Menachot 68a (סח.) — the Talmud in English

He said

and resolved:

Rabba: The case of new grain is different,

since, because you permitted him to do so only by plucking

plucking by hand, as in: “and you shall pluck the ears with your hand” [Deuteronomy 23]. For by Torah law they are prohibited for reaping before the reaping of the omer, and necessarily they would reap them by plucking them by hand],

he remembers

the prohibition against eating the grain, and there is no concern that he might come to eat it.

Abaye

objected

to him: This works for reaping

which they would perform with the consent of the Sages, once you have explained that they had a reminder, but

grinding and sifting

of the new grain

what can be said [what can you say]? For it follows that they were engaging in their usual activities, which were prohibited, and nevertheless—according to Rabbi Yehuda—they did not fear that he might eat from it. This is difficult from the case of leaven, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda did fear this possibility!?

what answer can you give? They were evidently engaged in these activities in the ordinary manner, which was forbidden, and nevertheless, according to Rabbi Yehuda, they were not concerned that he might eat from it. This contradicts the case of leavened food, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda did have this concern!

And we answer:

This—

is not difficult:

For indeed, even

the grinding

was not performed in the usual manner, with a water mill, but

with a hand mill

[a hand-operated mill].

And even

the sifting

was not performed in the usual manner, but

on top of the sieve

[behind it], rather than inside it as usual. In this way they would remember that it was prohibited and would not eat from it.

We still raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yehuda from the case of leaven, based on the Mishna below, 71a:

The irrigated field in the valleys—

in which reaping is permitted

—

to reap,

as

it is taught: “

They may reap

a field,

an irrigated field in the valleys

but they may not pile the grain

[they may not make a heap of the grain].” This implies that they may reap it ab initio;

what can be said!?

In other words, that Mishna presents a difficulty for Rabbi Yehuda: How is it permitted to reap it, when even the produce of an irrigated field is prohibited on account of new grain!?

Rather, Abaye said

to resolve the reason why, concerning new grain, according to Rabbi Yehuda we do not fear that one might eat from it, whereas concerning leaven Rabbi Yehuda himself did fear that one might eat from it:

New grain—

one distances himself from it.

A person is not accustomed to eating it throughout the year, and is not accustomed to reach out to the new grain and bring it to his mouth. But

from leaven, one does not distance himself,

as he is accustomed to eating it throughout the year.

Rava

objected:

He said:

Is it only

the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda

that is

difficult,

so that you are satisfied with resolving his position through the distinction explained, whereas

the contradiction between the Sages and the Sages is not difficult!?

For one can raise the reverse difficulty from the words of the Sages: They feared, concerning new grain, that one might eat from it, but they did not fear this concerning leaven. We have still resolved nothing concerning this.

Rather, Rava said: The contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we answered

[according to Abaye’s answer: one distances himself from new grain, but not from leaven].

And the contradiction between the Sages and the Sages is not difficult,

because with regard to leaven there is reason to say that one need not fear that he will come to eat it while searching for leaven, because at that time

he himself is searching for it

[for the leaven]

in order to burn it,

and

would he eat from it!?

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s statements:

The contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult,

because

flour

and

parched grain

are what we have been taught—that these were prepared before the bringing of the omer. Neither of these is fit for eating: flour is not fit for eating, and parched grain, once roasted in fire, hardens and is not fit to eat as it is. Therefore, it is permitted.

meaning that these were the things they prepared before the bringing of the Omer. Neither of these is fit for eating: flour is not ordinarily eaten, and parched grain, once roasted in fire, becomes hard and is not fit to eat as it is. Therefore, it is permitted.

But the Gemara rejects Rav Ashi’s statement:

But this statement of Rav Ashi—

is an external opinion

[a peripheral opinion], for this is not so.

For

this works only from the parched grain onward; but until the parched grain, what can be said?

That is, indeed, once it has been made into flour or parched grain, there is no concern that one might eat it; but at the time of reaping and grinding, there is concern that he might eat it.

And if you would say

to resolve this:

here too,

there is no concern that he might eat it, because in any event they reap

by plucking

by hand, and because of this they remember not to eat it,

as in Rabba’s explanation

[and as in Rabba’s resolution above]—

Nevertheless,

the irrigated field

in the valleys,

in which reaping is permitted—

as is explained in the Mishna below, 71a: “They may reap an irrigated field in the valleys”—

what can be said,

what resolution can you offer!?

Rather, this statement of Rav Ashi is an external opinion!

A. It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 23:9]: “

When you enter the land that I am giving you, and you reap its harvest, and you bring the omer of the first of your harvest to the priest. He shall wave the omer before the Lord for your acceptance; on the day after the day of rest. And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain [made from the new grain] until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God; it is an eternal statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places.”

B. The Mishnayot in this chapter until this Mishna dealt with the laws of the omer offering, whereas from this Mishna onward the Mishnayot deal with the law permitting the new grain through the omer.

C. Our Mishna is interpreted according to the plain meaning of its wording, as Rav and Shmuel indeed hold in the Gemara. Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, however, explain the Mishna differently, as will be explained in the Gemara’s discussion of our Mishna.

Mishna:

Once the omer has been offered

on the sixteenth of Nisan,

the new grain

[the new produce]

is permitted immediately.

Those who are distant

from Jerusalem and do not know when the omer was offered

are permitted from midday

of the sixteenth of Nisan

and thereafter,

as the reason will be explained at the end of the Mishna.

Once the Temple was destroyed

and the omer was no longer offered, by Torah law the new grain became permitted when the eastern horizon brightened on the sixteenth of Nisan, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara. However,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of the waving

[the sixteenth of Nisan, which is the day of the waving of the omer when the Temple exists]

would be entirely prohibited,

and one would eat no new grain until the following day. The reason for his ordinance will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda said

to the first tanna, who holds that by Torah law the new grain became permitted after the destruction when the eastern horizon brightened, and that solely because of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance it may not be eaten throughout the sixteenth of Nisan:

But by Torah law it is prohibited

throughout that entire day,

as it is stated, “

until this very day

,” meaning until the very essence of the day. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the word “until” means “until, inclusively,” teaching that when there is no omer, the end of the day permits the grain. The reasoning of the Sages will be explained in the Gemara.

The Mishna now returns to explain why those who are distant were permitted to eat the new grain from midday when the Temple existed, even though the new grain becomes permitted only through the offering of the omer:

Why are those who are distant permitted from midday and thereafter?

Because they

[those who are distant]

know that the court does not delay it,

and certainly the omer was offered by midday.

Gemara:

Rav and Shmuel both said

[they both said], explaining the view of those who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, that

when the Temple exists,

the

omer

is what

permits

the new grain. And

when the Temple does not exist,

by Torah law

the eastern horizon brightening

on the sixteenth of Nisan

permits

the new grain. However, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted a rabbinic prohibition of the entire day of the waving when the Temple does not exist.

What is the reason?

For

two verses are written

[there are two contradictory verses]:

It is written: “And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain

until you bring

the offering of your God.”

And it is written: “And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain

until

this very day

How

until you bring”—

How

will these two verses be fulfilled?

Here, the verse “until that very day” applies

Here—“until you bring”—

—

when the Temple exists.

Here—“until this very day”—

—

when the Temple does not exist.

This teaches that once the day “after Passover” arrives, the new grain is already permitted, because “until this very day” means until the appearance of the day, and “until” alone does not mean “until inclusively.” But

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish both said

in explaining the view of those who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, that

even when the Temple exists, the eastern horizon brightening

permits

the new grain, because it is stated, “until this very day,” meaning “until, but not inclusively”; and this law applies even when the Temple exists.

And we challenge this:

but it is also written

also,

“until you bring”!?

And we answer: this means

as a mitzva—

it is a mitzva to wait until the omer is offered, but one does not violate a prohibition by eating it.

And we challenge Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish from the wording of our Mishna: “

Once the omer was offered, the new grain was permitted immediately,”

which indicates that the new grain is not permitted until the omer is offered!?

And we answer as above:

as a mitzva.

And we challenge this further from the wording of the following Mishna [on the next page]:

“The omer served as the source of permission

for the new grain

in the provinces, and the two loaves in the Temple,”

which indicates that it is the omer that serves as the source of permission in the Temple!?

And again we answer:

as a mitzva.