Menachot 68b — the Talmud in English

We further raise an objection: And did we not learn in our Mishna:

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

? And we said concerning it:

What is the reason

that he instituted this? After all, by Torah law the new grain is permitted—after the destruction of the Temple—as soon as the east has brightened?

Because

the Temple may speedily be rebuilt

and it will be forbidden to eat new grain until the bringing of the omer,

and they will say: “Last year

—in the previous year, before the Temple was rebuilt—

did we not eat it as soon as the east brightened? This year as well, let us eat it

—let us eat it this year as soon as the east brightens”—

But

they did not know that

last year

when

there was no omer

therefore

the east brightening permitted it, but

this year,

when there is an omer

, it is

the omer

that

permits

, and therefore he instituted that they should not eat new grain throughout the entire day, even when the Temple does not exist.

And if it enters your mind

that the Torah said “until you bring it” only

as a mitzva

—and

because of

“

a mitzva

—should one arise and decree” [and should we make a decree because of the nullification of a “mitzva”]!?

Rabbi

replied—

Said Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak, to answer:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

did not forbid it after the destruction on account of a decree, but rather

he stated the method of Rabbi Yehuda

in our Mishna.

He said

that is, the very method that Rabbi Yehuda—who was among the disciples of the disciples of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai—expounded after him, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai also expounded in his lifetime.

For Rabbi Yehuda said

: After the destruction of the Temple,

the entire day of waving is forbidden 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 fulfilled:

That which the Torah said, “until this very day,” means:

“very day”

that is,

the day itself

—that is, the entire day is called “the very day”—

and he holds

“until”

includes the terminus itself;

and this verse speaks of a time 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” refers to a time when there is an omer.

And for this reason Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai forbade the entire day of waving after the destruction, and not on account of any decree whatsoever.

And we raise an objection to this:

Did Rabbi Yehuda indeed hold

that

he agreed with

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai,

but he explicitly disagreed with him

[and yet Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with him]!?

For we learned

in our Mishna:

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

and

Rabbi Yehuda

said about this:

“Is it not forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated

“

until this very day

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

And we answer:

It was Rabbi Yehuda who was mistaken

[Rabbi Yehuda erred in understanding his words];

he thought: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was speaking of a rabbinic law, but that is not so

; rather, even Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

was speaking by Torah law

, as he

was saying

, and for this very reason that Rabbi Yehuda stated.

We still raise an objection:

But

“

instituted

” is what it teaches, which implies that it is an institution of the Sages!?

And we answer:

What

does “

instituted

” mean? He expounded the verses

and instituted

for Israel that they should act this way, because they had been accustomed to eating new grain from midday onward when the Temple existed until that time; therefore he needed to institute it.

The tannaim disputed in Kiddushin 37a concerning the law of new grain outside the Land of Israel, whether it is forbidden by Torah law—even though a mitzva dependent upon the Land [an obligation of the soil] applies only in the Land, the verse nevertheless expanded it by saying “in all your settlements,” teaching “in every place where you dwell”—or whether it is forbidden only by rabbinic law, and the verse’s statement “in all your settlements” 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 the Land of Israel,

ate new grain on the evening of the sixteenth, entering the seventeenth

[they would eat new grain on the conclusion of the sixteenth of Nisan, the night of the seventeenth of Nisan]. Even though outside the Land of Israel one must be concerned for the sixteenth of Nisan, which is actually only the fifteenth [the uncertainty of the day], they would consequently be eating new grain on the night of the sixteenth of Nisan, when it was still certainly forbidden—

and because

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

:

new grain outside the Land of Israel

is only

rabbinic law

,

and

therefore

for the uncertainty

of the day

we are not concerned

; 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.

And the Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy ate

new grain

on the morning of the seventeenth

[on the morning of the seventeenth], and although ostensibly the question is unavoidable: If they are concerned for the uncertainty of the day, then it is the sixteenth, and no one permits it on the morning of the sixteenth; and if they are not concerned for the uncertainty of the day, why did they not eat it on the preceding evening!?

This is because

they held

—the Sages of Rav Ashi’s academy— -

new grain outside the Land of Israel is by Torah law

, and therefore, with regard to Torah prohibitions, they were concerned for the uncertainty of the day and did not eat on the night of the seventeenth, because perhaps it was the sixteenth and by Torah law it had not yet become permitted—

In any event, on the morning of the seventeenth they ate, although according to everyone there is no permission to eat after the destruction on the morning of the sixteenth, and the seventeenth is possibly the sixteenth. This is because they held:

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s institution was rabbinic law

that he

instituted

not to eat on the morning of the sixteenth after the destruction; but by Torah law the new grain became permitted on the morning of the sixteenth. Therefore they were not concerned about eating on the morning of the seventeenth, because:

He indeed instituted for the actual day of waving

, but

for the uncertainty

of the day of waving

he did not institute—

It follows that until the morning of the seventeenth they had not escaped the Torah uncertainty, because perhaps it was the sixteenth; but once the morning of the seventeenth arrived, they had already escaped the Torah concern.

Ravina said: My mother said to me

[my mother told me]:

Your father would eat new grain only on the evening of the seventeenth, entering the eighteenth

[your father—who was outside the Land of Israel—would eat new grain only at the conclusion of the seventeenth of Nisan, on the night of the eighteenth of Nisan]; and his reason was:

Because

he held like Rabbi Yehuda

, who said that by Torah law new grain is not permitted until the conclusion of the sixteenth, and he likewise held that “new grain nowadays is by Torah law”;

and

therefore

he was concerned for the uncertainty

of the day, and until the night of the eighteenth began he had not escaped the Torah uncertainty.

a. It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 23]: “When you come to the land … you shall count for yourselves … until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall bring a new meal-offering to the Lord. From your dwelling places you shall bring two loaves as a wave-offering; they shall be of two-tenths of fine flour, they shall be baked leavened, the first fruits to the Lord. And you shall offer with the bread seven yearling lambs without blemish, and one young bull of cattle and two rams; they shall be a burnt-offering to the Lord, with their meal-offering and their libations, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord. And you shall make one he-goat for a sin-offering, and two yearling lambs for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. And the priest 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 priest.” This is the section of the “two loaves,” which they would offer in the Temple on Shavuot.

The two loaves are mentioned further in the wording of the verse [Exodus 23:16]: “And the Feast of the Harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you sow in the field”; and further there [34:22]: “And the Feast of Weeks you shall make for yourself, the first fruits of the wheat harvest”; and in the Book of Numbers [28:26]: “And on the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord, on your Feast of Weeks.” They are mentioned further [Leviticus 2]: “No meal-offering that you bring 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 an offering of first fruits [that is, the two loaves, which come from leavened dough; and the first fruits, which are from produce] you shall bring them to the Lord, but on the altar they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance.”

b. El nuevo producto is forbidden to a non-priest until the omer is offered, and it is forbidden only from the five species of grain; but for the Temple the new product is forbidden both from the species of grain and from the fruits of the tree and what issues from them, both for meal-offerings, for libations, and for 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, 84b: "

“A first-offering,” so that it shall be first of all the meal-offerings; and so it says: “When you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord throughout your weeks” [“new” implies that it is the first]. I have only [learned this concerning] a new [offering] of wheat [from which the two loaves come]; a new [offering] of barley, from where [do I derive it]? 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 it is not needed for a new [offering] of wheat, apply it to a new [offering] of barley. And from where [do we know] that it must precede the first fruits? The verse says [Exodus 34:22]: “And the festival of Weeks you shall make for yourself, the first fruits of the wheat harvest” [that is, the two loaves must precede every wheat harvest, even first fruits]. I have only [learned this concerning] the first fruits of the wheat harvest; from where [do I derive it for] the barley harvest? The verse says ... From where [do we know] that it must precede libations and the fruits of the tree [the first fruits of the fruits of the tree]? The verse says:

Mishna:

The omer —

which was brought on the day after Passover —

permitted

the new product from the five species of grain

in the country —

And the two loaves —

which were brought on Assembly — permitted the new product

in the Temple,

to bring from it meal-offerings, libations, and first fruits, both from the species of grain and from the fruits of the tree and what issues from them.

And even the permission of the new product for the Temple depends on the omer; and therefore:

Meal-offerings and first fruits are not brought

and an animal’s meal-offering [

an animal’s libation meal-offering]

before the omer.

And

if he brought

before the omer, this is

invalid.

Before the two loaves he shall not bring

from the new product,

but if he brought

from the new product after the omer and before the two loaves, it is

valid.

valid.

Gemara:

Rabbi Tarfon sat and found it difficult

[Rabbi Tarfon sat and raised an objection]:

What is the difference between

new product

before the omer

which is invalid,

and

new product

before the two loaves

which is valid!?

Judah bar Nehemiah said to him:

If you have said

[this] concerning meal-offerings that he brought

before the omer, for

still

the new product has not been permitted

new product

from its prohibition

for the non-priest, and therefore it is invalid for the Most High

; should you say

[the same] before the two loaves, when the new product is permitted

the new product

from its prohibition for the non-priest, since the omer has already permitted it for him.

since the Omer has already permitted it for him?

Rabbi Tarfon was silent.

The face of Judah ben Nehemiah lit up,

Judah ben Nehemiah rejoiced!

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

I am astonished if you will live long!

Rabbi Judah bar Ilai said: That period —

when Rabbi Akiva said this to him —

was the half-month before Passover,

that is, two weeks before Passover, and

when I went up

to the Temple

for Assembly, I inquired after him:

“Where is Judah ben Nehemiah?”

And they said to me

“He died and went away.”

The fruits of the tree and what issues from them are invalid for first fruits and for libations when they are from the new product, unlike the new product in the country, which is forbidden only from the five species of grain.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

According to Judah ben Nehemiah,

who explained that the reason the meal-offerings are valid after the omer is because they are permitted to a non-priest:

Behold,

the libations of first fruits,

that is, wine libations that are first fruits, meaning from the new product,

which he offered

even

before the omer,

behold, they are

valid after the fact; that is, there is no invalidity before the omer except in grain that is forbidden to a non-priest, but wine that was not forbidden to a non-priest is like grain after the omer, which is not invalid after the fact because it is permitted to a non-priest.

In

And we raise an objection against this:

It is obvious,

for it is similar to grain after the omer! And we answer:

You might say:

There is a distinction between them:

For

there —

grain after the omer —

it

is valid for the altar because

it has been permitted from its prohibition for a non-priest,

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 —

wine before the omer —

which has not been permitted from its prohibition,

that is, its prohibition was not made lenient, but rather it was not forbidden initially —

it

will not be valid before the omer, and its law will be like grain before the omer, which is invalid.

This teaches us

that, on the contrary, we say:

How much more so here —

wine before the omer —

which was not forbidden at all

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

A mnemonic for the four problems of Rami bar Hama: a. Order;

serder;

b.

hanetsa; c. [

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

gali] [

galal]; d.

Rabba said: Consider a proof, that when they are not in their proper order they do not permit it, from the following beraita:

elephant.

a. Order:

Rami bar Hama inquired:

The two loaves,

which permit the new product in the Temple together with the omer,

what is the law: do they permit

when they were

not in their order,

that is, when the permission of the two loaves preceded the permission of the omer? And he proceeds to explain it.

The Gemara asks:

What are the circumstances

[in which you find that the two loaves passed before the omer]?

For example, he sowed them

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

between the omer and the two loaves

and they also took root before it,

and the two loaves passed over them

[passed over them]

and

afterward

the omer,

and we are uncertain:

what

is their law for offering them as meal-offerings after the next omer comes, and before the two loaves that will come at the Assembly following it? And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Do the two loaves permit specifically

in their order

[they permit], meaning that they can permit only new product that was preceded by the permission of the omer, but

not in their order —

to permit new product over which the omer has not yet passed —

they do not permit,

and this wheat will not become permitted except through the two loaves of the following year, which will come after the permission of the omer.

Or perhaps: not in their order, too, they permit,

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

Rabba said: Come and hear,

that “not in their order” does not permit, from that which is taught:

It is written [Leviticus 2:14]: "

And if you bring a grain-offering of firstfruits

"To the Lord, roasted young grain of fire, crushed fresh grain, you shall bring the grain-offering of your firstfruits,"

the verse speaks of the mincha of the omer.

From where [from which species]

[from which species]

does it come?

From barley!

And the baraita explains:

You say that it comes from barley,

it comes,

or perhaps it comes only from wheat,

it comes?

Rabbi Eliezer says:

It is stated "

young grain"

in Egypt ["

for the barley was young grain"],

and it is stated "

young grain"

for the generations ["

, and they shall learn one from the other":

just as "

young grain"

that is stated concerning Egypt,

that is,

barley, so too "

young grain"

that is stated concerning the generations,

that is,

barley.

Rabbi Akiva says

another source:

Behold,

we find that an individual brings his obligatory offering from wheat ["

sin-offering grain-offering"]

and

brings

his obligatory offering

also

from barley ["

the grain-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 is proper that it should be stated:

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 is proper that it should

bring its obligatory offering

also

from barley.

That is, just as we find with an individual, that he brings a wheat mincha and also a barley mincha, so it is proper that the community should bring a barley mincha in addition to the wheat mincha that they bring; and necessarily, the mincha of the omer is the barley mincha that the community brings, for:

And if you say

that the omer

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

for there is no other mincha of the community that comes from barley.

Alternatively:

For the Torah said [Numbers 28:26]: "And on the day of the firstfruits [that is, the festival of Shavuot, on which they bring the two loaves called 'firstfruits'], when you bring a new mincha to the Lord";

and "firstfruits" means that no other mincha from the wheat of the new grain had been offered before this mincha—

And

if you say that the omer comes from wheat,

then it follows that

the two loaves,

which come from wheat,

are not "firstfruits",

for a wheat mincha from the new grain has already been offered; rather, necessarily, the omer comes from barley, and from the wheat of the new grain no mincha was indeed offered before the two loaves.

And from here it is possible to prove that the two loaves do not permit [the new grain] out of order, for:

And if it is so that the two loaves also permit [it] out of order, why are the two loaves not "

firstfruits"!?

But:

You can find it

that both of them are from wheat, and nevertheless the two loaves are a "firstfruits" mincha, that is, the first mincha offered from that grain which the two loaves that he offers are supposed to permit for the Temple. How?

For example,

that he offers

the

omer

of the year

from those that

he sowed and

took root [took root in the ground]

after the omer and

before the two loaves

of the previous year, [which had already been permitted by the permission of the "two loaves," if it permits out of order]—

And the two loaves

of the year he shall bring

from those that took root before the omer

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

That is, if he is in the year 5763, and he must offer an omer and afterward the two loaves: he shall bring the omer from wheat that took root between Passover and Shavuot of the year 5762 [over which the two loaves had already passed and which had been permitted through them], and the two loaves of the year 5763 he shall bring from wheat that took root after Shavuot of 5762 [over which the two loaves had not yet passed]. In this way, "firstfruits" is fulfilled with the two loaves, even though he also brought the omer from wheat, for that wheat which he brought for the omer was not among the wheat that the two loaves are supposed to permit, since it had already been permitted by the preceding two loaves; whereas with respect to the wheat whose permission depends on the two loaves that he is bringing now, it is firstfruits.

And we reject this:

Do you suppose [and do you think]:

[do you really think]: