מנחות 84

¹ but as to the Land they do not differ at all, [for they both hold] that the ‘Omer-offering and the Two Loaves must be offered from the [produce of the] Land [of Israel] and not from [that grown] outside the Land. This view is clearly not in accord with that of the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah says, The ‘Omer-offering may be offered from [what is grown] outside the Land. How then am I to interpret the expression ‘when ye are come into the land’? To signify that they were not bound to offer the ‘Omer-offering before they entered the Land. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that the [prohibition of the] new corn outside the Land [of Israel] is Biblical; that the expression ‘your dwellings’ implies wherever you may be dwelling; and that the expression ‘when ye are come into the land’ implies [that the prohibition comes into force only] at the time when you come [into the Land]. Now since [the prohibition of the new corn outside the Land of Israel] is Biblical, we may surely offer [the ‘Omer-offering therefrom]. We have learnt elsewhere: Those who kept guard over the aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year received their pay out of the terumath ha-lishkah. Rami b. Hama pointed out the following contradiction to R. Hisda: We have learnt: ‘Those who kept guard over the aftergrowth in the Sabbatical year received their pay out of the terumath ha-lishkah’, but in contradiction to this we have also learnt: For food. but it must not be burnt!’ — He replied. ‘The Divine Law says, Throughout your generations, and you are suggesting that it be dispensed with!’ ‘Am I suggesting’, retorted the other, ‘that it be dispensed with? [I say] it can be offered of last year's produce!’ — ‘It must be fresh. and it is not so in that case’. ‘Then it can be offered of the fresh corn of last year's produce!’ — ‘The text says. Thou shalt bring . . . fresh. that is, it must be fresh at the time of offering, and it is not so in that case. It was stated: R. Johanan said, [It is written,] ‘Thou shalt bring . . . fresh’; R. Eleazar said, [It is written.] The first of your harvest, but not the end of your harvest. Rabbah raised the following objection: The verse, And if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits. 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’ is stated in regard to the incidents in Egypt, and the expression ‘in the ear’ is also stated as an ordinance for generations: just as ‘in the ear’ stated in regard to the incidents in Egypt referred to the barley, so ‘in the ear’ stated as an ordinance for generations refers to barley only. R. Akiba said, We find that an individual must offer wheat as an obligation and also barley as an obligation; likewise we find that the community must offer wheat as an obligation and also barley as an obligation. Should you say, then, that the ‘Omer was offered of wheat, we would 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 first-fruits! Hence the reason for it is that it must be first-fruits. This is indeed a refutation. We have learnt elsewhere: First-fruits may be brought only from the seven species. and not^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛ}

² from the dates in the hill-country nor from the produce in the valleys. Said ‘Ulla, If one brought these they are not consecrated [as first-fruits]. Rabbah was once sitting and reciting this statement [of ‘Ulla] when R. Aha b. Abba raised the following objection against Rabbah: It is written, An offering of first-fruits. this signifies that it is to be the first of all meal-offerings; and so, too, it says, Also in the day of the first-fruits, when ye bring a new meal-offering unto the Lord in your feast of weeks. I thus know that it is to be the first before [all the meal-offerings of] wheat; whence do I know that it is to be the first before [all meal-offerings of] barley? Because the text repeats the word ‘new’; and as this word is not required [twice] for [the teaching that it is to be] the first before [all meal-offerings] of wheat, you may use it for [the teaching that it is to be] the first before [all meal-offerings] of barley. And whence do I know that it shall be offered before the first-fruits? Because the text states, And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first-fruits of wheat harvest. I thus know that it shall be offered before the first-fruits of the wheat harvest; but whence do I know that it shall be offered before the first-fruits of the barley harvest? Because the text states, And the feast of harvest, the first-fruits of thy labours which thou sowest in the field. I thus know that it shall be before [the harvest] which thou sowest; whence do I know that it shall be before that which grew of itself? Because the text states, In the field. I thus know that it shall be before that which grew in the field; but whence do I know that it shall also be before that which grew on the roof, or among ruins, or in a plant-pot, or in a ship? Because the text states, The first-fruits of all that is in their land. And whence do I know that it shall be before the drink-offerings [of the new fruits] and the new fruits of the tree? Because it says here, The first-fruits of thy labours, and it says there, When thou gatherest in thy labours out of the field; as there it includes the [fruits for the] drink-offerings and the fruits of the tree, so here it includes the drink-offerings and the fruits of the tree. Now it stated above ‘that which grew on the roof, or among ruins, or in a plant-pot, or in a ship’! — This last clause refers to meal-offerings. To this R. Adda b. Ahabah demurred, saying, But then it says in that same verse, Every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof; [so that it cannot refer to meal-offerings since] meal-offerings may be eaten only by the males of the priesthood! — R. Mesharsheya replied. There are two [ordinances in this] verse: Shall be thine, and ‘Every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof’. How are they to be explained? The latter refers to the first-fruits and the former to meal-offerings. R. Ashi said, The entire verse speaks of meal-offerings, but the latter part refers to the [priestly portion of the] cakes of the thank-offering. There is also the following dispute [on the matter]. R. Johanan said, If one brought [these fruits], they are not consecrated [as first-fruits]. But Resh Lakish said, If he brought them they are consecrated [as first-fruits], for they are considered in the same light as a lean beast that was offered for an offering. Now Resh Lakish's view is clear, as he states his reason for it; but what is the reason for R. Johanan's view? — R. Eleazar replied. ‘I saw R. Johanan in a dream, so [I am sure that] I will say an excellent thing. The verse says. Of the first, but not all the first[-fruits]; it also says, From thy land, but not from every part of thy land’. And to what purpose does Resh Lakish apply this expression ‘from thy land’? — He requires it for the exposition given in the following Baraitha: R. Gamaliel son of Rabbi says, The word ‘land’ is stated here and the word ‘land’ is stated there; as there it refers to the species for which the land was famed, so here it refers to the species for which the land was famed. And the other? — [For that exposition the expression] ‘land’ [is sufficient], but [there is also written] ‘from thy land’. And the other? — He does not accept [as separate expositions] ‘land’ and ‘from thy land’. One [Baraitha] taught: A man may bring the produce grown on a roof, or among ruins, or in a plant-pot, or in a ship [as firstfruits], and also make the recital. But another [Baraitha] taught: He may bring it but does not make the recital. Now according to Resh Lakish there is no contradiction between [the rulings concerning the produce grown on] a roof, for one [Baraitha] speaks of the roof of a cave and the other of the roof of a house. Likewise there is no contradiction between [the rulings concerning what is grown among] ruins, for one [Baraitha] speaks of ruins that have been tilled, and the other of ruins that have not been tilled. Likewise there is no contradiction between [the rulings concerning what is grown in] a plant-pot, for one [Baraitha] speaks of a perforated [pot] and the other of an unperforated [pot]. Likewise there is no contradiction between [the rulings concerning what is grown in] a ship, for one [Baraitha] speaks of a ship made of wood and the other of a ship made of clay.38^{ʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰ}