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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 2, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 mishna聽in Bikurim says that the new fruits can’t come from fruits that are not good quality. There is an amoraitic聽debate regarding the status of bad fruits that are anyway brought – are they sanctified or not? The gemara brings sources to question聽one of the opinions.


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

讗讘诇 讘讗专抓 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讗专抓 讗讬谉 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诪专 讘讗 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讻讬 转讘讗讜 讗诇 讛讗专抓 砖诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘注讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which I give to you鈥 (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.

讜拽住讘专 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诪砖诪注 讜讻讬 转讘讗讜 讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗拽专讜讘讬 谞诪讬 诪拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淔rom all your dwellings鈥 (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: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which I give to you鈥 (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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛

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 [sefi岣n] 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.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 转谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇砖专讬驻讛

Rami bar 岣ma raises a contradiction to Rav 岣sda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefi岣n 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鈥檚 crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eating鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 转讬讘讟诇

Rav 岣sda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: 鈥淚t is a statute forever throughout your generations鈥 (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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 转讬讘讟诇 诇讬讬转讬 诪讚讗砖转拽讚 讘注讬谞讗 讻专诪诇 讜诇讬讻讗

Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣sda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the 鈥渇resh ear鈥 (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.

讜诇讬讬转讬 诪讻专诪诇 讚讗砖转拽讚 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻专诪诇 转拽专讬讘 讘注讬谞讗 讻专诪诇 讘砖注转 讛拽专讘讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣sda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: 鈥淔resh ear, you shall bring鈥 (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鈥檚 harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻专诪诇 转拽专讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讱 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讱 讜诇讗 住讜祝 拽爪讬专讱

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous year鈥檚 crop: Rabbi Yo岣nan says it is derived from: 鈥淔resh ear, you shall bring,鈥 as Rav 岣sda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: 鈥淭he first of your harvest鈥 (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鈥檚 crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous year鈥檚 crop.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 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 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉

Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord鈥 (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?

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 砖注讜专讬诐 讗祝 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐

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 the 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.

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 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讗祝 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 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

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. 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.

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 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 转讬讜讘转讗

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: 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. Rabba explains the objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., 鈥渢he first of your harvest.鈥 The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗

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: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not

诪转诪专讬诐 砖讘讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪驻讬专讜转 砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讛 拽专讘谉 专讗砖讬转 砖转讛讗 专讗砖讬转 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讛拽专讬讘讻诐 诪谞讞讛 讞讚砖讛 诇讛壮 讘砖讘注转讬讻诐

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi A岣 bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: 鈥淎 first offering to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淥n the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as 鈥渘ew,鈥 the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讚砖讛 砖诇 讞讟讬诐 讞讚砖讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讚砖讛 讞讚砖讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讚砖讛 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讚砖讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐

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 鈥渘ew,鈥 and again states the word 鈥渘ew,鈥 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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讙 砖讘注转 转注砖讛 诇讱 讘讻讜专讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 拽爪讬专 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讙 讛拽爪讬专 讘讻讜专讬 诪注砖讬讱 讗砖专 转讝专注 讘砖讚讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvest鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the field鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖转讝专注 注诇讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖讚讛

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: 鈥淲hich you will sow.鈥 From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: 鈥淚n the field鈥 (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讚讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讘讙讙 讜砖讘讞讜专讘讛 讜砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专讬 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讗专爪诐

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: 鈥淭he first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:13). The term 鈥渇irst fruits鈥 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.

诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻讜专讬 诪注砖讬讱 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘讗住驻讱 讗转 诪注砖讬讱 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬诇谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬诇谉

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: 鈥淭he first fruits of your labors鈥 (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: 鈥淲hen you gather in the products of your labors from the field.鈥 Just as there, the term 鈥測our labors鈥 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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 砖讘讙讙 砖讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇诪谞讞讜转

Rabbi A岣 bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ulla鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讘讘讬转讱 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 讜讗讬 诪谞讞讜转 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讬转讗讻诇谉

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: 鈥淭he first fruit of all that grows in their land鈥 (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ulla鈥檚 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: 鈥淎ny pure member of your household may eat of it,鈥 is difficult, as the phrase 鈥測our household鈥 includes a priest鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讘讘讬转讱 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞讜转

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: 鈥淭he first fruit鈥shall be yours鈥 (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: 鈥淎ny pure member of your household may eat of it,鈥 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 讘诪谞讞讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 讗转讗谉 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛

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.

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 拽讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 拽讚砖 谞注砖讛 讻讻讞讜砖 讘拽讚砖讬诐

搂 The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav A岣 bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amora鈥檌m: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝讗讬 讘讞诇讜诐 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪专讗砖讬转 讜诇讗 讻诇 专讗砖讬转 诪讗专爪讱 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗专爪讱

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 Yo岣nan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yo岣nan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: 鈥淎nd you shall take from the first of all the fruit鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word 鈥渇rom鈥 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: 鈥淭hat you shall bring from your land.鈥 The addition of the word 鈥渇rom鈥 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.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 讗专爪讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讗专抓 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讘讞 讗专抓 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讘讞 讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term 鈥測our land鈥? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: 鈥淔rom your land鈥 is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and 鈥渓and鈥 is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗专抓 诪讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yo岣nan, since he has already expounded the term 鈥渇rom your land鈥 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 Yo岣nan holds that since the Torah could have just written 鈥測our land鈥 but instead writes 鈥渇rom your land,鈥 the word 鈥渓and鈥 can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word 鈥渇rom鈥 can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗专抓 诪讗专抓 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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

转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讘讙讙 讜砖讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗

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鈥11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙讙 讗讙讙 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讙 讚诪注专讛 讛讗 讘讙讙 讚讘讬转

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.

讞讜专讘讛 讗讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜专讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讻讗谉 讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讘讜讚讛

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.

注爪讬抓 讗注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讜讘讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘讛

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.

住驻讬谞讛 讗住驻讬谞讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 注抓 讻讗谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住

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 month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讗讘诇 讘讗专抓 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讗专抓 讗讬谉 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

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.

讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 注讜诪专 讘讗 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讻讬 转讘讗讜 讗诇 讛讗专抓 砖诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘注讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讗专抓

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: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which I give to you鈥 (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.

讜拽住讘专 讞讚砖 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转诐 讬讜砖讘讬谉 诪砖诪注 讜讻讬 转讘讗讜 讝诪谉 讘讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗拽专讜讘讬 谞诪讬 诪拽专讬讘讬谉

The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: 鈥淔rom all your dwellings鈥 (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: 鈥淲hen you come into the land which I give to you鈥 (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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛

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 [sefi岣n] 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.

专诪讬 诇讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 转谞谉 砖讜诪专讬 住驻讬讞讬谉 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞讜讟诇讬谉 砖讻专谉 诪转专讜诪转 讛诇砖讻讛 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诇讗讻诇讛 讜诇讗 诇砖专讬驻讛

Rami bar 岣ma raises a contradiction to Rav 岣sda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefi岣n 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鈥檚 crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eating鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讱 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讜讗转 讗诪专转 转讬讘讟诇

Rav 岣sda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: 鈥淚t is a statute forever throughout your generations鈥 (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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 转讬讘讟诇 诇讬讬转讬 诪讚讗砖转拽讚 讘注讬谞讗 讻专诪诇 讜诇讬讻讗

Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣sda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the 鈥渇resh ear鈥 (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.

讜诇讬讬转讬 诪讻专诪诇 讚讗砖转拽讚 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻专诪诇 转拽专讬讘 讘注讬谞讗 讻专诪诇 讘砖注转 讛拽专讘讛 讜诇讬讻讗

Rami bar 岣ma 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 岣sda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: 鈥淔resh ear, you shall bring鈥 (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鈥檚 harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.

讗讬转诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻专诪诇 转拽专讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讱 专讗砖讬转 拽爪讬专讱 讜诇讗 住讜祝 拽爪讬专讱

搂 An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous year鈥檚 crop: Rabbi Yo岣nan says it is derived from: 鈥淔resh ear, you shall bring,鈥 as Rav 岣sda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: 鈥淭he first of your harvest鈥 (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鈥檚 crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous year鈥檚 crop.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 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 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉

Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord鈥 (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?

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 砖注讜专讬诐 讗祝 讗讘讬讘 讛讗诪讜专 诇讚讜专讜转 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬诐

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 the 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.

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 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讜讗祝 爪讬讘讜专 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 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

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. 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.

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 讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 转讬讜讘转讗

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: 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. Rabba explains the objection to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., 鈥渢he first of your harvest.鈥 The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讞讜抓 诪砖讘注转 讛诪讬谞讬谉 讜诇讗

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: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not

诪转诪专讬诐 砖讘讛专讬诐 讜诇讗 诪驻讬专讜转 砖讘注诪拽讬诐 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

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.

讬转讬讘 专讘讛 讜拽讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讛 拽专讘谉 专讗砖讬转 砖转讛讗 专讗砖讬转 诇讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讛拽专讬讘讻诐 诪谞讞讛 讞讚砖讛 诇讛壮 讘砖讘注转讬讻诐

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi A岣 bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: 鈥淎 first offering to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淥n the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as 鈥渘ew,鈥 the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讚砖讛 砖诇 讞讟讬诐 讞讚砖讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讚砖讛 讞讚砖讛 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讚砖讛 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讚砖讛 砖诇 砖注讜专讬诐

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 鈥渘ew,鈥 and again states the word 鈥渘ew,鈥 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.

讜诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇讘讬讻讜专讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讙 砖讘注转 转注砖讛 诇讱 讘讻讜专讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻讜专讬 拽爪讬专 讞讟讬诐 拽爪讬专 砖注讜专讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讞讙 讛拽爪讬专 讘讻讜专讬 诪注砖讬讱 讗砖专 转讝专注 讘砖讚讛

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: 鈥淎nd you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvest鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the field鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 砖转讝专注 注诇讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖讚讛

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: 鈥淲hich you will sow.鈥 From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: 鈥淚n the field鈥 (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘砖讚讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖讘讙讙 讜砖讘讞讜专讘讛 讜砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻讜专讬 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讗专爪诐

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: 鈥淭he first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:13). The term 鈥渇irst fruits鈥 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.

诪谞讬谉 砖转讛讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讛讗讬诇谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讘讻讜专讬 诪注砖讬讱 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讘讗住驻讱 讗转 诪注砖讬讱 诪谉 讛砖讚讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬诇谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞住讻讬诐 讜驻讬专讜转 讗讬诇谉

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: 鈥淭he first fruits of your labors鈥 (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: 鈥淲hen you gather in the products of your labors from the field.鈥 Just as there, the term 鈥測our labors鈥 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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 砖讘讙讙 砖讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇诪谞讞讜转

Rabbi A岣 bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ulla鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讘讘讬转讱 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 讜讗讬 诪谞讞讜转 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讬转讗讻诇谉

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: 鈥淭he first fruit of all that grows in their land鈥 (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ulla鈥檚 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: 鈥淎ny pure member of your household may eat of it,鈥 is difficult, as the phrase 鈥測our household鈥 includes a priest鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 讟讛讜专 讘讘讬转讱 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讻讗谉 讘讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘诪谞讞讜转

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: 鈥淭he first fruit鈥shall be yours鈥 (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: 鈥淎ny pure member of your household may eat of it,鈥 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讜诇讬讛 讘诪谞讞讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讚拽专讗 讗转讗谉 诇诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛

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.

讘驻诇讜讙转讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 诇讗 拽讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗诐 讛讘讬讗 拽讚砖 谞注砖讛 讻讻讞讜砖 讘拽讚砖讬诐

搂 The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav A岣 bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amora鈥檌m: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讚讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讝讗讬 讘讞诇讜诐 诪讬诇转讗 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪专讗砖讬转 讜诇讗 讻诇 专讗砖讬转 诪讗专爪讱 讜诇讗 讻诇 讗专爪讱

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 Yo岣nan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yo岣nan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: 鈥淎nd you shall take from the first of all the fruit鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word 鈥渇rom鈥 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: 鈥淭hat you shall bring from your land.鈥 The addition of the word 鈥渇rom鈥 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.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 讗专爪讱 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讗专抓 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讗专抓 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讘讞 讗专抓 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讘讞 讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term 鈥測our land鈥? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: 鈥淔rom your land鈥 is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and 鈥渓and鈥 is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: 鈥淎 land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey鈥 (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.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗专抓 诪讗专抓

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yo岣nan, since he has already expounded the term 鈥渇rom your land鈥 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 Yo岣nan holds that since the Torah could have just written 鈥測our land鈥 but instead writes 鈥渇rom your land,鈥 the word 鈥渓and鈥 can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word 鈥渇rom鈥 can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗专抓 诪讗专抓 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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

转谞讬 讞讚讗 砖讘讙讙 讜砖讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讘注爪讬抓 讜砖讘住驻讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗 讜拽讜专讗 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讜专讗

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鈥11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讙讙 讗讙讙 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讙讙 讚诪注专讛 讛讗 讘讙讙 讚讘讬转

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.

讞讜专讘讛 讗讞讜专讘讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讞讜专讘讛 注讘讜讚讛 讻讗谉 讘讞讜专讘讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讘讜讚讛

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.

注爪讬抓 讗注爪讬抓 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞拽讜讘讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讜 谞拽讜讘讛

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.

住驻讬谞讛 讗住驻讬谞讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 注抓 讻讗谉 讘住驻讬谞讛 砖诇 讞专住

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