Menachot 63b — the Talmud in English

And is it stated “an offering, an offering” twice

so that you should say that an offering of loaves is called an offering in its own right, and an offering of wafers is called an offering in its own right?

But was only one offering stated [

and two types were written in it] —

and “loaves and wafers” were stated concerning it,

and it is thereby proved that these two types are called one offering. Therefore,

from now, if he wished to bring loaves, he brings

loaves. If he wished to bring

wafers, he brings

wafers. If he wished to bring

half loaves and half wafers, he brings

half loaves and half wafers. And after their baking, he breaks them into pieces,

and mixes them

together,

and he takes a handful from both of them. And if he took a handful and only

one

of the two came up for both, he has fulfilled his obligation,

because both the loaves and the wafers are one offering.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: From where [is it derived] that one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring a baked meal-offering,” may not bring half loaves and half wafers?

The verse says: “And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven,”

and it is written afterward:

“And every one made in a deep pan and on a griddle, to the priest who offers it, it shall belong. And every meal-offering mixed with oil

[a voluntary meal-offering]

and dry

[a sinner’s meal-offering]

shall belong to all the sons of Aaron.”

And we expound it as follows:

Just as “every” stated below —

two distinct types

they are; that is, a griddle meal-offering and a deep-pan meal-offering, and likewise a voluntary meal-offering and a sinner’s meal-offering, they are two distinct types that do not combine if he brings half from one type and half from the other type,

so too, “every” stated above

with regard to a baked-in-the-oven meal-offering, that is, loaves and wafers —

two distinct types

they are, and half of this and half of that do not combine.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives it from “one offering,” I told you, and not two offerings — is

he not correctly saying

to

Rabbi Shimon,

for from where is it implied that loaves and wafers should be considered two separate offerings!?

And we answer:

He could say

Rabbi Yehuda:

Since it is written

twice

“with oil —

with oil,”

this interrupted the matter, teaching us that they do not come together, and this is

as though it were written

concerning them twice

“offering —

offering,” it is comparable.

And we say:

And Rabbi Shimon

held:

If “with oil —

with oil” were not written,

meaning, “with oil” for each of them,

I would have said

since he did not interrupt between them,

specifically half loaves and half wafers

he should bring,

but loaves by themselves and wafers by themselves, say that he should not

bring; therefore

it teaches us “with oil — with oil,” that “with oil” interrupted between them, to say that he may also bring wafers by themselves or loaves by themselves. But half loaves and half wafers, it is obvious that he may bring.

“with oil—with oil”: the word “with oil” interrupts between them, to say that he may also bring wafers by themselves or loaves by themselves. But as for half loaves and half wafers, it is obvious that he may bring them.

And further we raise a difficulty:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon,

is he

Rabbi Yehuda

his father,

who also disagrees with Rabbi Shimon? And what did he add beyond his father!?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them —

if he did it,

if he made half loaves and half wafers. According to Rabbi Yehuda, who derives the reason from “one offering” and not two, this applies only ab initio, but after the fact they are valid. But according to Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, who derives it because “mixed” is analogous to “dry,” which are two types, just as when he mixed a sinner’s meal-offering and a voluntary meal-offering they are disqualified, so too, if he mixed and made half loaves and half wafers, all the breads are disqualified, even after the fact.

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Meal-Offerings Come Unleavened.”

A. The chapter before us deals with the minhat ha-omer, which was brought on the sixteenth of Nisan, and through it it became permitted to eat from the new grain in the provinces [but not in the Temple, for the offering of a meal-offering from the new grain did not become permitted until the bringing of the two loaves on Shavuot], as the verse says [Leviticus 23:9]: "

When you come into the land that I give you, and you reap its harvest. And you shall bring the omer of the first of your harvest to the kohen.

And he shall wave the omer before the Lord for your acceptance; on the day after the festival [on the day after the first day of Passover] the kohen shall wave it.

And you shall perform on the day of your waving the omer: a male lamb without blemish, in its first year, as an elevation-offering to the Lord. And its meal-offering shall be two tenths of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire-offering to the Lord, a pleasing fragrance; and its libation shall be a quarter of a hin of wine.

And bread, roasted grain, and fresh grain [made from the new grain] you shall not eat until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God, an eternal statute for your generations in all your dwelling places."

B. The verse further said [Leviticus 2:14]:

And if you bring [like “when you bring,” for this “if” is obligatory] a first-fruits meal-offering to the Lord [the verse is speaking of the minhat ha-omer]:

fresh grain [

it comes “fresh grain,” at the time when the grain is ripening],

roasted in fire,

crushed [

an expression of breaking and grinding, for the grain must be ground in a mill “ground”]

fresh grain [

soft grain that is rubbed by hand] you shall bring your first-fruits meal-offering.

And you shall put oil upon it and place frankincense upon it; it is a meal-offering. And the kohen shall burn its memorial portion, from its crushed grain and from its oil, together with all its frankincense, a fire-offering to the Lord."

C. The minhat ha-omer came as one tenth of an ephah of barley fine flour.

D. The harvesting of the grain for the minhat ha-omer was done on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan, and it overrides Shabbat.

E. The Boethusians, who disagreed with the Sages’ received tradition, interpreted “on the day after Shabbat” according to the plain meaning of Scripture: the day after the Shabbat following the first day of Passover. And in order to refute the Boethusians’ interpretation, the Sages instituted that the omer be harvested with great publicity.

Mishna:

Rabbi Ishmael says: The omer would be brought

when the sixteenth of Nisan fell

on Shabbat,

and its harvesting, grinding, and sifting were done on Shabbat,

from three seahs

of barley only; and they would grind them and sift them repeatedly until they would establish all three seahs as one tenth of an ephah of select fine flour, and that they would offer as the minhat ha-omer.

And

if the sixteenth of Nisan fell

on a weekday,

they would offer a tenth of an ephah that came

from five

seahs of barley, and they would take from each seah a little fine flour, which is the fine flour that comes out first from the sieve. And the Gemara explains the reason for the distinction between Shabbat and a weekday.

And the Sages say: Whether Shabbat or a weekday, from three

seahs only

would it come.

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the kohanim, says: On Shabbat it was harvested by

one

person, with one sickle and with one basket,

in which they would place the harvested grain.

And

if

on a weekday

it was harvested

by three

people,

with three baskets and with three sickles,

and this was in order to publicize the harvesting, to refute the view of the Boethusians, who interpreted “on the day after Shabbat” according to its plain meaning, namely, on Sunday of the week [which is called “the day after Shabbat”] that falls after the first day of Passover, unlike the words of the Sages, who received the interpretation that it means the day after the first day of the festival.

And the Sages say: Whether Shabbat or a weekday

the harvesting was done

by three

people,

with three baskets and with three sickles,

that is, even on Shabbat they would harvest publicly.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Ishmael says: The omer would come on Shabbat from three seahs, and on a weekday from five; and the Sages say: Whether Shabbat or a weekday, it would come from three:

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, the Rabbis,

who hold that whether on a weekday or on Shabbat the omer came from three seahs, their reason is clear, because

they hold

that the Rabbis say

a select tenth of an ephah

even

can come from three seahs [

it can be extracted],

and

therefore

it makes no difference whether on a weekday or whether on Shabbat,

it would come from three seahs.

But Rabbi Ishmael,

who distinguishes between a weekday and Shabbat,

what does he hold!?

If he holds that a select tenth of an ephah can come only from five,

for it is impossible to extract it in a select form except from five seahs, and since only from at least five seahs is it possible to take from the fine flour that comes out first [which is the most select flour], so that there will be from them a tenth of an ephah for the omer, then

even on Shabbat as well

he should bring the omer from five seahs, because it must be brought from the select grain.

And

if

Rabbi Ishmael holds that a select tenth of an ephah even

from three

seahs

can come, then

if so,

even on a weekday as well

they should need to bring it only from three seahs!?

Rava said,

he explained

Rava

the reason of Rabbi Ishmael:

Rabbi Ishmael holds: A select tenth of an ephah without exertion [

with little sifting exertion]

comes from five

seahs. But

with exertion [

with extensive sifting]

it comes

even

from three

seahs. That is, the tenth of an ephah that comes from five seahs is not absolutely more select than that which comes from three seahs, because through exertion one can extract a select tenth of an ephah even from three seahs. However, the tenth of an ephah that comes from five seahs is more excellent than that which comes from three seahs, for from each seah one extracts only that fine flour which comes out first; and therefore:

On a weekday we bring it from five,

on a weekday they bring a tenth of an ephah from five seahs, since

thus the matter is more excellent [

the matter is more excellent in this way]. But

on Shabbat

he harvests only three seahs and sifts them extensively, because

it is preferable that he increase one labor through sifting [

sifting, and it is a primary category of labor called “sifting”]

rather than increase many labors,

through harvesting, winnowing, selecting, grinding, and sifting of two additional seahs. That is, although by reducing the number of seahs on Shabbat there is not, in total, a reduction of labor, for opposite what he saves in harvesting and grinding he increases in the labor of sifting the small amount that he harvests, nevertheless, since the advantage of five seahs over three seahs is only because “the matter is more excellent,” therefore we say that it is preferable to reduce the types of the different labors.

Rabba said: Rabbi Ishmael

in our Mishna,

and Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

in the beraita brought immediately below,

said one thing [

the same reason for the words of both]:

The Paschal offering is slaughtered and its blood is sprinkled on the fourteenth of Nisan, and likewise its sacrificial portions are burned on the fourteenth of Nisan, even when it falls on Shabbat, and it is eaten on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan.

As it was taught: The fourteenth

of Nisan

that falls on Shabbat,

the sacrificial portions are burned on Shabbat, and in order to remove the sacrificial portions from the body of the animal, its hide must be removed. Although removing the hide is a “primary category of labor” among the thirty-nine primary categories of labor forbidden on Shabbat, a labor required for the Temple service was permitted on Shabbat; and here it is impossible to offer the sacrificial portions of the offering without removing its hide, and therefore he

removes the hide of the Paschal offering

on Shabbat [by way of its legs]

until the chest

only, because this removal is sufficient to remove its sacrificial portions,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka.

And the Sages say:

He removes the hide and continues

until he removes all of it,

because if he removes it only until the chest, there is thereby degradation of sacred things, to leave the Paschal offering partially skinned and standing thus until the night, since in this respect it resembles an animal carcass.

And Rabba infers that they said one thing —

Did Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka not say there,

regarding the Paschal offering,

wherever it is possible,

with a small amount of skinning,

we do not exert ourselves

on Shabbat to remove all of it, even though this involves degradation of sacred things —

here

regarding the omer,

also, since it is possible

by performing one labor many times,

we do not exert ourselves

to perform many labors, even though the tenth of an ephah would be more select if he exerted himself with many labors.

But the Gemara rejects Rabba’s proof:

From where [

do you know to say that one who prohibits this prohibits that as well]!?

But perhaps

it is only here that Rabbi Ishmael said

not to exert oneself with five seahs,

because

through reducing the exertion

there is no degradation of sacred things, but there

regarding removing the hide of the Paschal offering,

there is degradation of sacred things

if he does not remove all of it, for it resembles an animal carcass,