Menachot

But we have learnt: AFTER THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI ORDAINED THAT IT SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN THROUGHOUT THE DAY OF THE WAVING. What is the reason? The Temple may speedily be rebuilt and people would then say, ‘Did we not eat last year [of the new corn] immediately at the daybreak [of the sixteenth day]? This year too we shall eat it [from the same time]’, but they will not realize that last year when there was admits, however, that this was the law only after the destruction of the Temple, but during Temple times it was permitted immediately after the ‘Omer was offered. no ‘Omer-offering the daybreak rendered it permitted, but now that there is an ‘Omer-offering it is only the ‘Omer-offering that renders it permitted.1 Now if it is only a recommendation to do so, would we impose a restriction on account of a recommendation only? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said that R. Johanan b. Zakkai ruled in accordance with the view enunciated by R. Judah who said that it2 is forbidden by the law of the Torah, for it is written, ‘Until this selfsame day’, that is, until this very day itself, and he is also of the opinion that the expression ‘until’ is inclusive.3 But does [R. Johanan b. Zakkai] concur with him [R. Judah]? Do they not in fact disagree? for we have learnt: AFTER THE TEMPLE WAS DESTROYED R. JOHANAN B. ZAKKAI ORDAINED THAT IT SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN THROUGHOUT THE DAY OF THE WAVING. R. JUDAH SAID, IS IT NOT SO FORBIDDEN BY THE LAW OF THE TORAH, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, UNTIL THIS SELFSAME DAY? — R. Judah misunderstood [the other's view]; he thought that R. Johanan b. Zakkai regarded the prohibition as Rabbinic, but in fact it was not so; he meant it as a prohibition by the law of the Torah. But does not our Mishnah say ‘ORDAINED’? — ‘ORDAINED’ means, he expounded [the verse] and established the law accordingly. R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua used to eat the new corn on the night of the sixteenth day which is really the beginning4 of the seventeenth day, for they hold the view that the prohibition of the new corn outside the land [of Israel] is only Rabbinical5 and that the doubt6 need not be taken into account. The Rabbis of the school of R. Ashi used to eat it on the morning of the seventeenth, for they hold that the prohibition of the new corn outside the land of Israel is Biblical,5 but that the ruling of R. Johanan b. Zakkai was only a Rabbinic ordinance; and this ordinance, they maintain, was intended to apply only to the actual day of the waving but not to the day of doubt.7 Rabina said, ‘My mother told me that your father did not eat of the new corn until the night of the seventeenth which is the beginning of the eighteenth, for he is of the same opinion as R. Judah8 and also takes into account the day of doubt’. MISHNAH. THE ‘OMER RENDERED [THE NEW CORN] PERMITTED THROUGHOUT THE LAND, AND THE TWO LOAVES9 RENDERED IT PERMITTED IN THE TEMPLE.10 ONE MAY NOT OFFER MEAL-OFFERINGS,11 FIRST-FRUITS, OR MEAL-OFFERINGS THAT ACCOMPANY ANIMAL OFFERINGS, BEFORE THE ‘OMER; AND IF ONE DID SO, IT WAS INVALID. NOR MAY ONE OFFER THESE BEFORE THE TWO LOAVES; BUT IF ONE DID SO IT WAS VALID. GEMARA. R. Tarfon was sitting and asked this question: What [is the reason for the difference in law] between [what is offered] before the ‘Omer and [what is offered] before the Two Loaves?12 Said Judah b. Nehemiah before him, No; you can say [that what is offered] before the ‘Omer [is invalid]. for the prohibition [of the new corn] does not admit of any exception to the private individual,13 but can you say so [of what is offered] before the Two Loaves, seeing that the prohibition does admit of an exception to the private individual?14 R. Tarfon remained silent, and at once the face of Judah b. Nehemiah brightened with joy. Thereupon R. Akiba said to him, ‘Judah. your face has brightened with joy because you have refuted the Sage; I wonder whether you will live long’ — Said R. Judah b. Ila'i, ‘This happened a fortnight before the Passover,15 and when I came up for the ‘Azereth16 festival I enquired after Judah b. Nehemiah and was told that he had passed away’. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, According to the view of Judah b. Nehemiah,if drink-offerings [of wine], made from the first-fruits which ripened [before the ‘Omer], were offered before the ‘Omer, they are valid,17 Is not this obvious?- [No.] for you might argue that only in that case18 [is the offering valid], because the prohibition19 admits of an exception to the individual, but not in this case where the prohibition does not admit of any exception; he therefore teaches us that it is all the more so in this case where there is no prohibition at all! 20 (Mnemonic: Order. In bud. Dung. Elephant.)21 Rami b. Hama raised the question: Do the Two Loaves render permitted when not in the usual order?22 What are the circumstances?-For instance, corn was sown [in the period] between the offering of the ‘Omer and the Two Loaves, and then the time of the offering of the Two Loaves and the [next] ‘Omer passed by. Shall we say that they [the Two Loaves] render permitted only in the usual order but not when not in the usual order, or that they render permitted even when not in the usual order? Rabbah said, Come and hear: The verse, And if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits.23 refers to the meal-offering of the ‘Omer. Of what was it offered? Of barley. You say ‘of barley’. but perhaps it is not so but rather of wheat! Said R. Eliezer, The expression ‘in the ear’24 is stated In regard to [the incidents in] Egypt, and the expression ‘in the ear’23 is also stated [as an ordinance] for generations: just as ‘in the ear’ stated in regard to [the incidents in] Egypt referred to barley,24 so ‘in the ear’ stated [as an ordinance] for generations refers to barley. R. Akiba said, We find that an individual must offer wheat as an obligation25 and also barley as an obligation;26 likewise we find that the community must offer wheat as an obligation and also barley as an obligation. Should you say. therefore, that the ‘Omer was offered of wheat, then we do not find a case when the community must offer barley as an obligation! Another explanation: Should you say that the ‘Omer was offered of wheat, then the Two Loaves would not be the first-fruits!27 Now if it is right to say that the Two Loaves render permitted even when not in the usual order, then why do you say that the Two Loaves would not be the first-fruits? It can happen that the ‘Omer is offered — of that corn which had taken root before the offering of the Two Loaves but after last year's ‘Omer, and the Two Loaves of that corn which had taken root before this year's ‘Omer28 but after of the ‘Omer and then the period of the Two Loaves. The question here raised is whether the corn is always permitted for meal-offerings after the passing of these two periods, irrespective of their sequence. or not. last year's Two Loaves!-Do you think injunction. permitted on the following day. consequently the day that is regarded as the seventeenth of the month may really be the sixteenth, if the preceding month consisted of thirty days. during the day of the waving of the ‘Omer is also Biblical. new corn, as it is written, And ye shall present a new meal-offering unto the Lord, ibid. 16. being thirty days. v. Pes. 6a. an exception to the individual whatsoever is offered before the prohibition has been absolutely raised is valid, these drink-offerings are certainly valid, for the prohibition of the new produce not only admits of an exception but does not apply at all, as it applies only to corn and not to fruits. It must now be observed that the FIRST-FRUITS mentioned In our Mishnah, which may not be offered before the ‘Omer, clearly refer to the species of corn that are included in the first-fruits and not to fruits. for use as meal-offerings (i.e., after the offering of the Two Loaves) the two periods affecting corn have passed by in the normal sequence, namely. first the period year. This, however, would not be the case if the ‘Omer were offered of wheat.