Menachot

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’?1 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 corn2 outside the Land [of Israel] is Biblical; that the expression ‘your dwellings’3 implies wherever you may be dwelling;4 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].4 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:5 Those who kept guard over the aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year6 received their pay out of the terumath ha-lishkah.7 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:8 For food.9 but it must not be burnt!’10 — He replied. ‘The Divine Law says, Throughout your generations,11 and you are suggesting that it be dispensed with!’12 ‘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.13 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.13 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,14 [It is written,] ‘Thou shalt bring . . . fresh’; R. Eleazar said,14 [It is written.] The first of your harvest,15 but not the end of your harvest.16 Rabbah raised the following objection:17 The verse, And if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits.18 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’19 is stated in regard to the incidents in Egypt, and the expression ‘in the ear’18 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.20 This is indeed a refutation. We have learnt elsewhere:21 First-fruits may be brought only from the seven species.22 and not Israel enter the Land. bring from it the ‘Omer-offering. s.v. terumah. harvest) is already at its end. harvest; likewise the ‘Omer-offering when the barley is at the beginning of its harvest; hence last year's produce is invalid. This argument is in accord with R. Eleazar and refutes R. Johanan's view. VIII, 8.