Bava Metzia 87B
Why does the gzeira shava Kamah-Kamah (when first presented) bring across the generalized property of challah, as opposed to the narrow property of only dealing with barley?
(It is interesting that tzad-mizbeyach (presented shortly after the gzeira-shava) ignores spelt, rye, and oats as non-offerings and obviously sees wheat/barley as simply representing grains in general -- this is the same idea of generalizing and not narrowing -- because if we only focus on wheat/barley then there is no tzad-mizbeyach at all.)
Are there rules for using a particular gzeira shava, or is it all tradition what comes across in each instance?
Paul Davidowitz, Long Beach, NY 11561 USA
1) Regarding the Gezeirah Shavah:
a. For the purposes of this Gemara, it is not necessary to say that the word Kamah, mentioned in connection with the Omer, is only appropriate to barley. The Gemara has a valid question even if one would explain the word Kamah in a slightly broader way, that it refers to anything liable for Challah.
This is because the Gemara entertained the possibility that the word Kamah used in the verse "when you enter the Kamah of your friend" means any kind of Kamah, even Kamah that is not liable for Challah. To disprove that possibility, the Gemara cited the verse which mentions Kamah in connection woth Omer. Even if we do not limit this to referring only to barley, but conceed that it might mean anything liable for Challah, we have at any rate negated the possibility that Kamah is referring to every kind of Kamah, even what is exempt from Challah, and this is all the Gemara was trying to do at this stage.
b. The Ritva here gives two possible explanations for the Gezeirah Shavah. First, he writes that it is possible that when the Gemara asked about the Gezeirah Shavah, it did so because it possessed a tradition about this Gezeirah Shavah, because otherwise a person cannot make up his own Gezeirah Shavah.
c. In his second answer, the Ritva writes that "Kamah-Kamah" stated here in the Gemara is not in fact a Gezeirah Shavah. Instead, it is termed "Yilmad Satum Min ha'Mefurash" -- "one can learn what is stated unclearly from what is stated clearly." (This kind of Limud, "Yilmad Satum Min ha'Mefurash," is mentioned in Yoma, end of 59a.) According to this, "Kamah-Kamah" does not have to be something one learned from one's teacher. Rather, since we know that the Kamah stated in connection with the Omer refers to produce liable for Challah (this is considered "Mefurash"), so, too, the worker eating when plucking food only applies if the food is liable for Challah (even though this is Satum, as it is not stated explicilty which kind of food he is plucking).
d. According to the second explanation of the Ritva, we may be able to understand Rashi a little better. Rashi (DH Asya) writes that the Gemara said the Gezeirah Shavah in order to ask a question. Rav Elazar Moshe ha'Levi Horowitz (printed in the back of the Gemara) asks that we never find that one asks a question from a Gezeirah Shava because a person cannot use a Gezeirah Shavah unless he heard it from his teacher. However, according to the Ritva who says that this is not a full-fledged Gezeirah Shavah but is rather "Yilmad Satum Min ha'Mefurash," Rashi is not difficult.
2) Regarding what types of flour may be used for Minchah:
a. You seem to assume that it is obvious that spelt, rye, and oats are invalid as offerings. However, this might not be so simple. Since we are learning Maseches Menachos at present in Dafyomi, I can cite a source in Menachos 103a where the Mishnah states that someone who says he will bring a Minchah of barley must bring a wheat Minchah. The Gemara states that this only applies to someone who mentioned a barley Minchah, because there is such a thing as a barley Minchah for a Sotah. However, if he said he will bring a lentil Minchah, he certainly did not mean to bring any Minchah at all, because everyone knows there is no such thing as a lentil Minchah.
The question is, why does the Gemara use the example of the lentil Minchah? Why did the Gemara not mention a spelt Minchah? It has been suggested that we see from this that a spelt Minchah is in fact valid. This is because the Gemara in Menachos (end of 70a) states that spelt is a species of wheat. Therefore, one can argue that a Minchah from spelt is also conisdered a Minchah of wheat.
b. I then found in Emes l'Yakov (by Rav Yakov Kaminetzky zt'l) on Pesachim 35a, that he writes that the "Yesh Mefarshim" cited by Rashi there (DH Oser b'Orez) learns that a Minchah from spelt is acceptable.
The Gemara there cites Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri who forbids making Matzos from rice or millet because they are close to becoming Chametz. The simple explanation of this is that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri forbids eating cooked rice or millet on Pesach but Rashi also cites a Yesh Mefarshim that Rebbi Yochanan forbids making a Minchah from rice or millet. Rashi disagrees with the Yesh Mefarshim because, he asserts, one may bring a Minchah only from wheat, so it is obvious that rice and millet are disqualified. No one would disagree with this and it is unnecessary for the Gemara to say that Rebbi Yochanan prohibits. However, we see from here that Rashi disagrees with the Yesh Mefarshim only because it is obvious that rice and millet are totally different from wheat; spelt would be acceptable as a Korban because it is a species of wheat.
Dovid Bloom