Menachos Daf 64 מנחוס דַף 64

Rabbah said that if one shechted a כחושה – lean animal for a חטאת ציבור on Shabbos, it is still permitted to shecht a שמינה – fat animal, the preferable korban. Ravina asked Rav Ashi, what if they discovered the first animal was internally כחושה after the second shechitah? בתר מחשבתו אזלינן – Do we follow his intent, וגברא לאיסורא קא מיכוין – and the man intended a transgression, since he did not know the first animal was כחושה? Or בתר מעשיו אזלינן – do we follow his actions, which emerged to have been correct? Rav Ashi replied: if one heard a child was drowning at sea and he spread his net to catch fish, then if he caught only fish, he is liable. However, if he brought up both fish and the child, Rava says he is חייב for his forbidden intent, while Rabbah says he is פטור. Rabbah holds that since he heard about the drowning child, אמרי' נמי דעתיה אתינוק – we say his intent was also about saving the child, but if he had not heard about the child (paralleling our case of the second shechitah), Rabbah would agree he is liable. In another version, Rav Ashi compares this machlokes to our case, and says Rabbah exempts even one who was unaware of the drowning child.

Rava asked: if a sick person was assessed as requiring two dried figs on Shabbos for his survival, and there are two figs attached to the tree by two separate stems (requiring two acts of cutting), and there are three figs attached by one stem, which do we bring? שתים מייתינן דחזו ליה – Do we bring the two figs because they are both fit for him and no superfluous figs are detached, או דלמא שלש מייתינן דקא ממעטא קצירה – or perhaps we bring the three figs, because we thereby reduce the acts of harvesting, since they only require a single act of detaching? The Gemara replies that it is obvious that we bring the three figs, because the reason that Rebbe Yishmael (in our Mishnah) required harvesting less barley for the עומר on Shabbos is only דכי ממעט באכילה קא ממעט קצירה – because by reducing the consumption (the amount of barley used for the עומר) it also reduces the total acts of harvesting. But here, דכי קא ממעט באכילה קא מפשא קצירה – that by reducing consumption (the number of figs obtained) it increases the acts of harvesting, we should certainly bring the three figs, which only require one act of cutting.

The next Mishnah states: מצות העומר להביא מן הקרוב – the mitzvah of עומר is to bring the barley from the closest place to Yerushalayim. If nearby barley had not yet ripened, it can be brought from anywhere. The עומר was once brought from גגות צריפין, and the wheat for the שתי הלחם was once brought from the valley of עין סוכר (both a great distance from Yerushalayim). There are two reasons for bringing the closest barley: it better fulfills the passuk’s directive to bring "כרמל" – plump kernels (which is darshened as רך ומל – soft and crushable, which is less likely if brought from a distance), and because אין מעבירין על המצות – we do not pass over opportunities to fulfill mitzvos, and should use the first barley encountered. The incident of the עומר being brought from גגות צריפין occurred when the חשמונאי kings besieged each other, and the surrounding crops were destroyed (the famous story of the חזיר sent up the wall in place of the תמיד is presented). They did not know where to obtain barley, until a mute man put one hand on a roof (גג) and another on a hut (צריף). Mordechai realized he referred to a place called גגות צריפין or צריפין גגות. Several other stories of Mordechai’s interpretations are related.