Menachot 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

And we conclude:

indeed,

a refutation

of Rabbi Yohanan from this beraita.

We learned there [

Bekhorot 1:3]:

One may not bring

first fruits except from the seven species, nor

from dates grown in the mountains

for they are not of superior quality; rather, those grown in the valleys are superior,

nor from produce [

grain]

of the valleys

because the water remains there overnight, and the grain withers and rots.

Ulla said:

even

if he brought—

first fruits from dates grown in the mountains or from produce of the valleys—

he has not sanctified them

as other first fruits are sanctified, and they are non-sacred produce.

Rabba was sitting and reciting this teaching [

he was sitting and reviewing this teaching, that “if he brought them, he did not sanctify them”]

; Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rabba

from that which is taught:

It is written [Leviticus 2:11]: “For any leaven or any honey [including dates] you shall not burn as an offering made by fire to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits [the two loaves from leaven, and first fruits from dates] you shall bring them to the Lord, but they shall not ascend upon the altar for a pleasing fragrance”—

And for this reason the two loaves are called

“an offering of first fruits,”

to teach

that

the meal offering of the two loaves

shall be the first of all the meal offerings

that are brought from the new grain, so that meal offerings may not be brought from the new grain before the two loaves.

And likewise it says

concerning the two loaves brought on Shavuot [Numbers 28:26]:

“When you bring a new meal offering to the Lord

on your weeks,”

and for this reason it is called “a new meal offering,” because it is new with regard to all the meal offerings brought from the new grain.

I have derived only that the new grain of wheat [

that is, new grain with regard to meal offerings brought from wheat], as in the case of the two loaves, which are made from wheat—

The new grain of barley

so that the meal offering of the two loaves should also be considered new with regard to the barley meal offering [the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota]—

from where?

The verse therefore says:

“new”

“new” [“When you bring a new meal offering to the Lord”; and it says further, in Leviticus 23:16: “Until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days; then you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord”],

“When you bring a new meal offering to the Lord”; and it says further, in Leviticus 23:16: “Until the day after the seventh week you shall count fifty days, and you shall bring a new meal offering to the Lord”],

if it is not applicable to the new grain of wheat,

for “new” has already been stated,

apply it to the new grain of barley.

And from where do I derive that

the meal offering of the two loaves

precedes

even

the first fruits,

so that first fruits may not be brought before the two loaves?

The verse therefore says:

“And you shall observe the festival of Shavuot, of the first fruits of the wheat harvest,”

that is, first you shall observe the festival of Shavuot, and afterward you shall bring the first fruits of the wheat harvest.

I have derived only that the first fruits of the wheat harvest

may not be brought before the two loaves; from where do I derive the first fruits

of the barley harvest

may not be brought before the two loaves?

The verse therefore says:

“And the festival of the harvest

[which is Shavuot]

the first fruits of your work that you sow in the field,”

that is, the festival of the harvest shall precede all the first fruits of your work that you sow in the field, whether wheat or any other work of yours.

And I have derived only that which “

you sow,”

that is, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what you sowed; but that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what

grew on its own

and was not sown by a person—

from where?

The verse therefore says: “

in the field,”

in any event.

And I have derived only

that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what is

in the field; from where do I include

that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what is

on a roof, in a ruin,

in a flowerpot, or on a ship,

all of which are not first fruits of superior quality?

The verse says in the passage concerning first fruits [Numbers 18:13, in the passage concerning gifts to the priests]:

“

The first fruits of everything in their land

that they bring to the Lord shall be yours”; and it says below, concerning the two loaves: “And the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your work”—just as here, “the first fruits of everything in their land”

means everything, so too here, “the first fruits of your work,” means everything.

From where do I derive that

the meal offering of the two loaves

precedes the libations

[wine and oil libations], so that they may not be brought from the new grain,

and

that it precedes

the fruit of the tree,

so that first fruits may not be brought from it?

It is stated here: “And the festival of the harvest [

Shavuot],

the first fruits of your work

that you sow in the field”;

and it is stated below

[in the continuation of the verse]: “And the festival of ingathering [the festival of Sukkot],

when you gather in your work from the field”—

Just as

the “work” mentioned

below

includes

libations and the fruit of a tree,

for by Sukkot all the produce has already been gathered, including that which comes from trees,

so too

the “work” mentioned

here includes libations and the fruit of a tree.

And we raise an objection from this beraita against Ulla, who said with regard to dates grown in the mountains and first fruits from the fruit of a tree that if one brought them, he did not sanctify them. For:

In any event, it teaches

in this beraita: From where do we include first fruits from what is

on a roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, or on a ship at sea,

so that the two loaves precede them? It follows that one who brings first fruits from what was grown in a flowerpot or on a ship has sanctified them; and all the more so in the case of dates grown in the mountains and produce of the valleys, which are of better quality than produce grown in a flowerpot or on a ship!

And we answer:

The latter clause

of the beraita—that is, what they said, “From where is it derived to include produce grown on a rooftop”—did not ask: From where is it derived to include first fruits from all those varieties that may not precede the two loaves? Rather,

we return to the case of meal-offerings

from all these varieties, which may not precede the two loaves. And with regard to meal-offerings, the beraita answered: The verse states: “The first fruits of everything in their land.” This verse is discussing meal-offerings, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to this: If so,

that “the first fruits of everything in their land” refers to meal-offerings,

this is what is written

—the verse there should pose a difficulty, as it states: “The first fruits of everything in their land that they bring to the Lord shall be yours;

every ritually pure person in your house shall eat it.”

And if

the verse is discussing

meal-offerings,

how could it say, “every ritually pure person in your house,” which includes even the wife and daughters of the kohen? But meal-offerings

are eaten only by male members of the priesthood

alone;

they are eaten

by them, and not by his wife and sons!?

Rav Mesharsheya said: Two verses are written

[unclear: the commentary explains this as two apparently distinct teachings contained in one passage]:

It is written, “

It shall be yours,”

which implies: yours—you who are a kohen—and your sons, who are kohanim, בלבד.

And it is written, “

Every ritually pure person in your house shall eat it.”

How

can these two statements be fulfilled together?

Here, where it says, “Every ritually pure person in your house shall eat it,” the reference is

everyone pure in your household shall eat it,”

to first fruits.

Here, where it says, “It shall be yours,” the reference is

it shall be yours,”

to meal-offerings.

Rav Ashi said: The entire

verse is

referring to meal-offerings.

And the latter clause of the verse, “Every ritually pure person in your house shall eat it,”

everyone pure in your household shall eat it,”

refers

to the teruma of

the loaves of the todah-offering

[unclear: the commentary cites the passage concerning the todah-offering, whose loaves are meal-offerings and may be eaten even by the wives and slaves of kohanim].

Here the Gemara returns to the central issue of the dispute between Ulla and Rav Aḥa bar Abba: whether first fruits brought from dates grown in the mountains or fruit grown in the valleys become sanctified. The Gemara states that this ruling is

the subject of a dispute

among other amoraim:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one brought

from these varieties,

they do not become sanctified.

Reish Lakish said: If one brought them,

they become sanctified,

because

they become

these inferior first fruits

like an inferior offering among consecrated offerings—like other inferior offerings, which are nevertheless consecrated, although they should not be brought ab initio.

like other inferior offerings that are sanctified, although one does not bring them ab initio.

The Gemara elaborates:

Granted, as for Reish Lakish,

he stated the reason

[unclear: Reish Lakish’s position is clear, since he provided a reason for his ruling].

But as for Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who said, “They do not become sanctified,”

what is the reason

that they do not become sanctified, and why are they inferior even to an inferior consecrated offering?

Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, and I shall say an excellent matter

[unclear: Rabbi Elazar explains that seeing a great person in a dream indicated to him that he would say something fine that day]. And this is what I say to explain the words of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said, “They do not become sanctified”:

The verse states

[unclear: Deuteronomy 26:2, in the passage concerning first fruits]: “And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the ground that you shall bring from your land.” We learn: “

From the first”

you shall bring,

but not every first—

to teach that one brings first fruits only from the Seven Species. “

From your land”

but not

from

all your land—

to exclude dates grown in the mountains and fruit grown in the valleys, from which one does not bring first fruits.

And

we challenge

Reish Lakish: This phrase, “

from your land,”

what does he make of it

[unclear: what does he derive as excluded by this verse]!?

He needs it

for the verse to state “from your land”

as it is taught in a beraita.

That is, although the verse says “from the first,” implying “but not every first,” we still would not know from which “first” one brings; this is learned from the phrase “from your land,” as explained in the beraita:

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi says:

It is stated here,

with regard to first fruits: “

land” [“

from your land”],

and it is stated elsewhere

[Deuteronomy 8:7]: “For the Lord your God is bringing you to a good land, a land of streams of water,

a land

of wheat and barley, grapevine, fig, and pomegranate; a land of olive oil and honey.”

Just as there,

the verse speaks of the Seven Species, which are

the praise

of the

land

mentioned in the verse,

so here,

with regard to first fruits, one brings only from

the praise of the land—

that is, the Seven Species with which the Land of Israel is praised.

And we explain:

But the other one—

Rabbi Yoḥanan, who derived from the verse “from your land” the exclusion of dates grown in the mountains and fruit grown in the valleys, even though the verse was needed to teach that first fruits come from the Seven Species—“

land” and “

from the land.” That is, if the verse had come only to teach that first fruits come from the Seven Species, it should have said only “land.” Since it says “from your land,” it implies the exclusion: “but not all your land.”

that is, had the verse come only to teach that first fruits come from the seven species, it would have needed to say only “land”; and since it said “from your land,” it implies the exclusion: “but not all your land.”

But the other one,

and the reason Reish Lakish did not derive from here the exclusion of dates grown in the mountains and fruit grown in the valleys, is that

“

land” and “

from the land”

does not appear to him to indicate a homiletical derivation.

The Gemara cites two beraitot that apparently contradict one another concerning fruit that grows on a rooftop, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, or on a ship. On the basis of these beraitot, it challenges Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that one who brings first fruits from dates grown in the mountains does not sanctify them—and certainly fruit grown in a flowerpot or on a ship, which are inferior to those, as explained above:

One beraita teaches: With regard to produce grown on a rooftop, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, or on a ship, one brings

first fruits from them,

and

also

recites

over them the “recitation of the first fruits.”

And another beraita teaches: One brings

first fruits from all of these,

but does not recite the recitation.

Granted, according to Reish Lakish,

the contradiction between the beraitot can be resolved:

Rooftop and rooftop are not difficult:

This—

the case in which we learned that one brings and recites—

concerns a rooftop of a cave,

whose produce is of superior quality.

This—

the case in which we learned that one brings but does not recite—

concerns a house rooftop,

whose produce is not as good as that of a cave rooftop.

Ruin and ruin

also

are not difficult:

Here—

the case in which we learned that one brings and recites—

concerns a cultivated ruin

[unclear: worked or cultivated].

Here—the case in which we learned that one brings but does not recite—

the one that we learned: he brings but does not recite—

concerns a ruin that is not cultivated,

whose produce is not as good as that of a cultivated ruin.

Flowerpot and flowerpot

also

are not difficult:

Here—the case in which we learned that one brings and recites—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns a perforated

[unclear: perforated flowerpot], whose produce is of superior quality.

Here—the case in which we learned that one brings but does not recite—

the one that we learned: he brings but does not recite—

concerns one that is not

perforated,

whose produce is not of superior quality.

Ship and ship

also

are not difficult:

Here—the case in which we learned that one brings but does not recite—

the one that we learned: he brings but does not recite—

concerns a wooden ship,

whose produce is not of superior quality, as it is like a nonperforated flowerpot.

Here—the case in which we learned that one brings and recites—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns an earthenware ship,

which does not require perforation and whose produce is of superior quality.