Parallel
מנחות 72
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
He [R. Meir] agrees with him in the one case but disagrees with him in the other. ONE MAY REAP ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAPLINGS OR [IN ORDER TO MAKE AN OPEN SPACE] FOR THE MOURNERS OR THAT THE BETH HAMIDRASH [BE NOT HINDERED]. What is the reason?-The Divine Law says. [The first of] your reaping, but not the [first of the] reaping for a religious purpose. ONE MAY NOT BIND THEM IN BUNDLES BUT THEY MUST BE LEFT IN SMALL HEAPS. What is the reason?-Because so far as is possible we must not work [before the ‘Omer]. THE PRECEPT OF THE ‘OMER IS THAT IT SHALL BE BROUGHT FROM THE STANDING CORN. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, And when thou bringest a meal-offering of first-fruits: what does this teach us? Since the precept of the ‘Omer is that it shall be brought from the standing corn, whence should I know that if standing corn cannot be found it may be brought from the sheaves? The text therefore states ‘thou bringest’. Another explanation is: ‘Thou bringest’: since the precept is that it shall be brought from the fresh corn, whence should I know that if fresh corn cannot be found it may be brought from the dry corn? The text therefore states ‘thou bringest’. Another explanation is: ‘Thou bringest’: since the precept is that it shall be reaped by night, whence should I know that if it was reaped by day it is valid, and also that it overrides the Sabbath? The text therefore states ‘thou bringest’. ‘Thou bringest’, whatever it is; ‘thou bringest’. from any place; ‘thou bringest’, even on the Sabbath; ‘thou bringest’, even in a state of uncleanness. IF IT WAS REAPED BY DAY IT IS VALID. But we have learnt: The whole night is valid for reaping the ‘Omer and for burning the fat and the limbs [of sacrifices on the altar]. This is the general rule: any commandment which is to be performed by day is valid during the whole of the day, and any commandment which is to be performed by night is valid during the whole of the night. Now night and day are on a par, and just as that which is to be performed by day is not [valid] by night so that which is to be performed by night is not [valid] by day! — Rabbah said, This is no difficulty, for one represents Rabbi's view, the other the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For it was taught: If [the priest] was standing and offering up the ‘Omer meal-offering and it became unclean, if there is another [available] he should be told, ‘Bring the other in its place’. But if not, he should be told, ‘Be wise and keep silent’. So Rabbi. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says. In either case he is told, ‘Be wise and keep silent’, for the ‘Omer that was reaped not in accordance with its prescribed rite is invalid. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan. The ruling of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon is based upon the principle enunciated by R. Akiba, his father's teacher. For we have learnt: R. Akiba stated a general principle: Any work which can be done on the eve of the Sabbath does not override the Sabbath Moreover, he [R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] is of the same opinion as R. Ishmael who holds that the reaping of the ‘Omer is a religious duty. For we have learnt: R. Ishmael says, Just as ploughing is optional. so the harvest [referred to in the verse] is an optional one, excluding the harvesting of the ‘Omer, which is a religious duty. Now if we were to hold that if the ‘Omer was reaped not in accordance with its prescribed rite it is valid, wherefore does it override the Sabbath? Let it be reaped on the eve of the Sabbath! Since, however, it does override the Sabbath, one may infer that [he holds that] if it was reaped not in accordance with its prescribed rite it is invalid. But was not Rabbi a disciple of R. Simeon? Surely it has been taught: Rabbi said, When we were studying Torah at R. Simeon's [Academy] in Tekoa we used to carry up to him [on the Sabbath] oil and a towel from the courtyard to the roof, and from the roof to an enclosure, and from one enclosure to another enclosure, until we came to the fountain where we bathed! — He [Rabbi] concurs with the other teaching of R. Simeon. For it was taught: R. Simeon said, Come and see how precious is a precept in its proper time! For the burning of the fat and limbs is valid the whole night, yet they did not wait until nightfall.33
—
And did not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon know of this [teaching of his father]? — [He certainly knew of it] but in that case it is different for the slaughtering has already overridden the Sabbath. And Rabbi? Is it not the fact that the slaughtering there has already overridden the Sabbath? — Rather [we must say that] Rabbi is of the opinion that the reaping of the ‘Omer does not override the Sabbath. But does it not? But we have learnt: The Sages say, whether on the Sabbath or on a weekday it was taken out of three se'ahs! That is not in accordance with Rabbi's view. But we have learnt: The Sages say. Whether on the Sabbath or on a weekday it was reaped by three men into three baskets with three sickles! [That too is] not in accordance with Rabbi's view. But we have learnt: On the Sabbath he called out further, ‘On this Sabbath?’ — [That too is] not In accordance with Rabbi's view. IF IT WAS REAPED BY DAY IT IS VALID. MOREOVER IT OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. Whom have you heard say that if it was reaped by day it is valid? Clearly it is Rabbi. Yet it states, MOREOVER IT OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. Presumably it refers to the reaping [of the ‘Omer]. does it not? — No, it refers to the offering [of the ‘Omer]. And the reaping does not [override the Sabbath]? Surely it has been taught: Rabbi says. And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord. For what purpose is this stated? Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness]. since in its anointed time’ is stated in connection with them — in its appointed time’, even on the Sabbath, ‘in its anointed time’, even in uncleanness. Whence do we know it of the other offerings of the congregation? The text therefore states These shall ye offer unto the Lord in your appointed times. Whence do we know to include the ‘Omer and that which is offered with it, and the Two Loaves and that which is offered with them? The text therefore states, ‘And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord’: this verse thus fixed ‘the appointed time’ for all of them. Now for what [service is the Sabbath overridden]? Should you say for the offering, but the Two Loaves are not offered at all! Obviously then it is for the grinding and the sifting of the corn and similarly in the case of the ‘Omer for the reaping; thus it overrides the Sabbath. No, the ‘Omer [overrides the Sabbath] for the act of offering, and the Two Loaves for the baking; for Rabbi is of the opinion that the oven [of the Sanctuary] hallows them, so that had they been baked on the previous day they would, by being kept overnight, be now invalid. But does Rabbi hold that the oven hallows them? Surely it was taught: The lambs of Pentecost hallow the bread only by their slaughtering. Thus if they were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name, the bread is hallowed; if they were slaughtered under another name and their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is not hallowed; if they were slaughtered under their own name but their blood was sprinkled under another name, the bread is hallowed and not hallowed. This is the opinion of Rabbi. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon says, It is by no means hallowed unless [the lambs] were slaughtered under their own name and their blood was sprinkled under their own name! — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered, He means that they are either determined or not determined. CHAPTER VII MISHNAH FROM THE FOLLOWING MEAL-OFFERINGS THE HANDFUL MUST BE TAKEN AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS: THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FINE FLOUR, THAT PREPARED ON A GRIDDLE, THAT PREPARED IN A PAN, THE CAKES AND THE WAFERS, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A GENTILE, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF WOMEN, THE MEAL-OFFERING OF THE ‘OMER, THE SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE MEAL-OFFERING OF JEALOUSY. R. SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNERS MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS THE HANDFUL IS TAKEN, AND THE HANDFUL IS OFFERED BY ITSELF AND SO ALSO THE REMAINDER IS OFFERED BY ITSELF. GEMARA. R. Papa said, All [the meal-offerings] enumerated in the Mishnah must consist of ten [cakes]. What does he teach us?-He wishes to exclude thereby R. Simeon's view who said, He may offer half in cakes and half in wafers; and so he teaches us that it is not so. AND THE REMAINDER IS FOR THE PRIESTS. Whence do we know this? — Whence? [you ask,] but surely where it is expressly stated it is expressly stated, and where it is not expressly stated there is the verse, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it... and that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat! — With regard to those which are brought from wheat I have no doubt, I only ask it with regard to those brought from barley. But even with regard to those brought from barley, surely [it is obvious that] the remainder is for the priests, since the handful is taken from them? According to the view of the Rabbis I have no doubt, I only ask it according to the view of R. Simeon who maintains that there is a meal-offering from which the handful must be taken and yet [the remainder] may not be eaten, for we have learnt: R. SIMEON SAYS, FROM THE SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING BROUGHT BY PRIESTS THE HANDFUL IS TAKEN, AND THE HANDFUL IS OFFERED BY ITSELF AND SO ALSO THE REMAINDER IS OFFERED BY ITSELF. Whence then do we know it? — Hezekiah said, From the verse, And every meal-offering, mingled with oil, or dry, shall all the sons of Aaron have. And if this verse serves no purpose for meal-offerings of wheat mingled With oil it should be applied to meal-offerings of barley mingled with oil, and so, too, if this verse serves no purpose for dry meal-offerings of wheat it should be applied to dry meal-offerings of barley. But does this [verse] serve this purpose? Surely it is required for the following which was taught: How do we know that meal-offerings may not be set off against animal-offerings?44
—