Menachot 68b (סח:) — the Talmud in English

We further raise an objection: But we learned in our Mishna:

“After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of waving should be prohibited”

—and we said concerning it:

“What is the reason”

did he institute this? After all, according to Torah law, the new grain is permitted—after the destruction of the Temple—as soon as the eastern horizon is illuminated?

Because

“the Temple may speedily be rebuilt”

and it will then be forbidden to eat the new grain until the Omer is brought,

“and they will say: ‘Last year

before the Temple was rebuilt,

did we not eat it as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated? This year too, let us eat it”

even this year, let us eat it immediately when the eastern horizon is illuminated.’”

But

nevertheless,

“they would not know that last year

the reason

“there was no Omer”

was that

“the illumination of the eastern horizon permitted it, but

this year,

“when there is an Omer,”

it is

“the Omer”

that

“permits it.”

Therefore, he instituted that they should not eat the new grain throughout the entire day, even when the Temple is not standing.

“And if it enters your mind”

that the Torah did not say “until you bring it” even when the Temple is standing except

“as a mitzva,”

then

“because of”

“a mitzva”

“should one arise and decree”

would we institute a decree because of the neglect of a mitzva?!

Rabbi

replied—

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

did not prohibit the new grain after the destruction because of a rabbinic decree. Rather, he acted

“in accordance with the method of Rabbi Yehuda”

in our Mishna, who

“stated”

this ruling. That is, the very approach that Rabbi Yehuda—who was among Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s later students—expounded after him, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai himself expounded during his lifetime.

“As

Rabbi Yehuda said: After the destruction of the Temple,

the entire day of waving is prohibited by Torah law,

because

“it is stated,”

“And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain

“until this very day,”

and it is stated, “until you bring it.” Thus, the two verses are reconciled:

What the Torah stated, “until this very day,” means:

“the very essence”

of the day, namely,

“the day itself.”

That is, the entire day is called “the very day,”

“and he holds”

“until”

“and including the endpoint.”

This verse applies when there is no Omer, teaching that when there is no Omer, the new grain is not permitted until the sixteenth of Nisan has passed—

while the verse “until you bring it” applies when there is an Omer.

For this reason Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai prohibited the entire day of waving after the destruction, and not because of any decree at all.

We raise an objection to this:

“And did

Rabbi Yehuda

agree with him”

in the view of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai?

“But he explicitly disagreed with him”

!?

“As we learned”

in our Mishna:

“After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of waving should be prohibited,”

and

“said”

about this

Rabbi Yehuda:

“Is it not prohibited by Torah law, as it is stated,”

“until this very day,”

so Rabbi Yehuda came to disagree with Rabban Yohanan, who required a decree!?

We answer:

“It was Rabbi Yehuda who erred”

in understanding his words.

“He thought: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was speaking of a rabbinic enactment, but that is not so.”

Rather, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai too

by Torah law

was

“speaking,”

and for this very reason that Rabbi Yehuda stated.

We nevertheless continue to challenge this:

“But”

“instituted”

“is what it teaches,”

which implies that it was a rabbinic enactment!?

We answer:

“What is meant by”

“instituted”?

“He expounded”

the verses

“and instituted”

for Israel that they should act accordingly, because until then they had been accustomed, when the Temple stood, to eat the new grain from midday onward. Therefore, he needed to establish this practice.

The tannaim disagreed in Kiddushin 37a concerning the law of the new grain outside Eretz Yisrael: whether it is prohibited by Torah law. Although a mitzva dependent on the Land [an obligation applying to the soil] applies only in the Land, the verse nevertheless adds the phrase “in all your habitations” to teach: “Everywhere that you reside.” Or perhaps it is prohibited only by rabbinic law, and the verse’s statement “in all your habitations” comes to teach that they became obligated in this only after inheritance and settlement.

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

who were outside Eretz Yisrael,

“would eat the new grain on the evening of the sixteenth, extending into the seventeenth”

[they would eat from the new grain on the night following the sixteenth of Nisan, the night of the seventeenth of Nisan]. This was so even though, outside Eretz Yisrael, one must be concerned that the sixteenth of Nisan observed there is actually the fifteenth [the uncertainty concerning the day], with the result that they would be eating the new grain on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan, when it was still certainly prohibited—

because

“they held,”

Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that

“the new grain outside Eretz Yisrael”

is

“rabbinic”

only.

And

therefore,

“for the uncertainty”

concerning the day,

“we are not concerned.” Thus, they ate it already on the night of the seventeenth, after the sixteenth of Nisan had passed. But they did not eat it on the sixteenth, because everyone agrees that the new grain is prohibited until the evening following the sixteenth.

; therefore they ate already on the night of the seventeenth, since the sixteenth of Nisan had already passed. But on the sixteenth they did not eat, for according to everyone new grain is forbidden until the conclusion of the sixteenth.

This was because

“they held”

—the Sages of the house of Rav Ashi— -

“the new grain outside Eretz Yisrael is prohibited by Torah law,”

and therefore, with regard to Torah prohibitions, they were concerned about the uncertainty concerning the day. They did not eat it on the night of the seventeenth, because perhaps it was actually the sixteenth, and by Torah law it was not yet permitted—

And Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s enactment was rabbinic

and he

“instituted”

that they should not eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth after the destruction. But by Torah law, the new grain was permitted on the morning of the sixteenth. Therefore, they were not concerned about eating it on the morning of the seventeenth, because:

“Did he institute it for the day of waving”

itself? Yes; but

“for the uncertainty”

concerning the day of waving, he

“did not institute it.”

It follows that until the morning of the seventeenth they had not escaped the Torah uncertainty, since perhaps it was the sixteenth. Once the morning of the seventeenth arrived, they had already escaped the concern of a Torah prohibition.

Ravina said: “My mother told me”

[my mother related to me]:

“Your father would not eat the new grain except on the evening of the seventeenth, extending into the eighteenth”

[your father—who was outside Eretz Yisrael—would eat the new grain only on the evening following the seventeenth of Nisan, the night of the eighteenth of Nisan]. His reason was:

Because

“he agreed with Rabbi Yehuda,”

who said that by Torah law the new grain is not permitted until the evening following the sixteenth, and he too held that “the new grain nowadays is prohibited by Torah law.”

And

therefore,

“he was concerned about the uncertainty”

concerning the day, and until the evening of the eighteenth arrived, he had not escaped the Torah uncertainty.

a. It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 23]: “When you enter the Land ... you shall count for yourselves ... until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall offer a new meal-offering to the Lord. From your habitations you shall bring two loaves as a wave-offering; they shall be of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, and they shall be baked leavened, as first fruits to the Lord. You shall offer with the bread seven year-old lambs without blemish, one young bull and two rams; they shall be a burnt-offering to the Lord, with their meal-offering and libations, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. You shall prepare one goat as a sin-offering, and two year-old lambs as a peace-offering. The koen shall wave them, together with the bread of the first fruits, as a wave-offering before the Lord, together with the two lambs; they shall be holy to the Lord, for the koen.” This is the passage of the “Two Loaves,” which they would offer in the Temple on Shavuot.

The Two Loaves are mentioned elsewhere in the biblical text: [Exodus 23:34], “And the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, of what you sow in the field”; and there [34:22], “And you shall observe the festival of Shavuot, of the first fruits of the wheat harvest”; and in the Book of Numbers [28:26], “On the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord, on your festival of Shavuot.” They are mentioned further [Leviticus 2]: “No meal-offering that you offer to the Lord shall be made leavened, for you shall not burn any leaven or any honey as a fire-offering to the Lord. As a first-fruits offering [that is, the Two Loaves, which come from leavened dough; and the first fruits, which come from produce] you shall offer them to the Lord, but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing fragrance.”

b. The new grain is forbidden to a non-priest until the Omer is offered, and it is forbidden only when it is from the five species of grain. But for the Temple, the new produce is forbidden whether it is from the species of grain or from the fruit of a tree and its products—whether for meal-offerings, libations, or first fruits—and it becomes permitted for the Temple only through the offering of the two loaves, as will be explained in the Mishna before us.

c. The source for this prohibition is explained below, on page 84b: "First offering"—meaning that it must be the first of all meal-offerings. And so it says: "When you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord, in your weeks." I have derived only the new offering of wheat, from which the two loaves are brought. From where do I derive the new offering of barley? The verse says: "new, new"—twice: "When you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord"; "And you shall bring a new meal-offering to the Lord." If the second expression is not needed for the new offering of wheat, apply it to the new offering of barley. And from where do I derive that it must precede the first fruits? The verse says: "And the Festival of Weeks you shall observe for yourself, the first fruits of the wheat harvest"—that is, the two loaves must precede every wheat harvest, even the first fruits. I have derived only the first fruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I derive the barley harvest? The verse says... From where do I derive that it must precede libations and the fruit of trees, including first fruits from the fruit of trees? The verse says.

"An offering of the first produce"—it must be the first of all meal offerings. And so it says: "When you bring a new meal offering to the Lord, throughout your weeks" [the word "new" indicates that it is the first]. I know only that there is a new offering of wheat [from which the two loaves are brought]. From where do I know that there is also a new offering of barley? The verse says "new, new" [twice: "When you bring a new meal offering to the Lord"; "And you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord"]. If the second mention does not refer to a new offering of wheat, apply it to a new offering of barley. And from where do I know that it must precede the first fruits? The verse says [Exodus 34:22]: "And you shall make for yourself the festival of Weeks, the first fruits of the wheat harvest" [that is, the two loaves must precede every wheat harvest, even first fruits]. I know only that they must precede the first fruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I know that they must precede the barley harvest? The verse says... From where do I know that they must precede libations and the fruits of trees [the first fruits of tree produce]? The verse says:

Mishna:

The Omer—

which was brought on the day after Passover—

permitted

the new produce of the five species of grain

in the rest of the country—

and the two loaves—

which were brought on Shavuot—permitted the new produce

in the Temple,

to bring from it meal-offerings, libations, and first fruits, whether from the species of grain or from the fruit of trees and their products.

Even the permission of the new produce for the Temple depends on the Omer. Therefore:

Meal-offerings and first fruits

and an animal meal-offering

[an animal's libation meal-offering]

may not be brought before the Omer.

The reference is to first fruits from the species of grain, and not to first fruits from the fruit of trees, which—as is apparently explained in the Gemara and in Rashi there—do not depend on the Omer, and whose entire permission depends on the two loaves ; but see what will be explained concerning this matter in note 15 on this page, and below, page 69a, note 3. And

if one brought

before the Omer, it is

invalid.

Before the two loaves one may not bring

from the new produce,

but if one brought

from the new produce after the Omer and before the two loaves, it is

valid.

valid.

Gemara:

Rabbi Tarfon sat and was raising a difficulty

[Rabbi Tarfon sat and asked]:

What difference is there between

new produce

before the Omer,

which is invalid,

and

new produce

before the two loaves,

which is valid?!

Yehuda ben Nehemiah said to him:

That cannot be said

with regard to the meal-offerings that one brought

before the Omer, because

still

the new produce had not been permitted

at all

for the non-priest

;

and therefore it is invalid with regard to the Most High.

Can you say that with regard to bringing it before the two loaves, when the new produce is permitted

the new product

at all for the non-priest,

since the Omer has already permitted it for him?

Rabbi Tarfon was silent.

The face of Yehuda ben Nehemiah lit up,

Yehuda ben Nehemiah rejoiced!

Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yehuda, Yehuda! Your face has lit up because you answered the elder?!

I am astonished if you will live long!

Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: It was that period—

when Rabbi Akiva said this to him—

two weeks before Passover,

that is, two Shabbatot before Passover, and

when I went up

to the Temple

for Shavuot, I inquired about him:

"Where is Yehuda ben Nehemiah?"

And they told me,

"He died and departed."

The fruit of trees and their products are invalid for first fruits and libations when they are from the new produce, unlike new produce in the rest of the country, which is prohibited only when it is from the five species of grain.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

According to Yehuda ben Nehemiah,

who explained that the reason meal-offerings are valid after the Omer is that the produce has been permitted to the non-priest:

Suppose

the libations of first fruits—

that is, wine libations that are first fruits, meaning that they are from the new produce—

were offered

even

before the Omer.

They are

valid after the fact. That is, the only invalidity before the Omer concerns grain that is forbidden to the non-priest. But wine that was not forbidden to the non-priest is like grain after the Omer, which is not invalid after the fact because it is permitted to the non-priest.

In

And we challenge this:

It is obvious,

for it is comparable to grain after the Omer! And we answer:

It might have been thought

that there is a distinction between them:

For

there,

with regard to grain after the Omer,

it

is fit for the altar because

the prohibition was permitted in part for the non-priest—that is, it was originally stringent, and then became lenient: at first it was forbidden both to the altar and to the non-priest, and its prohibition was lifted for the non-priest. Because the prohibition was eased, it is valid for the altar after the fact—

that is, it was stringent and became lenient: initially it was forbidden both to the altar and to a non-priest, and its prohibition was permitted to a non-priest; because its prohibition became lenient, it is valid for the altar after the fact —

but here,

with regard to wine before the Omer,

the prohibition was not permitted in part,

that is, its prohibition was not eased; rather, it was never forbidden initially—

it

would not be valid before the Omer, and its law would be like that of grain before the Omer, which is invalid.

This teaches us

that, on the contrary, we say:

All the more so here—

wine before the Omer—

which was not forbidden at all

to the non-priest, it is valid before the two loaves.

A mnemonic for the four inquiries of Rami bar Ḥama: a. Seder;

order; b.

ha-netza;

sprout; c.

not in their proper order—to permit new produce over which the omer has not yet passed—

they do not permit it, and this wheat will not become permitted until the two loaves of the following year, which will come after the permission of the omer?

rolled and; d.

pil;

elephant.

a. Order:

Rami bar Ḥama inquired:

The two loaves,

which, together with the Omer, permit the new produce in the Temple,

what is the law: do they permit it when they were

brought

out of order,

that is, when the permission of the two loaves preceded the permission of the Omer? The Gemara proceeds to explain.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

[in which the two loaves could have preceded the Omer]?

For example, one sowed them

[for example, he sowed] the wheat that he wished to bring for meal-offerings

between the Omer and the two loaves,

and it had already taken root before the two loaves,

and the two loaves passed over them

[passed over them]

and

afterward

the Omer,

and we are uncertain:

What

is their law regarding offering them as meal-offerings after the next Omer is brought and before the next two loaves, which will be brought on the Shavuot following it? The alternatives of the uncertainty are:

Are the two loaves permitted

only in their proper order

[that is, they permit]—meaning that they can permit only new produce preceded by the permission of the Omer—but

out of order,

to permit new produce over which the Omer has not yet passed,

they do not permit,

and this wheat will not become permitted until the two loaves of the following year, which will be brought after the permission of the Omer?

Or perhaps: even out of order they do permit,

and once the next Omer passes over them, they become permitted for the altar, even though the permission of their two loaves preceded the permission of the Omer.

Rabba said: Come and hear,

that "out of order" does not permit, from the following beraita:

It is written [Leviticus 2:14]: "

And if you bring a meal-offering of first fruits

to the Lord, roasted ears of grain, crushed kernels of fresh grain, you shall bring your meal-offering of first fruits,"

the verse is speaking of the meal-offering of the Omer.

From where

[from which species]

does it come?

From barley!

And the beraita explains:

You say that it comes from barley

and that

it comes from wheat

and not from wheat?

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is stated "

spring grain"

in Egypt ["for the barley was spring grain"],

and it is stated "

spring grain"

for future generations ["roasted ears of grain, crushed kernels of fresh grain, you shall bring your meal-offering of first fruits"], and these verses are to be derived from one another:

Just as "

spring grain"

stated with regard to Egypt

means

barley, so too "

spring grain"

stated with regard to future generations

means

barley.

Rabbi Akiva says

another source:

Behold,

we find that an individual brings his obligatory offering from wheat

["the meal-offering of a sinner"],

and

brings

his obligatory offering

also

from barley

["the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery"]—

and

we also find that

the community brings its obligatory offering from wheat

["the two loaves"]—

and it would be logically warranted to say:

Just as an individual brings his obligatory offering from wheat and brings his obligatory offering

also

from barley, so too the community, which brings its obligatory offering from wheat

it would be logically warranted that it

bring its obligatory offering

also

from barley.

That is, just as we find with regard to an individual, who brings both a wheat meal-offering and a barley meal-offering, so too it is logically warranted that the community bring a barley meal-offering in addition to the wheat meal-offering that it brings. Necessarily, the meal-offering of the Omer is the barley meal-offering that the community brings, since:

And if you say

that the Omer

comes from wheat, we do not find that the community brings its obligatory offering from barley,

since there is no other meal-offering of the community that comes from barley.

Alternatively:

The Torah states [Numbers 28:26]: "And on the day of the first fruits [that is, the festival of Shavuot, on which the two loaves, called 'first fruits,' are brought], when you offer a new meal-offering to the Lord";

and "first fruits" means that no other meal-offering from the wheat of the new grain crop was offered before this meal-offering—

And

if you say that the Omer comes from wheat,

then it turns out that

the two loaves

that come from wheat are not

"first fruits,"

because a wheat meal-offering from the new grain crop has already been offered. Rather, necessarily, the Omer comes from barley, and no meal-offering from the wheat of the new grain crop was in fact offered before the two loaves.

And from here it can be proven that the two loaves do not permit produce out of order, since:

And if it is so that the two loaves permit produce even out of order, why are the two loaves not "

first fruits"?

For:

It is possible

that both of them should be from wheat, and nevertheless the two loaves would be a "first-fruits" meal-offering—that is, the first meal-offering offered from that produce whose permissibility for the Temple is supposed to be effected by the two loaves that he brings. How so?

For example,

he offers

the

Omer

of the year

from those that

were sown and

took root

[took root in the ground] after the Omer and

before the two loaves

of the preceding year, [which had already become permitted through the allowance of the "two loaves," if it permits produce out of order]—

And the two loaves

of the current year he will bring

from those that took root before the Omer

of this year, and after the two loaves of the preceding year.

That is, if he is in the year 5763, and is required to offer the Omer followed by the two loaves: He brings the Omer from wheat that took root between Passover and Shavuot of the year 5762 [which the two loaves had already passed over and rendered permitted], and he brings the two loaves of the year 5763 from wheat that took root after Shavuot of the year 5762 [which the two loaves had not yet passed over]. In this way, the designation "first fruits" is fulfilled with regard to the two loaves, even though he also brought the Omer from wheat, since the wheat that he brought for the Omer was not from the wheat that the two loaves were supposed to render permitted, as it had already been rendered permitted by the preceding year's two loaves; whereas with regard to the wheat whose permissibility depends on the two loaves that he brings now, they are first fruits.

And we reject this:

Do you hold

[do you really think]: