reason to believe that the first would be unfit.
^ˢnote:Before the slaughtering of the second beast. It is a meritorious act to offer for a sacrifice a fine beast; cf. Mal. I, 8.
^ᵗnote:And only one sin-offering was necessary.
^ᵘnote:Thus contradicting Rabbah's previous statement that he is liable for slaughtering the fat beast after the lean one.
^ᵛnote:When slaughtering the second beast he had no knowledge that the entrails of the first beast were lean and not fit to be offered, consequently the slaughtering of the second beast was undoubtedly a forbidden act. On the other hand, it might be said that he is not liable, since it was proved in the end that it was right to have slaughtered the second beast.
^ʷnote:An act forbidden on the Sabbath.
^ˣnote:And, therefore, in the case stated by Rabina, since he did not know of the unfitness of the first beast when he slaughtered the second, he is certainly liable according to all views.
^ʸnote:R. Ashi.
^ᶻnote:For a sick person not only is it permitted to profane the Sabbath but it is even a meritorious act to do so.
^ᵃᵃnote:And profaned the Sabbath by plucking the figs.
^ᵃᵇnote:The stalks in either case were attached to the tree so that in any event it was necessary to transgress the Sabbath by breaking off the stalks from the tree. In the one case, however, two stalks would have to be broken off, whilst in the other case only one.

²for even R. Ishmael only said so in that case, since the less one uses the less one reaps, but in this case, where the less one uses the more one has to pluck, we should certainly bring the three [figs]. MISHNAH. THE PRECEPT OF THE ‘OMER IS THAT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT FROM [WHAT GROWS] NEAR BY. IF [THE CROP] NEAR JERUSALEM WAS NOT YET RIPE, IT COULD BE BROUGHT FROM ANY PLACE. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN AND THE TWO LOAVES FROM THE PLAIN OF EN SOKER. GEMARA. Why is this So? — If you wish. I may say, Because it is written, Fresh corn shalt thou bring; or if you wish, I may say, Because of the rule ‘One must not pass over [the first occasion for performing] the precept’. IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE ‘OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN. Our Rabbis taught: When the Kings of the Hasmonean house fought one another, Hyrcanus was outside and Aristobulus within [the city wall]. Each day [those that were within] used to let down [to the other party] denars in a basket, and haul up [in return] animals for the Daily Offerings. An old man there, who was learned in Greek wisdom, spoke with them in Greek wisdom, saying. ‘As long as they carry on the Temple service they will never be delivered into your hands’. On the morrow they let down denars in a basket and hauled up a pig. When it reached halfway up the wall, it stuck its claws into the wall, and the land of Israel was shaken over a distance of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs. At that time they declared, ‘Cursed be the man who rears pigs and cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek wisdom!’ It was concerning this time [of siege] that we learnt: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT THE ‘OMER WAS BROUGHT FROM GAGGOTH ZERIFIN AND THE TWO LOAVES FROM THE PLAIN OF EN SOKER. For when the time for the ‘Omer arrived they did not know from whence they could take it. They at once proclaimed the matter, whereupon a deaf-mute came forward and pointed with one hand to the roof and with the other to a cone-shaped hut. Then spake Mordecai, ‘Is there anywhere a place by name Gaggoth Zerifin or Zerifin Gaggoth?’ Thereupon they searched and found the place. When they should have brought the Two Loaves they did not know from whence they could take it. They at once proclaimed the matter, whereupon a deaf-mute came forward and put one hand on his eye and the other hand on the socket of the bolt. Then spake Mordecai, ‘Is there anywhere a place by name En Soker or Soker En?’ Thereupon they searched and found the place. Once three women brought three pairs of doves to the Temple. One said, ‘It is for my zibah’; the other said, ‘It is for my yammah’; and the third said, ‘It is for my ‘onah’. Now they [the priests] thought that by zibah [the woman] actually meant her flux, by yammah her stream, and by ‘onah her period, and therefore of each pair of doves, one bird was to be offered for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering. Then spake Mordecai, ‘Perhaps the one had been in danger by reason of her flux, the other had been in danger by reason of a sea journey, and the third had been in danger by an infection of the eye, and therefore all the doves were to be offered for burnt-offerings!’ Thereupon they enquired into the matter and found that it was so.^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᶜnote:That on the Sabbath one must reap less for the ‘Omer.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lit., ‘eats’.
^ᵃᵉnote:For to obtain the two figs one must break off two stalks.
^ᵃᶠnote:These places are identified respectively with Sarafand near Lydda and Assaker near Nablus. V. Neub. Geog. pp. 81, 170.
^ᵃᵍnote:That the ‘Omer must be brought from barley growing near Jerusalem.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. II, 14. If the barley were brought from a distance it would lose its freshness on the way and would not be fit.
^ᵃⁱnote:And therefore the crops found growing outside Jerusalem should be used for the religious purpose.
^ᵃʲnote:V. parallel passages in B.K. 82b (Sonc. ed. p. 469. and notes) and Sot. 49b (Sonc. ed. p. 268, and notes). V. also Graetz, Geschichte III, pp. 710ff on this passage.
^ᵃᵏnote:This old man was in Jerusalem and addressed his words of betrayal to the besiegers outside. ‘Greek wisdom’, according to Rashi means ‘gestures and signs’, but most probably it means the Greek language which was not understood by the people in the city.
^ᵃˡnote:This was due to the devastation of the land round about Jerusalem by the hostile forces.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘put’.
^ᵃⁿnote:A high Temple official who on account of his sagacity bore the name of Mordecai (Tosaf.). V. infra.
^ᵃᵒnote:A place-name whose literal meaning is ‘roofs, cone-shaped huts’.
^ᵃᵖnote:A place-name whose literal meaning is ‘eye, the socket of the bolt’.
^ᵃᵠnote:vchz the usual term for an issue or flux. This woman had apparently suffered from an issue and now being cleansed was offering a pair of doves as her prescribed sacrifice. V. Lev. XV, 25ff.
^ᵃʳnote:vnh an excessive flux, from oh ‘the sea’. Here, too, the doves were offered on her being cleansed of her issue.
^ᵃˢnote:vbug ‘period’. The period of her seven clean days having been fulfilled she now offers a pair of doves as her prescribed sacrifice; v. ibid. 28, 29.
^ᵃᵗnote:Cf. ibid. 30.
^ᵃᵘnote:Taking vnh in its usual meaning ‘the sea’.
^ᵃᵛnote:vbug is thus interpreted as vbhg ‘her eye’.
^ᵃʷnote:For they were no doubt brought as freewill-offerings or in fulfilment of vows which the women vowed to bring on their delivery out of danger. In these circumstances the offerings were to be dealt with as burnt-offerings.