Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 17, 2018 | 讞壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 68

Study Guide Menachot 68. How do we resolve the contradiction between our mishna and a braita about Pesach where the opinions are flipped – those who are concerned one will eat from the new crop earlier, are not concerned that if one checks for chametz on Pesach they will accidentally eat it (and vice-versa). When is the new crop permitted – in the time of the Beit Hamikdash and in the time where there is no Beit Hamikdash? What is the status of a sacrifice brought from the new crop before the time it is permitted聽in the Beit Hamikdash (Shavuot -after the bread offering is brought)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讬转专转讛 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讝讻讜专 讛讜讗

Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and not in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. With regard to searching for leaven, there is no reminder.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 拽爪讬专讛 讟讞讬谞讛 讜讛专拽讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to picking the grain. But with regard to grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern that one may eat the grain at that stage?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟讞讬谞讛 讘专讬讞讬讗 讚讬讚讗 讛专拽讚讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞驻讛

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed unusually, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern that one might eat the grain.

讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 拽爪讬专讛 讚转谞谉 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讚砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises another difficulty from the case of a field that requires irrigation, where typical harvesting is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (71a): One may harvest grain from an irrigated field and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce. The use of the term: One may harvest, indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand. In this case, what can be said? Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest someone eat from the new grain?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讚砖 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that one distances himself from new grain, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is sacrificed. By contrast, one does not distance himself from leavened bread, as eating it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to eat leavened bread unwittingly.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Does the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda pose a difficulty, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis does not pose a difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪讞讝专 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜专驻讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Rava said that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it previously. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after it becomes prohibited, as with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven specifically in order to burn it, will he eat from it? By contrast, in the case of new grain he is processing the grain and preparing it for consumption. Consequently, there is a concern that he might eat it unwittingly.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 拽诪讞 拽诇讬 转谞谉

Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in another manner. As we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour of parched grain. It is permitted to prepare only such foods before the omer, as they are not eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 转讬谞讞 诪拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇讱 注讚 拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: And this statement of Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as this suggestion can easily be refuted: That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that it was processed into flour of parched grain and forward, as there is no concern that perhaps one will come to eat it. But with regard to its status initially, until it became parched grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into parched grain. Why is there no concern that one might eat the kernels at this earlier stage?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 拽爪讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

And if you would say that here too the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, through picking by hand, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rabba, nevertheless with regard to the difficulty raised to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from the case of an irrigated field, which is permitted to be harvested in the typical manner, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that this statement of Rav Ashi is an error.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讞讚砖 诪讬讚 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

MISHNA: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. For those distant from Jerusalem, the new crop is permitted from midday and beyond. From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited, i.e., one may partake of the new crop only the next day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜

Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn鈥檛 it forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14)? This means that the new crop is prohibited on the day of the waving unless permitted by sacrifice of the offering. And if so, for what reason is it permitted for those distant to eat the new crop from midday and beyond, when the Temple is standing? It is due to the fact that they know that the members of the court are not indolent in its sacrifice, and certainly by midday the sacrifice of the omer offering has been completed.

讙诪壮 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 注讜诪专 诪转讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专

GEMARA: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as presented in the mishna, is that after the destruction of the Temple the new crop is prohibited throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law. With regard to the dissenting opinion that the new crop is permitted on the sixteenth of Nisan, Rav and Shmuel both say: When the Temple is standing, the sacrifice of the omer offering permits the new crop. When the Temple is not standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon on the sixteenth of Nisan permits it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 注讚 讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Two verses are written with regard to the new crop. More precisely, there are two clauses in the same verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14). It is written that the new crop is prohibited 鈥渦ntil you have brought the offering,鈥 and it is also written that the new crop is prohibited only 鈥渦ntil the selfsame day.鈥 How so? How can these clauses be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: Here, when the verse permits the new crop only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, it is referring to the period when the Temple is standing. There, when the verse permits the new crop immediately upon the sixteenth of Nisan, it is speaking of the period when the Temple is not standing.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专 讜讛讻转讬讘 注讚 讛讘讬讗讻诐 诇诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say: Even when the Temple is standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon permits the new crop. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淯ntil you have brought the offering,鈥 which indicates that the new crop is not permitted at daybreak, but only after the omer offering is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the omer offering is brought ab initio, in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but nevertheless it is permitted at daybreak.

诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讞讚砖 诪讬讚 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty. The mishna states: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. This indicates that the new crop is not permitted at the illumination of the eastern horizon. The Gemara again answers that the mishna means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but it is permitted at daybreak.

讛注讜诪专 讛讬讛 诪转讬专 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘诪拽讚砖 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty from the next mishna (68b): Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country [bamedina] outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering permitted the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. Here, too, the Gemara answers: One should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion.

诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

The Gemara questions the claim that the purpose of waiting until the sacrifice of the omer is only in order to fulfill the mitzva in the most optimal fashion. The mishna teaches: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is completely prohibited and one may partake of the new crop only the next day. The Gemara analyzes this statement. What is the reason for this? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year [eshtakad], when there was no Temple, didn鈥檛 we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time.

讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讜诪专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬讙讝讜专

And they would not know that last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern horizon permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, but now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed. The Gemara concludes its question: And if it enters your mind to say that one waits to partake of the new crop until the omer offering permits the new grain only in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal fashion, would we arise and decree that the entire sixteenth of Nisan is entirely prohibited only due to the performance of a mitzva in the optimal manner?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited by Torah law to eat of the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14).

注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

This does not mean that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth, when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [itzumo] of the day. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when the verse says 鈥渦ntil,鈥 it means until and including, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in the mishna: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: But isn鈥檛 it forbidden by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day鈥? This indicates that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects this. It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted, which indicates that it is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the term: Instituted, in this context? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讻诇讬 讞讚砖 讘讗讜专转讗 讚砖讬转住专 谞讙讛讬 砖讘住专 拽住讘专讬 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate from the new crop on the evening of the conclusion of the sixteenth of Nisan, leading into the seventeenth of Nisan. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by rabbinic law. And therefore we are not concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the day we think is the sixteenth of Nisan is really the fifteenth, due to the court proclaiming the previous month of Adar a full thirty days long.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻诇讜 讘爪驻专讗 讚砖讘住专 拽住讘专讬 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And conversely, the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi ate from the new crop only on the morning of the seventeenth. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by Torah law. Consequently, they did entertain the concern that the day they thought was the sixteenth might actually be the fifteenth of Nisan, which would mean that the new crop is permitted only the following morning.

讜专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转拽讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讛谞祝 诇住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 转拽讬谉

This is problematic, as if there is a concern that the sixteenth is really the fifteenth of Nisan, then the seventeenth would be the sixteenth of Nisan. Accordingly, how could they eat from the new crop on that morning? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai institute that the new crop is prohibited the entire day? The Gemara explains that those Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi held: And Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan nowadays is prohibited by rabbinic law. And the Sages instituted this prohibition only for the actual day of waving the omer offering, whereas it was not instituted for a day with regard to which the real date is uncertain.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讘讜讱 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 讞讚砖 讗诇讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讚砖讘住专 谞讙讛讬 转诪谞讬住专 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讬讬砖 诇住驻讬拽讗

Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father would eat from the new crop only on the evening at the conclusion of the seventeenth of Nisan, leading into the eighteenth. The reason for this was that he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that nowadays it is prohibited to eat of the new crop on the sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law, and he was therefore concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the sixteenth of Nisan was really the fifteenth, and consequently the seventeenth was really the sixteenth. Therefore he waited until the eve of the eighteenth, when he could be sure that there was no prohibition by Torah law against eating from the new crop.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜诪专 讛讬讛 诪转讬专 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 驻住讜诇 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专

MISHNA: Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering would permit the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. One may not bring meal offerings, or first fruits, or the meal offering brought with libations accompanying animal offerings, from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer, and if he brought them from the new crop they are unfit. After the omer but prior to the two loaves one may not bring these offerings from the new crop, but if he brought them from the new crop, they are fit.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 讘讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 诇拽讜讚诐 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that meal offerings brought from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering are unfit, whereas those brought after the omer but prior to the two loaves are fit. Rabbi Tarfon sat and posed the following difficulty: What is the difference between meal offerings brought before the omer and those brought before the two loaves?

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 转讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ne岣mya said before Rabbi Tarfon: No, one cannot compare the two situations. If you said that this is the halakha with regard to before the omer sacrifice, this is because at that stage there are no circumstances in which the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted, even with regard to an ordinary person; shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to before the sacrifice of the two loaves, when the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person? The new crop ingredient in the meal offering is at least permitted in consumption after the omer is brought. Therefore, the meal offerings that were brought after the omer but before the two loaves are fit.

砖转拽 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讱 砖讛砖讘转 讗转 讝拽谉 转诪讛谞讬 讗诐 转讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜转讜 讛驻专拽 驻专住 讛驻住讞 讛讬讛 讻砖注诇讬转讬 诇注爪专转 砖讗诇转讬 讗讞专讬讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 谞驻讟专 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

Rabbi Tarfon was silent, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya鈥檚 face brightened. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yehuda, has your face brightened because you answered the elder? I will be astonished if the days of your life will be lengthy. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, said: That period in which that interaction occurred was half a month before Passover. When I ascended again to the study hall for the festival of Shavuot, I asked about him: Where is Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya? And they said to me: He passed away and left this world.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讚讘专讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘诐 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讻砖讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya, libations from first fruits that one brought before the omer offering is sacrificed should be valid. The reason is that the prohibition of the new crop does not apply to fruits at all, and therefore they are never prohibited to ordinary people. When the mishna states that first fruits are prohibited it is referring to first fruits of grain, not the fruit of a tree. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that libations from first fruits brought before the omer offering are valid? Why would one think that they should not be valid?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇

The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the meal offering of grain brought after the omer sacrifice, that it is valid, as the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person. But here, since with regard to these fruits there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted, one might say that the libation should not be valid. Therefore, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k teaches us that the opposite is the case: All the more so here it is a valid offering, where the fruit was not prohibited at all.

(住讚专 讛谞爪讗 讙诇讬 驻讬诇 住讬诪谉) 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 砖讬转讬专讜 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉

搂 The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions in the Gemara: Order, sprouting, dung of, elephant. The mishna teaches that a meal offering using the new crop may not be brought prior to the omer sacrifice or the two loaves. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: With regard to the two loaves offering on Shavuot, what is the halakha as to whether they permit the new grain to be used in the Temple, if this sacrifice was performed out of their order? The sacrifice of the omer permits ordinary people to eat from the new grain, whereas the sacrifice of the two loaves permits the new grain to be used in the Temple. What is the halakha if a new crop sprouted after the omer offering was brought but before the two loaves were brought?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 讘讬谉 讛注讜诪专 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讞诇讬祝 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜注讜诪专 诪讗讬 讻住讚专谉 砖专讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 诇讗 砖专讬讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 谞诪讬 砖专讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? The Gemara explains: This is referring to a case where they planted the grain in between the time of the sacrifice of the omer and the time of the two loaves offering. And therefore the sacrifice of two loaves passed by first, and then the time of the omer offering of the following year. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does the sacrifice of the omer and two loaves permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings if sacrificed only in their proper order, whereas if sacrificed out of their order the sacrifice does not permit the new crop? Or perhaps they permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings even when sacrificed out of their order.

讗诪专 专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诐 转拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 讘讻讜专讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 诪讛讬讻谉 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉

Rabba said: Come and hear proof from a baraita: 鈥淎nd if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). The verse is speaking of the omer meal offering. From where, i.e., of which grain, is it brought? It is brought from barley. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is brought from barley, or perhaps it is only from wheat?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讗讘讬讘 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讗讘讬讘 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讛 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪爪专讬诐 砖注讜专讬谉 讗祝 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 砖注讜专讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated 鈥渋n the ear鈥 with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt: 鈥淎nd the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloom鈥 (Exodus 9:31), and it is stated 鈥渋n the ear鈥 with regard to the mitzva of the new crop, which is for all generations. Just as the term 鈥渋n the ear鈥 that is stated with regard to plague of hail in Egypt is referring to barley, as is clear from the next verse: 鈥淏ut the wheat and the spelt were not smitten, for they ripen late鈥 (Exodus 9:32), so too the term 鈥渋n the ear鈥 that is stated with regard to the new crop for all generations is referring to barley.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬谞讜 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉

The baraita cites another proof that the omer offering is brought from barley. And Rabbi Akiva says: We found an individual who brings his obligation of a meal offering from wheat, which is brought by a poor person for a false oath of testimony, a false oath of utterance, or for entering the Temple while ritually impure, and one who brings his obligation of a meal offering from barley, in the case of a sinner鈥檚 meal offering or the meal offering of a sota.

讜爪讬讘讜专 砖诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讜讘转谉 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讜讘转谉 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 爪讬讘讜专 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉

And we also found with regard to the community that they bring their obligation of a meal offering from wheat, in the case of the two loaves offering of Shavuot, and therefore, to keep the halakha of a community parallel to that of an individual there should be a case where the community brings their obligation of a meal offering from barley. And if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then we will not have found a case of a community that brings its obligation of a meal offering from barley. Consequently, it must be that the omer offering comes from barley.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诪专 讘讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讗讬谉 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Akiva suggests another proof: Alternatively, if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be from the first fruits. The verse states that the two loaves offering of Shavuot should come from the first fruits: 鈥淎lso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeks鈥 (Numbers 28:26). If the omer is from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be the first offering of the first fruit, as the omer offering of Passover precedes it. Therefore, the omer offering must come from barley. This concludes the baraita.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 砖专讬讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪拽专讬讘 注讜诪专 诪讛谞讱 讚讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讘转专 讛注讜诪专 讚讗砖转拽讚

Rabba resolves Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma from this last proof of Rabbi Akiva: And if it is so, that the two loaves sacrificed not in their proper order still permit the use of the new crop for meal offerings, you can in fact find a case where the two loaves are from the first fruits even though they are also brought from wheat, just like the omer offering. This is a case where the community sacrifices the current omer offering from these wheat grains that took root prior to the bringing of the two loaves offering but after the bringing of the omer offering of last year.

讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛谞讱 讚讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讚讛砖转讗 讜讘转专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讗砖转拽讚

And the current two loaves offering is brought from these grains that took root prior to the current omer offering and after the two loaves offering of last year. In this scenario, the two loaves come from wheat of this year鈥檚 crop and yet they are still called the first fruits, despite the fact that the omer offering also came from wheat, as that wheat is considered the previous year鈥檚 crop. Since this case is not mentioned in the baraita, evidently if the two loaves are not in the proper order with regard to a certain crop they do not permit that crop to be used in offerings in the Temple. This resolves Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma.

诪讬 住讘专转

In this manner Rabba has attempted to prove that the proper order of the omer offering followed by the two loaves is necessary to permit the new grain for use in meal offerings. The Gemara rejects the proof: Do you hold

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 68

诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 讛讬转专转讛 诇讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讝讻讜专 讛讜讗

Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and not in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. With regard to searching for leaven, there is no reminder.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 转讬谞讞 拽爪讬专讛 讟讞讬谞讛 讜讛专拽讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion with regard to picking the grain. But with regard to grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern that one may eat the grain at that stage?

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讟讞讬谞讛 讘专讬讞讬讗 讚讬讚讗 讛专拽讚讛 注诇 讙讘讬 谞驻讛

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed unusually, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern that one might eat the grain.

讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 拽爪讬专讛 讚转谞谉 拽讜爪专讬谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讙讜讚砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises another difficulty from the case of a field that requires irrigation, where typical harvesting is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (71a): One may harvest grain from an irrigated field and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce. The use of the term: One may harvest, indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand. In this case, what can be said? Why doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest someone eat from the new grain?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讞讚砖 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讞诪抓 诇讗 讘讚讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that one distances himself from new grain, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is sacrificed. By contrast, one does not distance himself from leavened bread, as eating it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to eat leavened bread unwittingly.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rava said: Does the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda pose a difficulty, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis does not pose a difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 诪讞讝专 注诇讬讜 诇砖讜专驻讜 诪讬讻诇 讗讻讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛

Rather, Rava said that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it previously. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after it becomes prohibited, as with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven specifically in order to burn it, will he eat from it? By contrast, in the case of new grain he is processing the grain and preparing it for consumption. Consequently, there is a concern that he might eat it unwittingly.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 拽诪讞 拽诇讬 转谞谉

Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in another manner. As we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour of parched grain. It is permitted to prepare only such foods before the omer, as they are not eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.

讜讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗 转讬谞讞 诪拽诇讬 讜讗讬诇讱 注讚 拽诇讬 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: And this statement of Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as this suggestion can easily be refuted: That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that it was processed into flour of parched grain and forward, as there is no concern that perhaps one will come to eat it. But with regard to its status initially, until it became parched grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into parched grain. Why is there no concern that one might eat the kernels at this earlier stage?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注诇 讬讚讬 拽讬讟讜祝 讜讻讚专讘讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讚砖专讬讗 拽爪讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

And if you would say that here too the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, through picking by hand, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rabba, nevertheless with regard to the difficulty raised to Rabba鈥檚 opinion from the case of an irrigated field, which is permitted to be harvested in the typical manner, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that this statement of Rav Ashi is an error.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讞讚砖 诪讬讚 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专

MISHNA: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. For those distant from Jerusalem, the new crop is permitted from midday and beyond. From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited, i.e., one may partake of the new crop only the next day.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讛专讞讜拽讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讞爪讜转 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讛诇谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讬讜讚注讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转注爪诇讬谉 讘讜

Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn鈥檛 it forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14)? This means that the new crop is prohibited on the day of the waving unless permitted by sacrifice of the offering. And if so, for what reason is it permitted for those distant to eat the new crop from midday and beyond, when the Temple is standing? It is due to the fact that they know that the members of the court are not indolent in its sacrifice, and certainly by midday the sacrifice of the omer offering has been completed.

讙诪壮 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 注讜诪专 诪转讬专 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专

GEMARA: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as presented in the mishna, is that after the destruction of the Temple the new crop is prohibited throughout the entire sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law. With regard to the dissenting opinion that the new crop is permitted on the sixteenth of Nisan, Rav and Shmuel both say: When the Temple is standing, the sacrifice of the omer offering permits the new crop. When the Temple is not standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon on the sixteenth of Nisan permits it.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 注讚 讬讜诐 讛讘讬讗讻诐 讜讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Two verses are written with regard to the new crop. More precisely, there are two clauses in the same verse: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14). It is written that the new crop is prohibited 鈥渦ntil you have brought the offering,鈥 and it is also written that the new crop is prohibited only 鈥渦ntil the selfsame day.鈥 How so? How can these clauses be reconciled?

讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讗谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: Here, when the verse permits the new crop only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, it is referring to the period when the Temple is standing. There, when the verse permits the new crop immediately upon the sixteenth of Nisan, it is speaking of the period when the Temple is not standing.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专 讜讛讻转讬讘 注讚 讛讘讬讗讻诐 诇诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say: Even when the Temple is standing, the illumination of the eastern horizon permits the new crop. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淯ntil you have brought the offering,鈥 which indicates that the new crop is not permitted at daybreak, but only after the omer offering is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: The verse means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the omer offering is brought ab initio, in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but nevertheless it is permitted at daybreak.

诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讛讜转专 讞讚砖 诪讬讚 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara raises another difficulty. The mishna states: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. This indicates that the new crop is not permitted at the illumination of the eastern horizon. The Gemara again answers that the mishna means that one should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but it is permitted at daybreak.

讛注讜诪专 讛讬讛 诪转讬专 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘诪拽讚砖 诇诪爪讜讛

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty from the next mishna (68b): Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country [bamedina] outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering permitted the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. Here, too, the Gemara answers: One should wait to partake of the new crop until after the sacrifice of the omer offering in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion.

诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讛专讛 讬讘谞讛 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗砖转拽讚 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇谞讜 讘讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 谞讬讻讜诇

The Gemara questions the claim that the purpose of waiting until the sacrifice of the omer is only in order to fulfill the mitzva in the most optimal fashion. The mishna teaches: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is completely prohibited and one may partake of the new crop only the next day. The Gemara analyzes this statement. What is the reason for this? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year [eshtakad], when there was no Temple, didn鈥檛 we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time.

讜诇讗 讬讚注讬 讚讗砖转拽讚 诇讗 讛讜讛 注讜诪专 讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 诪转讬专 讜讛砖转讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讜诪专 注讜诪专 诪转讬专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪爪讜讛 诪砖讜诐 诪爪讜讛 诇讬拽讜诐 讜诇讬讙讝讜专

And they would not know that last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern horizon permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, but now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed. The Gemara concludes its question: And if it enters your mind to say that one waits to partake of the new crop until the omer offering permits the new grain only in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal fashion, would we arise and decree that the entire sixteenth of Nisan is entirely prohibited only due to the performance of a mitzva in the optimal manner?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讗住讜专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited by Torah law to eat of the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God鈥 (Leviticus 23:14).

注讚 注讬爪讜诪讜 砖诇 讬讜诐 讜拽住讘专 注讚 讜注讚 讘讻诇诇

This does not mean that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth, when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [itzumo] of the day. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when the verse says 鈥渦ntil,鈥 it means until and including, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.

讜诪讬 住讘专 诇讛 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗 诪讬驻诇讙 驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 诪砖讞专讘 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 讛转拽讬谉 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 砖讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛谞祝 讻讜诇讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛诇讗 诪谉 讛转讜专讛 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 注爪诐 讛讬讜诐 讛讝讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in the mishna: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: But isn鈥檛 it forbidden by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淯ntil this selfsame day鈥? This indicates that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 拽讗诪专 讜讛讗 讛转拽讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 讛转拽讬谉 讚专砖 讜讛转拽讬谉

The Gemara rejects this. It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna that Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai instituted, which indicates that it is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the term: Instituted, in this context? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.

专讘 驻驻讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗讻诇讬 讞讚砖 讘讗讜专转讗 讚砖讬转住专 谞讙讛讬 砖讘住专 拽住讘专讬 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚专讘谞谉 讜诇住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate from the new crop on the evening of the conclusion of the sixteenth of Nisan, leading into the seventeenth of Nisan. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by rabbinic law. And therefore we are not concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the day we think is the sixteenth of Nisan is really the fifteenth, due to the court proclaiming the previous month of Adar a full thirty days long.

讜专讘谞谉 讚讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讻诇讜 讘爪驻专讗 讚砖讘住专 拽住讘专讬 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

And conversely, the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi ate from the new crop only on the morning of the seventeenth. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by Torah law. Consequently, they did entertain the concern that the day they thought was the sixteenth might actually be the fifteenth of Nisan, which would mean that the new crop is permitted only the following morning.

讜专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 讜讻讬 转拽讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讛谞祝 诇住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 转拽讬谉

This is problematic, as if there is a concern that the sixteenth is really the fifteenth of Nisan, then the seventeenth would be the sixteenth of Nisan. Accordingly, how could they eat from the new crop on that morning? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Zakkai institute that the new crop is prohibited the entire day? The Gemara explains that those Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi held: And Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan nowadays is prohibited by rabbinic law. And the Sages instituted this prohibition only for the actual day of waving the omer offering, whereas it was not instituted for a day with regard to which the real date is uncertain.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬 讗诐 讗讘讜讱 诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讻讬诇 讞讚砖 讗诇讗 讘讗讜专转讗 讚砖讘住专 谞讙讛讬 转诪谞讬住专 讚住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讞讬讬砖 诇住驻讬拽讗

Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father would eat from the new crop only on the evening at the conclusion of the seventeenth of Nisan, leading into the eighteenth. The reason for this was that he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that nowadays it is prohibited to eat of the new crop on the sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law, and he was therefore concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the sixteenth of Nisan was really the fifteenth, and consequently the seventeenth was really the sixteenth. Therefore he waited until the eve of the eighteenth, when he could be sure that there was no prohibition by Torah law against eating from the new crop.

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜诪专 讛讬讛 诪转讬专 讘诪讚讬谞讛 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘诪拽讚砖 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪谞讞讜转 讜讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讘讛诪讛 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 驻住讜诇 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 讻砖专

MISHNA: Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering would permit the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. One may not bring meal offerings, or first fruits, or the meal offering brought with libations accompanying animal offerings, from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer, and if he brought them from the new crop they are unfit. After the omer but prior to the two loaves one may not bring these offerings from the new crop, but if he brought them from the new crop, they are fit.

讙诪壮 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 讘讬谉 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 诇拽讜讚诐 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that meal offerings brought from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering are unfit, whereas those brought after the omer but prior to the two loaves are fit. Rabbi Tarfon sat and posed the following difficulty: What is the difference between meal offerings brought before the omer and those brought before the two loaves?

讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 转讗诪专 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ne岣mya said before Rabbi Tarfon: No, one cannot compare the two situations. If you said that this is the halakha with regard to before the omer sacrifice, this is because at that stage there are no circumstances in which the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted, even with regard to an ordinary person; shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to before the sacrifice of the two loaves, when the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person? The new crop ingredient in the meal offering is at least permitted in consumption after the omer is brought. Therefore, the meal offerings that were brought after the omer but before the two loaves are fit.

砖转拽 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬讛讜讚讛 爪讛讘讜 驻谞讬讱 砖讛砖讘转 讗转 讝拽谉 转诪讛谞讬 讗诐 转讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜转讜 讛驻专拽 驻专住 讛驻住讞 讛讬讛 讻砖注诇讬转讬 诇注爪专转 砖讗诇转讬 讗讞专讬讜 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讻谉 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬 谞驻讟专 讜讛诇讱 诇讜

Rabbi Tarfon was silent, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya鈥檚 face brightened. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yehuda, has your face brightened because you answered the elder? I will be astonished if the days of your life will be lengthy. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, said: That period in which that interaction occurred was half a month before Passover. When I ascended again to the study hall for the festival of Shavuot, I asked about him: Where is Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya? And they said to me: He passed away and left this world.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讚讘专讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 谞讞诪讬讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 砖讛拽专讬讘诐 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讻砖讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Ne岣mya, libations from first fruits that one brought before the omer offering is sacrificed should be valid. The reason is that the prohibition of the new crop does not apply to fruits at all, and therefore they are never prohibited to ordinary people. When the mishna states that first fruits are prohibited it is referring to first fruits of grain, not the fruit of a tree. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that libations from first fruits brought before the omer offering are valid? Why would one think that they should not be valid?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗爪诇 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻诇 砖讻谉 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬转住专 讻诇诇

The Gemara answers that Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 statement is necessary, lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the meal offering of grain brought after the omer sacrifice, that it is valid, as the new crop鈥檚 general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person. But here, since with regard to these fruits there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted, one might say that the libation should not be valid. Therefore, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k teaches us that the opposite is the case: All the more so here it is a valid offering, where the fruit was not prohibited at all.

(住讚专 讛谞爪讗 讙诇讬 驻讬诇 住讬诪谉) 讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛讜 砖讬转讬专讜 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉

搂 The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions in the Gemara: Order, sprouting, dung of, elephant. The mishna teaches that a meal offering using the new crop may not be brought prior to the omer sacrifice or the two loaves. Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: With regard to the two loaves offering on Shavuot, what is the halakha as to whether they permit the new grain to be used in the Temple, if this sacrifice was performed out of their order? The sacrifice of the omer permits ordinary people to eat from the new grain, whereas the sacrifice of the two loaves permits the new grain to be used in the Temple. What is the halakha if a new crop sprouted after the omer offering was brought but before the two loaves were brought?

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讝专注讬谞讛讜 讘讬谉 讛注讜诪专 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讞诇讬祝 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜注讜诪专 诪讗讬 讻住讚专谉 砖专讬讬谉 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 诇讗 砖专讬讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 谞诪讬 砖专讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? The Gemara explains: This is referring to a case where they planted the grain in between the time of the sacrifice of the omer and the time of the two loaves offering. And therefore the sacrifice of two loaves passed by first, and then the time of the omer offering of the following year. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does the sacrifice of the omer and two loaves permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings if sacrificed only in their proper order, whereas if sacrificed out of their order the sacrifice does not permit the new crop? Or perhaps they permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings even when sacrificed out of their order.

讗诪专 专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讜讗诐 转拽专讬讘 诪谞讞转 讘讻讜专讬诐 讘诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 诪讛讬讻谉 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉

Rabba said: Come and hear proof from a baraita: 鈥淎nd if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear鈥 (Leviticus 2:14). The verse is speaking of the omer meal offering. From where, i.e., of which grain, is it brought? It is brought from barley. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is brought from barley, or perhaps it is only from wheat?

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讗讘讬讘 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜谞讗诪专 讗讘讬讘 诇讚讜专讜转 诪讛 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 讘诪爪专讬诐 砖注讜专讬谉 讗祝 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 砖注讜专讬谉

Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated 鈥渋n the ear鈥 with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt: 鈥淎nd the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloom鈥 (Exodus 9:31), and it is stated 鈥渋n the ear鈥 with regard to the mitzva of the new crop, which is for all generations. Just as the term 鈥渋n the ear鈥 that is stated with regard to plague of hail in Egypt is referring to barley, as is clear from the next verse: 鈥淏ut the wheat and the spelt were not smitten, for they ripen late鈥 (Exodus 9:32), so too the term 鈥渋n the ear鈥 that is stated with regard to the new crop for all generations is referring to barley.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪爪讬谞讜 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉

The baraita cites another proof that the omer offering is brought from barley. And Rabbi Akiva says: We found an individual who brings his obligation of a meal offering from wheat, which is brought by a poor person for a false oath of testimony, a false oath of utterance, or for entering the Temple while ritually impure, and one who brings his obligation of a meal offering from barley, in the case of a sinner鈥檚 meal offering or the meal offering of a sota.

讜爪讬讘讜专 砖诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讜讘转谉 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讜讘转谉 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 爪讬讘讜专 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉

And we also found with regard to the community that they bring their obligation of a meal offering from wheat, in the case of the two loaves offering of Shavuot, and therefore, to keep the halakha of a community parallel to that of an individual there should be a case where the community brings their obligation of a meal offering from barley. And if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then we will not have found a case of a community that brings its obligation of a meal offering from barley. Consequently, it must be that the omer offering comes from barley.

讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诪专 讘讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讗讬谉 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Akiva suggests another proof: Alternatively, if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be from the first fruits. The verse states that the two loaves offering of Shavuot should come from the first fruits: 鈥淎lso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeks鈥 (Numbers 28:26). If the omer is from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be the first offering of the first fruit, as the omer offering of Passover precedes it. Therefore, the omer offering must come from barley. This concludes the baraita.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 砖诇讗 讻住讚专谉 砖专讬讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪拽专讬讘 注讜诪专 诪讛谞讱 讚讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜讘转专 讛注讜诪专 讚讗砖转拽讚

Rabba resolves Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma from this last proof of Rabbi Akiva: And if it is so, that the two loaves sacrificed not in their proper order still permit the use of the new crop for meal offerings, you can in fact find a case where the two loaves are from the first fruits even though they are also brought from wheat, just like the omer offering. This is a case where the community sacrifices the current omer offering from these wheat grains that took root prior to the bringing of the two loaves offering but after the bringing of the omer offering of last year.

讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讛谞讱 讚讗砖专讜砖 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜诪专 讚讛砖转讗 讜讘转专 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讗砖转拽讚

And the current two loaves offering is brought from these grains that took root prior to the current omer offering and after the two loaves offering of last year. In this scenario, the two loaves come from wheat of this year鈥檚 crop and yet they are still called the first fruits, despite the fact that the omer offering also came from wheat, as that wheat is considered the previous year鈥檚 crop. Since this case is not mentioned in the baraita, evidently if the two loaves are not in the proper order with regard to a certain crop they do not permit that crop to be used in offerings in the Temple. This resolves Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma.

诪讬 住讘专转

In this manner Rabba has attempted to prove that the proper order of the omer offering followed by the two loaves is necessary to permit the new grain for use in meal offerings. The Gemara rejects the proof: Do you hold

Scroll To Top