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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 2, 2018 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Menachot 84

Can the Omer and Shavuot offering come from produce from outside of Israel? How does one bring from the new crop on the Sabbatical year? What is the source that the Omer has to come from the new crop? The mishnaย in Bikurim says that the new fruits can’t come from fruits that are not good quality. There is an amoraiticย debate regarding the status of bad fruits that are anyway brought – are they sanctified or not? The gemara brings sources to questionย one of the opinions.


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

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจืฅ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืžืืจืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืœื

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืื• ืืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ืฉืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ืขื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืืจืฅ

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: โ€œWhen you come into the land which I give to youโ€ (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.

ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืื• ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yoseiโ€™s opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: โ€œFrom all your dwellingsโ€ (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: โ€œWhen you come into the land which I give to youโ€ (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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืกืคื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจืŸ ืžืชืจื•ืžืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื”

ยง 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 [sefiแธฅin] 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.

ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืชื ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืกืคื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจืŸ ืžืชืจื•ืžืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื” ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืœืื›ืœื” ื•ืœื ืœืฉืจื™ืคื”

Rami bar แธคama raises a contradiction to Rav แธคisda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefiแธฅin 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 yearโ€™s crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eatingโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืœื“ืจืชื™ื›ื ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ืชื™ื‘ื˜ืœ

Rav แธคisda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: โ€œIt is a statute forever throughout your generationsโ€ (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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ืื ื ืชื™ื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื“ืืฉืชืงื“ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื›ืจืžืœ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Rami bar แธคama 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 แธคisda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the โ€œfresh earโ€ (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.

ื•ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื›ืจืžืœ ื“ืืฉืชืงื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืจืžืœ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื›ืจืžืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืงืจื‘ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Rami bar แธคama 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 แธคisda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: โ€œFresh ear, you shall bringโ€ (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 yearโ€™s harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืจืžืœ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืงืฆื™ืจืš ืจืืฉื™ืช ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื•ืœื ืกื•ืฃ ืงืฆื™ืจืš

ยง An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous yearโ€™s crop: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says it is derived from: โ€œFresh ear, you shall bring,โ€ as Rav แธคisda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: โ€œThe first of your harvestโ€ (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 yearโ€™s crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous yearโ€™s crop.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lordโ€ (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?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžื” ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฆืจื™ื ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืืฃ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื

Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated โ€œin the ear,โ€ with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt: โ€œAnd the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloomโ€ (Exodus 9:31), and it is stated โ€œin the earโ€ with regard to the mitzva of the new crop, which is for all generations. Just as the term โ€œin the earโ€ that is stated with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt is referring to barley, as is clear from the next verse: โ€œBut the wheat and the spelt were not smitten; for they ripen lateโ€ (Exodus 9:32), so too the term โ€œin the earโ€ that is stated with regard to the new crop for all generations is referring to barley.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ

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 sinnerโ€™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.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

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: โ€œAlso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeksโ€ (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 Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., โ€œthe first of your harvest.โ€ The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉื‘ืขืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื

ยง 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: โ€œA land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not

ืžืชืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื”ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืžืงื™ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

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.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืฉืชื”ื ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื›ืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื›ื ืžื ื—ื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขืชื™ื›ื

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aแธฅa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: โ€œA first offering to the Lordโ€ (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: โ€œOn the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as โ€œnew,โ€ the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื“ืฉื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื

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 โ€œnew,โ€ and again states the word โ€œnew,โ€ 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.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ื’ ืฉื‘ืขืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืฆื™ืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ื’ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืžืขืฉื™ืš ืืฉืจ ืชื–ืจืข ื‘ืฉื“ื”

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: โ€œAnd you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvestโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the fieldโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉืชื–ืจืข ืขืœื• ืžืืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื”

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: โ€œWhich you will sow.โ€ From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: โ€œIn the fieldโ€ (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ื•ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฆื

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: โ€œThe first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yoursโ€ (Numbers 18:13). The term โ€œfirst fruitsโ€ 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.

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืžืขืฉื™ืš ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืืกืคืš ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ืœืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ืœืŸ

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: โ€œThe first fruits of your laborsโ€ (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: โ€œWhen you gather in the products of your labors from the field.โ€ Just as there, the term โ€œyour laborsโ€ 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.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืกื™ืคื ืืชืืŸ ืœืžื ื—ื•ืช

Rabbi Aแธฅa bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ullaโ€™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 Ullaโ€™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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ื•ืื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืชืื›ืœืŸ

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: โ€œThe first fruit of all that grows in their landโ€ (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ullaโ€™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: โ€œAny pure member of your household may eat of it,โ€ is difficult, as the phrase โ€œyour householdโ€ includes a priestโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืœืš ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช

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: โ€œThe first fruitโ€ฆshall be yoursโ€ (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: โ€œAny pure member of your household may eat of it,โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืจื ืืชืืŸ ืœืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื”

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.

ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืงื“ืฉ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ื›ื—ื•ืฉ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

ยง The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav Aแธฅa bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amoraโ€™im: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื–ืื™ ื‘ื—ืœื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžืืจืฆืš ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ืืจืฆืš

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 Yoแธฅanan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yoแธฅanan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: โ€œAnd you shall take from the first of all the fruitโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word โ€œfromโ€ 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: โ€œThat you shall bring from your land.โ€ The addition of the word โ€œfromโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืื™ ืืจืฆืš ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืืจืฅ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืืจืฅ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ืืจืฅ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ืืจืฅ

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term โ€œyour landโ€? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: โ€œFrom your landโ€ is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and โ€œlandโ€ is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: โ€œA land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืจืฅ ืžืืจืฅ

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, since he has already expounded the term โ€œfrom your landโ€ 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 Yoแธฅanan holds that since the Torah could have just written โ€œyour landโ€ but instead writes โ€œfrom your land,โ€ the word โ€œlandโ€ can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word โ€œfromโ€ can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืจืฅ ืžืืจืฅ ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

And the other one, Reish Lakish, what does he derive from the fact that the Torah adds the word โ€œfromโ€? He does not learn anything from the fact the Torah could have just written โ€œyour landโ€ but instead writes โ€œfrom your land.โ€ In Hebrew, the term: From your land, is expressed by a single word: Meโ€™artzekha. Reish Lakish holds that the verbal analogy uses the entire word.

ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื

ยง 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 26:1โ€“11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื’ื’ ืื’ื’ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื’ื’ ื“ืžืขืจื” ื”ื ื‘ื’ื’ ื“ื‘ื™ืช

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.

ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

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.

ืขืฆื™ืฅ ืืขืฆื™ืฅ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืงื•ื‘ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ืงื•ื‘ื”

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.

ืกืคื™ื ื” ืืกืคื™ื ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืฉืœ ื—ืจืก

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.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 84

ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืืจืฅ ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ืžืืจืฅ ืื™ืŸ ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืœื

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.

ื›ืžืืŸ ื“ืœื ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ืชื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืžื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื•ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืื• ืืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ืฉืœื ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ืขื•ืžืจ ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ื›ื ืกื• ืœืืจืฅ

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: โ€œWhen you come into the land which I give to youโ€ (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.

ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืžื•ืฉื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืืชื ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืื• ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yoseiโ€™s opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: โ€œFrom all your dwellingsโ€ (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: โ€œWhen you come into the land which I give to youโ€ (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.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืกืคื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจืŸ ืžืชืจื•ืžืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื”

ยง 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 [sefiแธฅin] 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.

ืจืžื™ ืœื™ื” ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืชื ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืจื™ ืกืคื™ื—ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื›ืจืŸ ืžืชืจื•ืžืช ื”ืœืฉื›ื” ื•ืจืžื™ื ื”ื• ืœืื›ืœื” ื•ืœื ืœืฉืจื™ืคื”

Rami bar แธคama raises a contradiction to Rav แธคisda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefiแธฅin 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 yearโ€™s crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eatingโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืืžืจ ืœืš ืœื“ืจืชื™ื›ื ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ืชื™ื‘ื˜ืœ

Rav แธคisda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: โ€œIt is a statute forever throughout your generationsโ€ (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?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืžื™ ืงืืžื™ื ื ืื ื ืชื™ื‘ื˜ืœ ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื“ืืฉืชืงื“ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื›ืจืžืœ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Rami bar แธคama 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 แธคisda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the โ€œfresh earโ€ (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.

ื•ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืžื›ืจืžืœ ื“ืืฉืชืงื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืจืžืœ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื›ืจืžืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืงืจื‘ื” ื•ืœื™ื›ื

Rami bar แธคama 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 แธคisda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: โ€œFresh ear, you shall bringโ€ (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 yearโ€™s harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ืจืžืœ ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืงืฆื™ืจืš ืจืืฉื™ืช ืงืฆื™ืจืš ื•ืœื ืกื•ืฃ ืงืฆื™ืจืš

ยง An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous yearโ€™s crop: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says it is derived from: โ€œFresh ear, you shall bring,โ€ as Rav แธคisda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: โ€œThe first of your harvestโ€ (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 yearโ€™s crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous yearโ€™s crop.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืื ืชืงืจื™ื‘ ืžื ื—ืช ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืžื”ื™ื›ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืื” ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lordโ€ (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?

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื‘ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืžื” ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฆืจื™ื ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืืฃ ืื‘ื™ื‘ ื”ืืžื•ืจ ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื‘ื ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื

Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated โ€œin the ear,โ€ with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt: โ€œAnd the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloomโ€ (Exodus 9:31), and it is stated โ€œin the earโ€ with regard to the mitzva of the new crop, which is for all generations. Just as the term โ€œin the earโ€ that is stated with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt is referring to barley, as is clear from the next verse: โ€œBut the wheat and the spelt were not smitten; for they ripen lateโ€ (Exodus 9:32), so too the term โ€œin the earโ€ that is stated with regard to the new crop for all generations is referring to barley.

ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืฃ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ื• ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ

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 sinnerโ€™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.

ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ืื ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืขื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืืœืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

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: โ€œAlso in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeksโ€ (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 Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., โ€œthe first of your harvest.โ€ The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื—ื•ืฅ ืžืฉื‘ืขืช ื”ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื

ยง 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: โ€œA land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not

ืžืชืžืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื”ืจื™ื ื•ืœื ืžืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ืขืžืงื™ื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื™ื“ืฉ

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.

ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื” ื•ืงื ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืฉืชื”ื ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื›ืœ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื›ื ืžื ื—ื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ืขืชื™ื›ื

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aแธฅa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: โ€œA first offering to the Lordโ€ (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: โ€œOn the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as โ€œnew,โ€ the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ื“ืฉื” ื—ื“ืฉื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื“ืฉื” ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื

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 โ€œnew,โ€ and again states the word โ€œnew,โ€ 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.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ื’ ืฉื‘ืขืช ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืงืฆื™ืจ ื—ื˜ื™ื ืงืฆื™ืจ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื—ื’ ื”ืงืฆื™ืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืžืขืฉื™ืš ืืฉืจ ืชื–ืจืข ื‘ืฉื“ื”

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: โ€œAnd you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvestโ€ (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: โ€œAnd the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the fieldโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืฉืชื–ืจืข ืขืœื• ืžืืœื™ื”ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื“ื”

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: โ€œWhich you will sow.โ€ From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: โ€œIn the fieldโ€ (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ื•ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ื‘ืืจืฆื

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: โ€œThe first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yoursโ€ (Numbers 18:13). The term โ€œfirst fruitsโ€ 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.

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืื™ืœืŸ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ ืžืขืฉื™ืš ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ื‘ืืกืคืš ืืช ืžืขืฉื™ืš ืžืŸ ื”ืฉื“ื” ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ืœืŸ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื•ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืื™ืœืŸ

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: โ€œThe first fruits of your laborsโ€ (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: โ€œWhen you gather in the products of your labors from the field.โ€ Just as there, the term โ€œyour laborsโ€ 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.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืกื™ืคื ืืชืืŸ ืœืžื ื—ื•ืช

Rabbi Aแธฅa bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ullaโ€™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 Ullaโ€™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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ื•ืื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช ืœื–ื›ืจื™ ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืชืื›ืœืŸ

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: โ€œThe first fruit of all that grows in their landโ€ (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ullaโ€™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: โ€œAny pure member of your household may eat of it,โ€ is difficult, as the phrase โ€œyour householdโ€ includes a priestโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืฉืจืฉื™ื ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืœืš ื™ื”ื™ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชืš ื™ืื›ืœ ืืชื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช

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: โ€œThe first fruitโ€ฆshall be yoursโ€ (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: โ€œAny pure member of your household may eat of it,โ€ 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.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืจื ืืชืืŸ ืœืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื”

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.

ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื ืงื“ืฉ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืงื“ืฉ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ื›ื—ื•ืฉ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

ยง The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav Aแธฅa bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amoraโ€™im: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื–ืื™ ื‘ื—ืœื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ืืžื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืžืจืืฉื™ืช ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžืืจืฆืš ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ืืจืฆืš

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 Yoแธฅanan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yoแธฅanan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: โ€œAnd you shall take from the first of all the fruitโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word โ€œfromโ€ 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: โ€œThat you shall bring from your land.โ€ The addition of the word โ€œfromโ€ 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.

ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื”ืื™ ืืจืฆืš ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื ืืžืจ ื›ืืŸ ืืจืฅ ื•ื ืืžืจ ืœื”ืœืŸ ืืจืฅ ืžื” ืœื”ืœืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ืืจืฅ ืืฃ ื›ืืŸ ืฉื‘ื— ืืจืฅ

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term โ€œyour landโ€? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: โ€œFrom your landโ€ is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and โ€œlandโ€ is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: โ€œA land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honeyโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืจืฅ ืžืืจืฅ

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, since he has already expounded the term โ€œfrom your landโ€ 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 Yoแธฅanan holds that since the Torah could have just written โ€œyour landโ€ but instead writes โ€œfrom your land,โ€ the word โ€œlandโ€ can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word โ€œfromโ€ can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืืจืฅ ืžืืจืฅ ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ืœื™ื”

And the other one, Reish Lakish, what does he derive from the fact that the Torah adds the word โ€œfromโ€? He does not learn anything from the fact the Torah could have just written โ€œyour landโ€ but instead writes โ€œfrom your land.โ€ In Hebrew, the term: From your land, is expressed by a single word: Meโ€™artzekha. Reish Lakish holds that the verbal analogy uses the entire word.

ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืฉื‘ื’ื’ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉื‘ืขืฆื™ืฅ ื•ืฉื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื

ยง 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 26:1โ€“11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื’ื’ ืื’ื’ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื’ื’ ื“ืžืขืจื” ื”ื ื‘ื’ื’ ื“ื‘ื™ืช

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.

ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืจื‘ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

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.

ืขืฆื™ืฅ ืืขืฆื™ืฅ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืงื•ื‘ื” ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ืงื•ื‘ื”

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.

ืกืคื™ื ื” ืืกืคื™ื ื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืฉืœ ืขืฅ ื›ืืŸ ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืฉืœ ื—ืจืก

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.

Scroll To Top