Menachot 84b — the Talmud in English

And we conclude:

indeed

a teyuvta

against Rabbi Yohanan from this beraita.

We learned there [Mishna Bikkurim 1:3]:

Bikkurim 1:3]:

One does not bring

first fruits except from the seven species, and not ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

from dates of the mountains

which are not superior; rather, those in the valleys are superior,

and not from the produce

grain crops]

of the valleys,

because the waters remain there overnight, and the grain becomes withered and rots.

Ulla said:

even

if he brought—

first fruits from dates of the mountains and from produce of the valleys—

he did not sanctify

like other first fruits, and they are ordinary produce.

Rabba was sitting and reciting this teaching

Rabba was sitting and repeating this teaching, that “if he brought, it was not sanctified”]

; Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection to Rabba

against this law from that which was taught:

It is written: [Leviticus 2:11]: “For any leaven and any honey [including dates] you shall not offer from it a fire-offering to the Lord. The offering of the first [the two loaves from leaven, and first fruits from dates] you shall offer them to the Lord, but upon the altar they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance”—

And therefore the two loaves were called

“the offering of the first,”

to teach

that it shall be

the meal-offering of the two loaves

the first of all the meal-offerings

that come from the new produce, so that they should not bring meal-offerings from the new grain before the two loaves.

And so it says

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

When you bring a new meal-offering to the Lord

on your weeks,”

and therefore it is called “a new meal-offering,” because it is new for all the meal-offerings that come from the new produce.

I have only [learned] the new produce of wheat [that is, new for meal-offerings that come from wheat], and just as the two loaves come from 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 produce of barley,

so that the meal-offering of the two loaves should also be new for the barley meal-offering [the meal-offering of jealousy of a woman suspected by her husband]—

from where?

The verse teaches: “

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, and you shall offer 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 does not apply to the new produce of wheat

since “new” was already stated,

apply it to the new produce of barley.

And from where do we know that it shall be

the meal-offering of the two loaves

prior

even

to first fruits,

so that they should not bring first fruits before the two loaves?

The verse teaches: “

And you shall make for yourself the festival of weeks, the first fruits of the wheat harvest,”

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

And I have only [learned] the first fruits of the wheat harvest,

that they should not bring them before the two loaves; the first fruits

of the barley harvest—from where

do we know that they should not bring them before the two loaves?

The verse teaches: “

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 of wheat or of the rest of your work.

And I have only [learned] that which you “

sow,”

that is, I have only [learned] that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what you sowed, but that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what

grew by itself,

and was not sown by a person—from

where?

The verse teaches: “

in the field”

in any event.

And I have only

[learned] that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what is

in the field; from where do we include

that the two loaves precede the first fruits of what is

on a roof and in a ruin

and in a flowerpot and on a ship,

for all these are not first fruits of the choicest?

The verse teaches

regarding first fruits [Numbers 18:13, in the section of priestly gifts]: “

The first fruits of all that is in their land

that they bring to the Lord shall be yours,” and it says below, regarding the two loaves, “the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your work”—just as here, “the first fruits of all that is in their land,” -

everything is included, so too here, “the first fruits of your work”—everything is included.

From where do we know that it shall be

the meal-offering of the two loaves

prior to the libations

[wine and oil libations], so that they should not bring them from the new produce,

and

that it shall precede

the fruits of the tree

so that they should not bring first fruits from them?

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

“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 the ingathering [the festival of Sukkot],

when you gather in your work from the field”—

Just as “your work,” which is stated

“work” mentioned

below,

so too

libations and fruits of the tree

are included, for on Sukkot they had already gathered all the work, including those that come from the tree

; so too

“your work,” which is stated

here: libations and fruits of the tree.

And from this beraita we raise an objection to Ulla, who said regarding dates of the mountains and first fruits from the fruits of the tree that if he brought them, they were not sanctified; for:

At any rate, it teaches

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

on a roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, and on a ship at sea, so that the two loaves precede them? It follows that one who brings first fruits from what was planted in a flowerpot and on a ship—they were sanctified; and all the more so from dates of the mountains and from produce of the valleys, which are superior to what grows in a flowerpot and on a ship!

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 conclusion

of the beraita—that is, what they said, “From where is it to include those on the roof”—did not ask, “From where is it to include first fruits,” from all these which may not precede the two loaves; rather,

we return to meal-offerings

from all these, that they should not precede the two loaves. And concerning meal-offerings the beraita answered: “The Torah says: ‘The first fruits of all that is in their land’”; and this verse is dealing with meal-offerings, as it explains and proceeds.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection to him: If so

that “the first fruits of all that is in their land” refers to meal-offerings—

this is what is written

[the verse there should be challenged: “The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they will bring to the Lord, shall be yours;

everyone pure in your household shall eat it”;

and if

in

meal-offerings

the verse is dealing, how did it say, “everyone pure in your household,” which includes even the wife and daughters of the kohen? But meal-offerings

are eaten by male kohanim

alone;

they are eaten [by them], and not by his wife and sons—

[unclear: the source’s “sons” conflicts with its preceding “wife and daughters”]!?

Rav Mesharshya said: Two verses are written

[as though they were two verses in one passage]:

It is written, “

It shall be yours,”

which implies: yours, for you are a kohen, and for your sons, who are kohanim, alone.

And it is written, “

Everyone pure in your household shall eat it.”

How

can they both be fulfilled?

Here, “

everyone pure in your household shall eat it,”

refers to first fruits.

Here, “

it shall be yours,”

refers to meal-offerings.

Rav Ashi said: The entire

verse

refers to meal-offerings.

And the end of the verse, “

everyone pure in your household shall eat it,”

refers

to the teruma of

the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering

[as it is said in the passage of the thanksgiving-offering—Leviticus 7:12: “If he offers it for a thanksgiving-offering... with cakes of leavened bread he shall offer his sacrifice, and he shall offer from it one of each sacrifice as a teruma to the Lord; it shall belong to the kohen who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings”]. They are meal-offerings, and they are eaten even by the wives and slaves of the kohanim.

Here the Gemara returns to the essential matter over which Ulla and Rav Aha bar Abba disagreed: the law concerning bringing first fruits from dates of the mountains and fruits of the valleys, whether they become sanctified. And the Gemara brings that this law is

a dispute

of other amoraim:

Rabbi Yohanan said: If he brought

from these—

they do not become sanctified.

Resh Lakish said: If he brought—

they become sanctified,

and because they

become

first fruits that are not choice

like inferior offerings,

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

The Gemara adds to explain:

Granted, Resh Lakish—

as he stated the reason, [Resh Lakish’s position is clear, since he gave a reason for his words].

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

But Rabbi Yohanan, who said, “It does not become sanctified,”

who said, “They do not become sanctified,”

what is the reason

that it does not become sanctified and is inferior to an inferior offering?

Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yohanan in a dream; I shall say an excellent matter [I saw Rabbi Yohanan in my dream, and since I saw a great man, I knew that I was destined to say an excellent matter today]; and this is what I say to give a reason for Rabbi Yohanan’s words, who said, “It does not become sanctified”:

[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 says [Deuteronomy 26:2, in the passage of first fruits]: “And you shall take from the first of every fruit of the soil that you shall bring from your land.” From this we have learned: “

[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 you bring first fruits only from the seven species— “

From your land”

and not

from

all your land—to exclude dates of the mountains and fruits of the valleys, from which you do not bring first fruits.

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

And

we challenge

Resh Lakish: What does this “

from your land”

do for him [what does he derive as an exclusion from this verse]!?

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

He needs it for what is written, “from your land,”

for the verse to state “from your land”

as it is taught—that is, although the verse said “from the first,” implying “but not every first,” we did not yet know from which first he brings; this we learn from the verse “from your land,” as explained in the 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 Gamaliel son of Rabbi says:

It is stated here, concerning 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,

[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 and vine and fig and pomegranate, a land of olive oil and honey.”

Just as there

the seven species, which are the

praise

of the

of the

land, are meant by the verse,

so here, concerning first fruits, you bring only from

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 was praised.

And we explain:

And the other—Rabbi Yohanan, who learned from the verse “from your land” to exclude dates of the mountains and fruits of the valleys, although the verse was needed to teach us that it comes from the seven species—

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,”

“from 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.”

And the other, and the reason of Resh Lakish, who did not learn from here to exclude dates of the mountains and fruits of the valleys, is because

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,”

“from land”

does not imply to him

a derivation.

The Gemara brings two apparently contradictory beraitot concerning fruits that grow on a roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, and in a ship, and challenges Rabbi Yohanan from them, since he holds that one who brings first fruits from dates of the mountains has not sanctified them—and certainly those growing in a flowerpot and in a ship, which are inferior to them, as explained above:

One [beraita] taught: From what is on a roof, in a ruin, in a flowerpot, and in a ship, he brings

first fruits,

and

also

recites

over them the “Recitation of First Fruits.”

And another [beraita] taught: He brings

first fruits from all these

but does not recite.

Granted, according to Resh Lakish,

it is possible to reconcile the contradiction between the beraitot:

Roof with roof is not difficult:

This—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns the roof of a cave,

whose fruits are superior.

This—

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

concerns the roof of a house,

whose fruits are not as superior as those of the roof of a cave.

Ruin with ruin

also

is not difficult:

Here—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns a cultivated ruin [cultivated].

[unclear: worked or cultivated].

Here—

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

concerns a ruin that is not cultivated,

whose fruits are not as superior as those of a cultivated ruin.

Flowerpot with flowerpot

also

is not difficult:

Here—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns one with a hole [a flowerpot with a hole], whose fruits are superior.

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

Here—

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

concerns one that is not

perforated,

whose fruits are not superior.

Ship with ship

also

is not difficult:

Here—

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

concerns a wooden ship,

whose fruits are not superior, for it is like a flowerpot without a hole.

Here—

the one that we learned: he brings and recites—

concerns an earthenware ship,

which does not require perforation, and whose fruits are superior.