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.38ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡ