מנחות סח

מנחות סח

מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא הִיתַּרְתָּה לוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי קִיטּוּף, זָכוּר הוּא.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תִּינַח קְצִירָה, טְחִינָה וְהַרְקָדָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, טְחִינָה – בְּרִיחְיָא דִּידָא, הַרְקָדָה – עַל גַּבֵּי נָפָה.

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

בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, דְּשַׁרְיָא קְצִירָה, דִּתְנַן: קוֹצְרִין בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין שֶׁבַּעֲמָקִים, אֲבָל לֹא גּוֹדְשִׁין – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חָדָשׁ – בָּדֵיל מִינֵּיהּ, חָמֵץ – לָא בָּדֵיל מִינֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא?

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא: הוּא עַצְמוֹ מְחַזֵּר עָלָיו לְשׂוֹרְפוֹ, מֵיכַל אָכֵיל מִינֵּיהּ?!

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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, ״קֶמַח קָלִי״ תְּנַן.

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

וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא, תִּינַח מִקָּלִי וְאֵילָךְ, עַד קָלִי מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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

וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי עַל יְדֵי קִיטּוּף, וְכִדְרַבָּה, בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין דְּשַׁרְיָא קְצִירָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא, הָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא.

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

מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר הוּתַּר חָדָשׁ מִיָּד, הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה הוּא אָסוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״, מִפְּנֵי מָה הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ.

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

גְּמָ׳ רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים – עוֹמֶר מַתִּיר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים – הֵאִיר מִזְרָח מַתִּיר.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא? תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי כְּתִיבִי: כְּתִיב ״עַד יוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם״, וּכְתִיב ״עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״. הָא כֵּיצַד?

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

כָּאן – בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, כָּאן – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים.

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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, הֵאִיר מִזְרָח מַתִּיר. וְהָכְתִיב: ״עַד הֲבִיאֲכֶם״! לְמִצְוָה.

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

מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, הוּתַּר חָדָשׁ מִיָּד! לְמִצְוָה.

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

הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה מַתִּיר בַּמְּדִינָה, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ! לְמִצְוָה.

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

מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְיֹאמְרוּ: אֶשְׁתָּקַד מִי לֹא אָכַלְנוּ בְּהֵאִיר מִזְרָח? הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי נֵיכוֹל!

The Gemara questions the claim that the purpose of waiting until the sacrifice of the omer is only in order to fulfill the mitzva in the most optimal fashion. The mishna teaches: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is completely prohibited and one may partake of the new crop only the next day. The Gemara analyzes this statement. What is the reason for this? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year [eshtakad], when there was no Temple, didn’t we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time.

וְלָא יָדְעִי, דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד לָא הֲוָה עוֹמֶר, הֵאִיר מִזְרָח מַתִּיר, וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא עוֹמֶר – עוֹמֶר מַתִּיר. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְמִצְוָה, מִשּׁוּם מִצְוָה לֵיקוּם וְלִיגְזוֹר?

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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה אָסוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״ –

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited by Torah law to eat of the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is stated: “And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14).

עַד עִיצּוּמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, וְקָסָבַר ״עַד״ וְעַד בַּכְּלָל.

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

וּמִי סָבַר לַהּ כְּוָותֵיהּ? וְהָא מִיפְלָג פְּלִיג עֲלֵיהּ! דִּתְנַן: מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה הוּא אָסוּר, דִּכְתִיב ״עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״!

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in the mishna: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: But isn’t it forbidden by Torah law, as it is written: “Until this selfsame day”? This indicates that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הוּא דְּקָא טָעֵי, הוּא סָבַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר, וְלָא הִיא, מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא קָאָמַר. וְהָא ״הִתְקִין״ קָתָנֵי? מַאי ״הִתְקִין״? דָּרַשׁ וְהִתְקִין.

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

רַב פָּפָּא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָכְלִי חָדָשׁ בְּאוּרְתָּא דְּשִׁיתְּסַר נַגְהֵי שִׁבְסַר, קָסָבְרִי: חָדָשׁ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּרַבָּנַן, וְלִסְפֵיקָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן.

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

וְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב אָשֵׁי אָכְלִי בְּצַפְרָא דְּשִׁבְסַר, קָסָבְרִי: חָדָשׁ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

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

וְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר, וְכִי תַּקֵּין לְיוֹם הֶנֶף – לִסְפֵיקָא לָא תַּקֵּין.

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

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אָמְרָה לִי אֵם – אֲבוּךְ לָא הֲוָה אָכֵיל חָדָשׁ אֶלָּא בְּאוּרְתָּא דְּשִׁבְסַר נַגְהֵי תְּמָנֵיסַר, דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְחָיֵישׁ לִסְפֵיקָא.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הָעוֹמֶר הָיָה מַתִּיר בַּמְּדִינָה, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בְּמִקְדָּשׁ. אֵין מְבִיאִין מְנָחוֹת, וּבִיכּוּרִים, וּמִנְחַת בְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, אִם הֵבִיא – פָּסוּל. קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם לֹא יָבִיא, אִם הֵבִיא – כָּשֵׁר.

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

גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְקָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מָה בֵּין קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר לְקוֹדֶם שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם?

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

אָמַר לְפָנָיו יְהוּדָה בַּר נְחֶמְיָה: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט, תֹּאמַר קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט?

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

שָׁתַק רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְחֶמְיָה, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: יְהוּדָה, צָהֲבוּ פָּנֶיךָ שֶׁהֵשַׁבְתָּ אֶת זָקֵן? תְּמֵהַנִי אִם תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: אוֹתוֹ הַפֶּרֶק פְּרֹס הַפֶּסַח הָיָה, כְּשֶׁעָלִיתִי לָעֲצֶרֶת שָׁאַלְתִּי אַחֲרָיו: יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְחֶמְיָה הֵיכָן הוּא? וְאָמְרוּ לִי: נִפְטַר וְהָלַךְ לוֹ.

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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְדִבְרֵי יְהוּדָה בֶּן נְחֶמְיָה, נְסָכִים בִּיכּוּרִים שֶׁהִקְרִיבָם קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר – כְּשֵׁירִין. פְּשִׁיטָא!

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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם הוּא דְּהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ אֵצֶל הֶדְיוֹט, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ – לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָכָא, דְּלָא אִיתְּסַר כְּלָל.

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

(סֵדֶר הֲנָצָא גְּלֵי פִּיל סִימָן.) בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם מַהוּ שֶׁיַּתִּירוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן?

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

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ בֵּין הָעוֹמֶר לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וַחֲלֵיף עֲלַיְיהוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְעוֹמֶר. מַאי? כְּסִדְרָן שַׁרְיָין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן לָא שַׁרְיָין? אוֹ דִלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן נָמֵי שַׁרְיָין.

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

אָמַר רַבָּה: תָּא שְׁמַע, ״וְאִם תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּכּוּרִים״ – בְּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. מֵהֵיכָן בָּאָה? מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַחִיטִּין?

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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיב״ בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְנֶאֱמַר ״אָבִיב״ לְדוֹרוֹת. מָה ״אָבִיב״ הָאָמוּר בְּמִצְרַיִם – שְׂעוֹרִין, אַף ״אָבִיב״ הָאָמוּר לְדוֹרוֹת – שְׂעוֹרִין.

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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָצִינוּ יָחִיד שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַחִיטִּין, וְחוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין.

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

וְצִיבּוּר שֶׁמְּבִיאִין חוֹבָתָן מִן הַחִיטִּין, מְבִיאִין חוֹבָתָן מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין, וְאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בָּא מִן הַחִיטִּין – לֹא מָצִינוּ צִיבּוּר שֶׁמֵּבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין.

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

דָּבָר אַחֵר: אִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עוֹמֶר בָּא מִן הַחִיטִּין – אֵין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם ״בִּיכּוּרִים״.

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

וְאִם אִיתָא דִּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן שַׁרְיָין, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּמַקְרֵיב עוֹמֶר מֵהָנָךְ דְּאַשְׁרוּשׁ קוֹדֶם לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וּבָתַר הָעוֹמֶר דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד.

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

וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם מֵהָנָךְ דְּאַשְׁרוּשׁ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר דְּהַשְׁתָּא, וּבָתַר שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד.

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

מִי סָבְרַתְּ

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