Menachot 68a — the Talmud in English

He said:

he answered

Rabba: The new produce is different, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

since you permitted him only by plucking [

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

he remembers

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

He said

he challenged

Abaye to him: The reaping is understandable

which they would do with the consent of the Sages, as you answered that they had a reminder; but

grinding and sifting

of the new produce,

what is there to say [

what answer do you have]? For it turns out that they were engaging in it in the ordinary manner, in a forbidden activity; nevertheless, according to Rabbi Judah, they did not fear that he might eat from it. And this raises a difficulty from leaven, which Rabbi Judah forbade because of this concern!?

And we answer:

This—

is not difficult:

For indeed even

the grinding

they would not do in the ordinary manner, with watermills, but

with a hand mill [

a hand mill].

And also

the sifting

they would not do in the ordinary manner, but

on top of a sieve [

behind it], and not inside it as usual; and through this they would remember that it is forbidden and would not eat from it.

And we still raise a difficulty against Rabbi Judah from the matter of leaven, from the Mishna below, 71a:

The irrigated field in the valleys—

for which reaping is permitted

in it,

and as we learned

“

One reaps

a field

of

the irrigated field in the valleys,”

but one does not pile it [

one may not make a pile from the produce],” and it implies: one may reap it ab initio.

What is there to say!?

That is to say, this Mishna raises a difficulty against Rabbi Judah: How is it permitted to reap it, since even the produce of an irrigated field is forbidden because of the new produce!?

Rather, Abaye said

to establish the reason why, concerning the new produce, according to Rabbi Judah there is no concern that one might come to eat from it, whereas concerning leaven Rabbi Judah himself was concerned that one might come to eat from it:

The new produce—

one is separated from it.

For a person is not accustomed to eating it throughout the entire year, and he is not accustomed to extending his hand to the new produce and bringing it to his mouth. But

from leaven one is not separated,

for he is accustomed to eating it throughout the entire year.

Rava said

he challenged

Rava:

Is it only

Rabbi Judah against Rabbi Judah

that is

difficult,

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

the Sages against the Sages is not difficult!?

For one can raise the reverse difficulty from the words of the Sages, who were concerned, concerning the new produce, that one might come to eat from it, but were not concerned concerning leaven; and concerning this we have still explained nothing.

Rather, Rava said: Rabbi Judah against Rabbi Judah is not difficult, as we answered [

according to Abaye’s answer, namely: one is separated from the new produce, but one is not separated from leaven].

And the Sages against the Sages is not difficult,

because concerning leaven there is reason to say that there is no concern that he will come to eat it at the time of searching for leaven, since at that time

he himself searches for it [

for the leaven]

in order to burn it,

and

would he eat from it!?

Rav Ashi said

to reconcile the contradiction between Rabbi Judah’s statements:

Rabbi Judah against Rabbi Judah is not difficult,

because

flour

and

parched grain

we learned,

for these were made before the bringing of the omer, and these two things are not fit for eating: flour is not fit for eating, and also parched grain, since when it is singed by fire it hardens and is not fit for eating as it is; and for this reason it is permitted.

But the Gemara rejects Rav Ashi’s words:

But this statement of Rav Ashi—

is an external opinion [

it is an external view], for the matter is not so.

For—and because—

it is understandable from parched grain onward; until parched grain, what is there to say?

That is to say, indeed, once it has become flour or parched grain, there is no concern that he will eat it; but at the time of reaping and grinding there is concern that he might eat it.

And if you would say

to reconcile it:

here too,

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

by plucking

by hand, and through this they remember not to eat,

and as Rabba [

and according to Rabba’s reconciliation above]—

Nevertheless,

the irrigated field

in the valleys,

for which reaping is permitted—

as explained in the Mishna below, 71a: “One reaps the irrigated field in the valleys”—

what is there to say,

what answer do you have!?

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

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

When you come to the land that I give you, and you reap its harvest, you shall 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 rest day. And you shall not eat bread, or parched grain, or fresh grain [made from the new produce] until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your G-d; it is an eternal statute for your generations in all your dwelling places.”

b. The Mishnayot in this chapter until this Mishna dealt with the laws of the omer offering, while from this Mishna onward the Mishnayot deal with the law of permitting the new produce through the omer.

c. The Mishna before us is interpreted according to the plain meaning of its wording, and as Rav and Shmuel indeed hold in the Gemara; but Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish explain the Mishna in another manner, as will be explained in the Gemara’s sugya concerning our Mishna.

Mishna:

Once the omer has been brought

on the sixteenth of Nisan,

the new produce is permitted [

the new produce]

immediately.

Those who are distant

from Jerusalem, who do not know when the omer was brought,

are permitted from midday

of the sixteenth of Nisan

and onward,

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

Once the Temple was destroyed,

and the omer was no longer brought, according to Torah law the new produce became permitted when the eastern horizon brightened on the sixteenth of Nisan, as the reason will be explained in the Gemara; however,

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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]

be entirely forbidden,

and they should not eat from the new produce until the following day; the reason for his institution will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Judah said

to the first tanna, who holds that according to the essential Torah law the new produce became permitted after the destruction when the eastern horizon brightened, and that solely because of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s institution one may not eat throughout the sixteenth of Nisan:

But according to Torah law it is forbidden

throughout that entire day,

as it is stated, “

until this very day,”

that is, until the essence of the day; and Rabbi Judah holds that the expression “until” includes the stated time, teaching that when there is no omer, the end of the day permits it. The reasoning of the Sages will be explained in the Gemara.

Here the Mishna returns to explain the reason why those who are distant are permitted from midday, while the Temple exists, although the new produce is not permitted until the omer is offered:

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

Because they [

the distant ones]

know that the court does not delay concerning it

from offering it, and by midday the omer has certainly been offered.

Gemara:

Rav and Shmuel both said [

they both said] in explaining the view of those who disagree with Rabbi Judah:

When the Temple exists,

the

omer is the one that

permits

the new produce. And

when the Temple is not standing,

when the Temple does not exist,

according to Torah law,

the eastern horizon brightening

of the sixteenth of Nisan

permits

the new produce; except that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that, by rabbinic law, the entire day of the waving be forbidden 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 not eat bread, or parched grain, or fresh grain

the offering of your God.”

until you bring

the offering of your G-d.”

And it is written, “And you shall not eat bread, or parched grain, or fresh grain

that is, until you bring the offering—

until

this very day [

until you bring]—

How does this work

so that these two verses are fulfilled?

Here—“until you bring”—

This teaches that once the day “after Passover” arrives, the new grain is already permitted, because “until that very day” means until the day becomes visible, and the word “until” does not include the endpoint.

when the Temple exists.

Here—“until this very day”—

in explanation of the view that disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda:

when the Temple does not exist.

To teach that once the day “after Passover” arrived, the new produce was already permitted, because “until this very day” means until the appearance of the day, and “until” alone, not “until including.” Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both said

in explaining the view of those who disagree with Rabbi Judah that

even when the Temple exists, the eastern horizon brightening

permits,

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

And we raise an objection against it:

but it is also written

also

“until you bring”!?

And we answer: this is

for the mitzva,

that it is a mitzva to wait until the omer is offered, but one does not transgress a prohibition.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish from the wording of our Mishna:

“Once the omer was offered, chadash was permitted immediately”,

for it follows that chadash is not permitted until the omer is offered!?

And we answer as above:

for the mitzva.

And we raise another objection from the wording of the following Mishna [on side b]:

“The omer used to permit

the chadash

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

so it is the omer that permits in the Temple!?

And again we answer:

for the mitzva.