Reference for Menachot 167:14

תנן התם אין מביאין ביכורים חוץ משבעת המינין ולא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Two Loaves must be offered of this year's produce at the time when the wheat is at the beginning of its 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.');">²⁰</span> This is indeed a refutation. We have learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bik. I, 3; Pes. 53a.');">²¹</span> First-fruits may be brought only from the seven species.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which the land of Israel was famed, viz., wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olives, and dates. V. Deut. VIII, 8.');">²²</span> and not

Explore reference for Menachot 167:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.