Menachot

it was the daybreak that rendered [the new harvest] permitted.1 This view of Resh Lakish2 was not expressly stated but was inferred from the following: We have learnt:3 One may not offer4 meal-offerings, first-fruits, or meal-offerings that accompany animal-offerings, before the ‘Omer;5 and if one did so it is invalid. Neither may one offer these before the Two Loaves;6 but if one did so it is valid. And R. Isaac said in the name of Resh Lakish. This rule7 applies only [if the offering was brought] on the fourteenth or fifteenth day [of Nisan], but if brought on the sixteenth day8 it would be valid. It is thus clear that he is of the opinion that the daybreak [of the sixteenth day of Nisan] renders [the new harvest] permitted. Raba said, If [the priest] took the handful from the meal-offering of the ‘Omer under any name other than its own, it is valid, and the rest of it may be eaten; moreover there is no need of another ‘Omer meal-offering [to be brought in order] to render [the new harvest] permitted. For [Raba is of the opinion that] a wrongful intention does not affect the offering unless expressed by one fit for service, in respect of what is fit for service, and in the place that is fit for service. ‘By one fit for service’ — this excludes a priest with a physical-blemish; ‘in respect of what is fit for service’ — this excludes the ‘Omer meal-offering which is not fit for any other offering, for it is exceptional;9 ‘and in the place that is fit for service — this excludes an altar which has become chipped. 10 Our Rabbis taught: When it says in the next verse Of the herd11 — which is unnecessary — it does so only to exclude a trefah12 animal. But surely this can be arrived at by an a fortiori argument:13 if a blemished animal which is permitted to man is forbidden to the Most High,14 how much more is a trefah animal which is forbidden to man forbidden to the Most High! The fat and the blood [of the animal], however, can prove otherwise; for these are forbidden to man yet are permitted to the Most High. [And if you retort,] This is so of the fat and the blood since they emanate from that which is permitted,15 but will you say the same of a trefah animal which is wholly forbidden? [I reply,] The rite of nipping off [the head of a bird-offering] which [would render the bird] wholly forbidden [to man] could prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet is permitted to the Most High. [But you might retort,] This is so of the nipping since it is only rendered forbidden [to man] by this act which renders it consecrated;16 the same, however, cannot be said of a trefah animal for it is not rendered forbidden by any act which renders it consecrated.17 And if you reply to this, then [I say that] when it reads in the next verse ‘Of the herd’ — which is unnecessary-it does so only to exclude the trefah animal. What was meant by ‘If you reply to this’?18 — Rab said, Because one could reply that the ‘Omer meal-offering can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. But this is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering as it renders the new produce permitted!19 — The [‘Omer meal-offering of the] Sabbatical year was meant.20 But that surely renders the aftergrowth permitted? — [It is indeed the ‘Omer meal-offering of] the Sabbatical year [that is meant], but the view is in accordance with that of R. Akiba who said that the aftergrowth is forbidden in the Sabbatical year.21 R. Aha b. Abba said to R. Ashi, Even according to R. Akiba's view one could refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering since it renders permitted the new produce [of the Sabbatical year grown] outside the Land [of Israel]22 And even according to him who maintains that outside the Land [of Israel] the new produce is not forbidden by the law of the Torah, [one can refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering,] since it serves to raise the prohibition that lies upon it.23 R. Aha of Difti thereupon said to Rabina, If so, should not a trefah animal also be permitted to be offered as a sacrifice and so it would raise the prohibition [of trefah] that lies upon it?24 -One could, however, refute the argument thus: This is so of the ‘Omer meal-offering since there is an express command that it shall be so.25 Resh Lakish said, One could reply that the case of the compounder of the incense can prove otherwise: for he is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High.26 But the compounder is a person!27 — Say, rather, The compound forming the incense can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man28 yet permitted to the Most High28 But this is so of the compound forming the incense since there is an express command that it shall be so!29 Mar the son of Rabina said, One could reply that the Sabbath can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to man yet permitted to the Most High. 30 But this is so of the Sabbath since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of circumcision!31 — Surely circumcision is not for the sake of the layman. It is a precept [of the Law]! — One could therefore say, This is so of the Sabbath since there is an express command that it shall be so!32 R. Adda b. Abba said, One could reply that a garment of diverse kinds [of stuff]33 can prove otherwise: for it is forbidden to the layman yet permitted to the Most High.34 But this is so of diverse kinds since an exception to the general prohibition is allowed to the layman in the case of the zizith!35 — Surely the zizith is not for the sake of the layman, it is a precept [of the Law]! — One could therefore say, before the offering of the ‘Omer. Consequently the handful, even though taken under another name, may be burnt upon the altar, for the new harvest is already permitted to all. ‘Omer. (wheaten) meal-offering of the new harvest; v. Lev. XXIII, 16, 17. was of barley meal) whereas all other meal-offerings consisted of wheat. and not chipped. V. Zeb. 59a, and Hul. 18a. to exclude from sacrifices such animals as were used for irreligious or immoral purposes. that it was permitted. animal from being offered as a sacrifice. found necessary to resort to the verse to exclude a trefah animal? XXIII, 10, 11). Hence the ‘Omer meal-offering of this year is on the same footing as any trefah animal in that neither can render anything else permitted; consequently by analogy with the ‘Omer meal-offering a trefah animal should be permitted as a sacrifice, and therefore the verse is necessary to exclude the trefah animal. animal. meal-offering, he would not be liable for eating of the new produce, for this prohibition has been raised by the offering of the ‘Omer, but would only incur guilt for eating of the produce of the Sabbatical year. V., however, Tosaf. s.v. ifa. precept; on the other hand, it is not essential that only a trefah animal shall be offered, any other animal would serve just as well. Most High. Hence a verse is necessary to exclude a trefah animal. trefah! the prohibition of diverse kinds of stuff does not apply to the precept of zizith.