Menachot 84

אבל בארץ לא פליגי דעומר ושתי הלחם מארץ אין מחוצה לארץ לא

But with regard to the requirement to use grain grown in Eretz Yisrael, they do not disagree that if the omer and the two loaves come from Eretz Yisrael, indeed, they are valid, but if they come from outside of Eretz Yisrael, they are not valid.

כמאן דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר עומר בא מחוצה לארץ ומה אני מקיים כי תבאו אל הארץ שלא נתחייבו בעומר קודם שנכנסו לארץ

In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that the omer may come from outside of Eretz Yisrael. How do I realize the meaning of the verse that introduces the obligation to bring the omer: “When you come into the land which I give to you” (Leviticus 23:10)? This verse appears to indicate that the bringing of the omer is restricted to Eretz Yisrael. That verse teaches that the Jewish people were not obligated in the mitzva of bringing the omer before they entered Eretz Yisrael.

וקסבר חדש בחוצה לארץ דאורייתא היא דכתיב ממושבתיכם כל מקום שאתם יושבין משמע וכי תבאו זמן ביאה היא וכיון דאורייתא היא אקרובי נמי מקריבין

The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: “From all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:17), which indicates that the prohibition applies anywhere that you dwell, even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, the earlier verse, which introduces the prohibition with: “When you come into the land which I give to you” (Leviticus 23:10), is a reference to the time of the Jewish people entering Eretz Yisrael, and it indicates that the prohibition takes effect only from that time. And since Rabbi Yosei holds that the new crop outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited for consumption by Torah law, he consequently holds that one may also offer the omer from crops grown there.

תנן התם שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 4:1): The guards who are appointed by the court to protect some of the produce that grew without being purposely planted [sefiḥin] during the Sabbatical Year, in order that it can be used for the omer and the offering of the two loaves, collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.

רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא תנן שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ורמינהו לאכלה ולא לשריפה

Rami bar Ḥama raises a contradiction to Rav Ḥisda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefiḥin during the Sabbatical Year collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. This indicates that even in the Sabbatical Year, the omer is brought from that year’s crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: “And the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eating” (Leviticus 25:6), which indicates it is to be used for eating, but not for burning. Accordingly, since the omer is burned on the altar, it should not be brought from produce of the Sabbatical Year.

אמר ליה רחמנא אמר לך לדרתיכם ואת אמרת תיבטל

Rav Ḥisda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: “It is a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 23:14), indicating that the mitzva can be fulfilled in all times, and you say the omer should be canceled in a Sabbatical Year?

אמר ליה ומי קאמינא אנא תיבטל לייתי מדאשתקד בעינא כרמל וליכא

Rami bar Ḥama said to him: But am I saying that the omer should be canceled? Certainly not. Let one bring the omer from grain that sprouted during the previous year, concerning which there is no prohibition against burning it. Rav Ḥisda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the “fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14), i.e., young grain, and this requirement is not fulfilled with grain that sprouted during the previous year, as it has already been growing a long time.

ולייתי מכרמל דאשתקד אמר קרא כרמל תקריב בעינא כרמל בשעת הקרבה וליכא

Rami bar Ḥama persists: But let one bring the omer from the young grain that was cut during the harvest of the previous year, when it was still fresh. Rav Ḥisda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: “Fresh ear, you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:14). The juxtaposition of the mitzva to bring the grain with the requirement that it be young indicates that I need it to still be young grain at the time of offering it, and this condition is not fulfilled if one uses grain from the previous year’s harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.

איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר כרמל תקריב רבי אלעזר אומר ראשית קצירך ראשית קצירך ולא סוף קצירך

§ An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous year’s crop: Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is derived from: “Fresh ear, you shall bring,” as Rav Ḥisda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: “The first of your harvest” (Leviticus 23:10), which indicates that the omer is brought only from the first of your harvest, i.e., from the first produce of the current year’s crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous year’s crop.

מותיב רבה ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר מהיכן היא באה מן השעורים אתה אומר מן השעורים או אינו אלא מן החיטין

Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: “And when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:14). The verse is speaking of the omer meal offering. From which type of grain does it come? It comes from barley. Do you say that it comes from barley, or does it come only from wheat?

רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר אביב במצרים ונאמר אביב לדורות מה אביב האמור במצרים שעורים אף אביב האמור לדורות אינו בא אלא מן השעורים

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

רבי עקיבא אומר מצינו יחיד שמביא חובתו מן החיטין ומביא חובתו מן השעורין ואף ציבור מביא חובתו מן החיטין ומביא חובתו מן השעורין אם אתה אומר מן החיטין לא מצינו ציבור שמביא חובתו מן השעורין

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’s meal offering or the meal offering of a sota. 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 the offering 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 their obligation of a meal offering from barley. Consequently, it must be that the omer offering comes from barley.

דבר אחר אם אתה אומר עומר בא מן החיטין אין שתי הלחם ביכורים אלמא משום ביכורים הוא תיובתא

Rabbi Akiva suggests another proof: Alternatively, if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be brought from the first fruits. The verse states that the two loaves offering of Shavuot should come from the first fruits: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeks” (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. Rabba explains the objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., “the first of your harvest.” The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.

תנן התם אין מביאין ביכורים חוץ משבעת המינין ולא

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bikkurim 1:3): One may bring first fruits only from the seven species with which Eretz Yisrael is praised in the verse: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not

מתמרים שבהרים ולא מפירות שבעמקים אמר עולא אם הביא לא קידש

bring them from dates that grow in the mountains, and one may not bring them from produce that grows in the valleys. Such produce is of inferior quality and may not be used. Ulla says: Even if one did bring such produce, he does not thereby consecrate it, i.e., it does not attain the consecrated status of first fruits.

יתיב רבה וקא אמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רבי אחא בר אבא לרבה קרבן ראשית שתהא ראשית לכל המנחות וכן הוא אומר בהקריבכם מנחה חדשה לה׳ בשבעתיכם

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: “A first offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11), which indicates that it is to be the first of all the meal offerings that come from the new crop. And similarly the verse states with regard to the festival of Shavuot: “On the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as “new,” the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

אין לי אלא חדשה של חטים חדשה של שעורים מנין תלמוד לומר חדשה חדשה אם אינו ענין לחדשה של חיטין תנהו ענין לחדשה של שעורים

I have derived only that it must be new, i.e., the first, of all wheat meal offerings. From where do I derive that it must also be new, i.e., the first, of all barley meal offerings, e.g., the meal offering of a sota? With regard to the two loaves, the verse states the word “new,” and again states the word “new,” once in Numbers 28:26 and again in Leviticus 23:16. If the second mention is not needed to teach the matter of being the new meal offering of wheat, apply it to the matter of being the new meal offering of barley.

ומנין שתהא קודמת לביכורים תלמוד לומר וחג שבעת תעשה לך בכורי קציר חטים ואין לי אלא בכורי קציר חטים קציר שעורים מנין תלמוד לומר וחג הקציר בכורי מעשיך אשר תזרע בשדה

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the two loaves precede the bringing of the first fruits as well? The verse states: “And you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvest” (Exodus 34:22). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the Festival, which is the two loaves offering, precedes the bringing of the first fruits of the wheat harvest. I have derived only that the two loaves precede the first fruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that they also precede the bringing of the first fruits of the barley harvest? The verse states with regard to the festival of Shavuot: “And the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the field” (Exodus 23:16). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the Festival, which is the two loaves offering, precedes all forms of first fruits that are sown in the field, which includes barley.

ואין לי אלא שתזרע עלו מאליהן מנין תלמוד לומר בשדה

From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of the first fruits that sprouted from seeds you sowed, as the verse states: “Which you will sow.” From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: “In the field” (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

ואין לי אלא בשדה מנין לרבות שבגג ושבחורבה ושבעציץ ושבספינה תלמוד לומר בכורי כל אשר בארצם

The baraita continues: From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of produce that grew in a field. From where do I derive to include even produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, or that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship? The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “The first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13). The term “first fruits” in this verse is referring to all types of first fruits. This teaches that when the two loaves are referred to as the first fruits (see Exodus 34:22), the intention is that they should be brought first before all other types of produce.

מנין שתהא קודמת לנסכים ופירות האילן נאמר כאן בכורי מעשיך ונאמר להלן באספך את מעשיך מן השדה מה להלן נסכים ופירות אילן אף כאן נסכים ופירות אילן

The baraita concludes: From where is it derived that the offering of the two loaves is to precede both the bringing of libations from grapes of the new crop and the bringing of the first fruits of the tree? It is stated here, with regard to the two loaves: “The first fruits of your labors” (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: “When you gather in the products of your labors from the field.” Just as there, the term “your labors” is referring both to fruits used for the libations and the fruit of the tree, so too, here, the term is referring to both fruits used for the libations and the fruit of the tree.

קתני מיהא שבגג שבחורבה שבעציץ ושבספינה סיפא אתאן למנחות

Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ulla’s ruling: In any event, it was taught in this baraita that bringing the two loaves must precede even the bringing of produce that grew on a roof, that grew in a ruin, that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship. This indicates that all these types of produce are valid to be brought as first fruits, despite the fact that they are of inferior quality. This would appear to contradict Ulla’s ruling that dates that grow in the mountains and produce grown in the valleys are not fit to be brought as first fruits. Rabba explains: Whereas in the first clause, the baraita discusses which types of produce can be used for the first fruits, in the latter clause we come to discuss which grains can be used for meal offerings. Produce that grew in these atypical locations is valid to be brought as meal offerings, but not as first fruits.

מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה אי הכי היינו דכתיב כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו ואי מנחות לזכרי כהונה הוא דמיתאכלן

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: “The first fruit of all that grows in their land” (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ulla’s opinion by explaining that the verse concerns meal offerings only. Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: If so, that which is written in the latter part of the verse: “Any pure member of your household may eat of it,” is difficult, as the phrase “your household” includes a priest’s wife and daughters and teaches that they may also partake of the priestly gifts referred to in the verse; but if the verse is referring to meal offerings, that is problematic as they are permitted to be eaten only by male priests.

אמר רב משרשיא תרי קראי כתיבי לך יהיה וכתיב כל טהור בביתך יאכל אתו הא כיצד כאן בביכורים כאן במנחות

In resolution of this difficulty, Rav Mesharshiyya said: Perforce this verse should be read as if two verses are written, as otherwise it contains an inherent contradiction: The first clause states: “The first fruit…shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13), indicating that only a priest himself may partake of the priestly gifts. And it is written in the continuation of the verse: “Any pure member of your household may eat of it,” indicating that even female family members may partake of it. How can these texts be reconciled? Here, the latter part of the verse, concerns the first fruits, which even female family members may eat, and there, the first part of the verse, concerns meal offerings, which may be eaten only by male priests.

רב אשי אמר כוליה במנחות וסיפא דקרא אתאן ללחמי תודה

Rav Ashi said that there is an alternative resolution: The verse in its entirety concerns meal offerings, but with the latter clause of the verse we come to the specific case of the loaves of a thanks offering, which even female family members of the priest may eat.

בפלוגתא רבי יוחנן אמר אם הביא לא קדש ריש לקיש אמר אם הביא קדש נעשה ככחוש בקדשים

§ The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav Aḥa bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amora’im: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if one did bring mountain dates or valley produce as first fruits, he does not thereby consecrate them, i.e., they do not attain the sanctified status of first fruits. Reish Lakish says: If one did bring them, he has consecrated them; they are regarded just like a gaunt animal with regard to sacrificial animals. Although it is improper to consecrate such animals or such produce as an offering, if one does, the consecration certainly takes effect.

בשלמא ריש לקיש כדאמר טעמא אלא רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא אמר רבי אלעזר רבי יוחנן חזאי בחלום מילתא מעלייתא אמינא אמר קרא מראשית ולא כל ראשית מארצך ולא כל ארצך

The Gemara discusses the dispute: Granted, the opinion of Reish Lakish is well founded, as he stated the reason for his ruling. But as for Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: “And you shall take from the first of all the fruit” (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word “from” indicates that one should take from some of the first fruits, but not from all the first fruits. This teaches that one should use only the seven species for the mitzva. The verse continues: “That you shall bring from your land.” The addition of the word “from” indicates that one should take first fruits from some areas of the land, but not from all areas in your land. This teaches that one should not take dates from the mountains or produce from the valleys.

וריש לקיש האי ארצך מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא רבן גמליאל בר רבי אומר נאמר כאן ארץ ונאמר להלן ארץ מה להלן שבח ארץ אף כאן שבח ארץ

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term “your land”? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: “From your land” is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and “land” is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), which are the seven species. This serves as the basis for a verbal analogy and teaches that just as there, the verse is referring only to the produce that is the praise of Eretz Yisrael, so too, here, with regard to the mitzva to bring the first fruits, the verse is referring only to the produce that is the praise of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the seven species.

ואידך ארץ מארץ

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yoḥanan, since he has already expounded the term “from your land” to teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce, from where does he derive that only the seven species may be used? Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that since the Torah could have just written “your land” but instead writes “from your land,” the word “land” can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word “from” can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

ואידך ארץ מארץ לא משמע ליה

And the other one, Reish Lakish, what does he derive from the fact that the Torah adds the word “from”? He does not learn anything from the fact the Torah could have just written “your land” but instead writes “from your land.” In Hebrew, the term: From your land, is expressed by a single word: Me’artzekha. Reish Lakish holds that the verbal analogy uses the entire word.

תני חדא שבגג ושבחורבה שבעציץ ושבספינה מביא וקורא ותניא אידך מביא ואינו קורא

§ It is taught in one baraita: With regard to produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, or that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship, the owner brings it to the Temple and recites the accompanying passage of thanks to God (see Deuteronomy 26:1–11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

בשלמא ריש לקיש גג אגג לא קשיא הא בגג דמערה הא בגג דבית

The Gemara attempts to reconcile the baraitot: Granted according to Reish Lakish, both baraitot accord with his opinion that even inferior produce can be brought as first fruits, and they contradict each other only with regard to whether or not one should recite the accompanying passage. And even with regard to that, the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew on a roof is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew on a roof is not difficult. One can explain that this baraita, which states that the passage is recited, is referring to a roof of a cave, which is considered part of the ground, whereas that baraita, which states that the passage is not recited, is referring to a roof of a house.

חורבה אחורבה לא קשיא כאן בחורבה עבודה כאן בחורבה שאינה עבודה

Similarly, the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew in a ruin is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew in a ruin is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited, is referring to a cultivated ruin, whereas there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited, is referring to an uncultivated ruin.

עציץ אעציץ לא קשיא כאן בנקובה כאן בשאינו נקובה

And the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew in a flowerpot is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew in a flowerpot is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited, is referring to a perforated flowerpot, where the produce is able to draw nourishment from the soil beneath it, whereas there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited, is referring to an unperforated flowerpot.

ספינה אספינה לא קשיא כאן בספינה של עץ כאן בספינה של חרס

And the fact that the ruling of one baraita about fruit that grew on a ship is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about fruit that grew on a ship is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited is referring to a ship made of wood, where the fruit were able to draw nourishment through the wood from the ground, whereas, there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited is referring to a ship made of earthenware.