Menachot 85b מנחות פ״ה ב

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.

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.

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.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

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.

The Gemara demonstrates the efficacy of this method: Rav Ḥilkiya 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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Yoḥanan says: Since the residents of Tekoa are accustomed to use olive oil, wisdom is prevalent there.

§ 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.

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 Ḥalav, which is located in the portion of Asher. He went to Gush Ḥalav, 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.

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 Ḥalav 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).

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.

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).

§ 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,