Menachot 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

But concerning the Land,

with regard to the requirement that the produce for the Omer and the Two Loaves come from the Land—

they do not disagree,

and both agree

that the Omer and the Two Loaves, from the Land—

yes [

indeed, they are brought from the produce of the Land ],

from outside the Land—

no; whose opinion

is this?

Not that of this tanna—

“your settlements,” every place where you dwell—even outside the Land—

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: The Omer may be brought from outside the Land

even initially,

And how do I understand

“When you enter the Land

that I give you, and you reap its harvest and bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the kohen”? The verse does not come to say that you must bring the Omer from the produce of the Land, but rather to say

that they did not become obligated in the Omer before they entered the Land,

but they may bring it even from the produce of outside the Land.

f

The reasoning of this tanna is:

he holds that the new produce

before the Omer

outside the Land

is

a Torah prohibition,

forbidden by Torah law. Although the verse says concerning the prohibition of new produce, “Bread, parched grain, and fresh grain you shall not eat … an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places,” Leviticus 23:14, which would seem to indicate that only produce from your dwelling places in the Land of Israel is forbidden, this is not so. Rather:

The expression

“your dwelling places,”

means every place in which you dwell—

even outside the Land—

is its meaning.

And

the verse there, “When you enter

the Land

that I give you and you reap its harvest, and you shall not eat bread, parched grain, or fresh grain,” does not come to say that the prohibition of new produce applies only in the Land of Israel. Rather,

it refers to the time of entry.

That is, the verse establishes the time at which the prohibition of new produce begins everywhere: when you enter the Land.

And since

the produce of outside the Land

is subject to Torah law

with regard to the prohibition of new produce,

we also offer

the Omer

from it

from that produce.

We learned there

in tractate Shekalim 4:1:

“Those who guard the volunteer growth”

during the Sabbatical year [

“volunteer growth” is produce that grows on its own, not through agricultural labor forbidden during the Sabbatical year; it is ownerless ], who guarded it so that there would be from which to reap the Omer—

receive

the guardians of the volunteer growth

their wages

for guarding it

from the chamber appropriation.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection to Rav Ḥisda concerning what is stated in this Mishna, that the Omer is brought from Sabbatical produce, which possesses sanctity:

based on this Mishna, which states that the Omer is brought from Sabbatical-year produce, which possesses the sanctity of the Sabbatical year:

But is it not written concerning the Sabbatical year, “The Sabbath produce of the Land shall be yours

for eating,”

which indicates that it is for eating

and not for burning?

How, then, can they bring the Omer from it and burn the handful on the altar!?

He said to him

Rav Ḥisda to Rami bar Ḥama:

The Merciful One has told you

concerning the Omer: “You shall not eat bread, parched grain, or fresh grain until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God; an eternal statute

throughout your generations,”

which indicates that the mitzva of the Omer is never nullified,

and you say [

whereas you wish to say ]

that the Omer should be nullified

during the Sabbatical year, because it is forbidden to burn Sabbatical produce on the altar!?

He said to him

Rami bar Ḥama to Rav Ḥisda:

Am I saying that it should be nullified!?

Do you think that my question was that, since it is impossible to burn Sabbatical produce, the Omer should not be offered during the Sabbatical year!?

I said only that they should

bring

the Omer

from the previous year [

from the produce of the preceding year ], whose produce does not possess Sabbatical sanctity. Rav Ḥisda replied to Rami bar Ḥama:

I require

fresh grain [

a mnemonic interpretation of karmel, “soft and full”; that is, the produce must be soft and capable of being rubbed off by hand ],

and

therefore

there is no

fresh grain in the produce of the preceding year, since it has already dried and hardened.

Rami bar Ḥama returned and challenged Rav Ḥisda:

Let them bring [

let them bring it ]

from

the fresh grain

of the previous year, that is, even in the produce of the preceding year one fulfills the requirement of “fresh grain” if, when it was harvested, it was “fresh grain”; they should bring it this year from produce that was “fresh grain” at the time of harvesting!?

Rav Ḥisda replied to Rami bar Ḥama:

For

the verse says

“You shall offer fresh grain,”

and we learn from this:

I require fresh grain at the time of offering,

and it is not sufficient that it was fresh grain at the time of harvesting.

It was stated:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The Omer may not be brought during the Sabbatical year from the produce of the preceding year, because we require

“You shall offer fresh grain.”

Rabbi Elazar said

another reason: because the verse says

“the first of your harvest” [

“And you shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the kohen” ], and we learn:

“The first of your harvest,” and not the end of your harvest;

the produce of the preceding year is the end of your harvest.

Rabba raised an objection

from that which was taught in a beraita: It is written [Leviticus 2:14]:

“And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits

to the Lord, parched grain of fresh ears, crushed kernels, you shall bring your meal offering of first fruits,”

the verse is speaking of the Omer meal offering.

From where [

from which species ]

is it brought?

From barley!

And the beraita explains:

You say that it is brought from barley

and not from another species;

or perhaps it is brought from wheat

instead?

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated "

spring"

in Egypt

[Exodus 9:31, concerning the plague of hail: "for the barley was spring"],

and it is stated "

spring"

for generations

["roasted spring-grain by fire, grits of fresh grain, you shall offer the meal-offering of your first produce"], and they should be learned from one another:

Just as "

spring"

stated with regard to Egypt—

that is,

barley, so too "

spring"

stated with regard to future generations comes only from barley.

Rabbi Akiva says

another source that the Omer comes from barley:

Behold,

we find an individual who 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 if so:

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 logically required 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, logically, the community should bring a barley meal-offering in addition to the wheat meal-offering that it brings. Necessarily, the Omer meal-offering is the barley meal-offering that the community brings, since:

If you say

the Omer

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

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

Alternatively:

The Torah said [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 bring a new meal-offering to the Lord." "First fruits" means that no other meal-offering made from the wheat of the new grain crop was offered before this meal-offering— And

if you say: The Omer comes from wheat,

then it turns out that

the two loaves

made from wheat are not

first fruits,

because a wheat meal-offering from the new grain crop had already been offered before the two loaves. Rather, necessarily, the Omer comes from barley, while no meal-offering from the new wheat crop was in fact offered before the two loaves, and therefore they are "first fruits."

It follows

that the reason for the two loaves

is that they are first fruits,

for "first fruits" is required, and the same applies to the Omer, since "first fruits" is also written with regard to it ["and if you offer a meal-offering of first fruits to the Lord: roasted spring-grain by fire, grits of fresh grain, you shall offer the meal-offering of your first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14)]. This is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, and it presents a difficulty to Rabbi Yohanan.