Menachot 167

אבל בארץ לא פליגי דעומר ושתי הלחם מארץ אין מחוצה לארץ לא

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.

כמאן דלא כי האי תנא דתניא ר' יוסי בר רבי יהודה אומר עומר בא מחוצה לארץ ומה אני מקיים (ויקרא כג, י) כי תבאו אל הארץ שלא נתחייבו בעומר קודם שנכנסו לארץ

How then am I to interpret the expression 'when ye are come into the land'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');">¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the offering of the 'Omer.');">²</span>

וקסבר חדש בחוצה לארץ דאורייתא היא דכתיב ממושבותיכם כל מקום שאתם יושבין משמע וכי תבאו זמן ביאה היא וכיון דאורייתא היא אקרובי נמי מקריבין:

outside the Land [of Israel] is Biblical; that the expression 'your dwellings'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 14.');">³</span> implies wherever you may be dwelling;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the prohibition of the new corn applies to the produce grown outside Palestine but comes into force only when Israel enter the Land.');">⁴</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the prohibition of the new corn applies to the produce grown outside Palestine but comes into force only when Israel enter the Land.');">⁴</span>

תנן התם שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shek. IV, 1; B.M. 118a.');">⁵</span> Those who kept guard over the aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there was no sowing in this year the spontaneous growth in the fields would in certain regions be guarded so as to bring from it the 'Omer-offering. vfakv ,nur,');">⁶</span>

רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא תנן שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ורמינהו (ויקרא כה, ו) לאכלה ולא לשריפה

received their pay out of the terumath ha-lishkah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'the offering of the chamber'; i.e., the funds contributed by the Shekel payers. V. Glos. s.v. terumah.');">⁷</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 12b.');">⁸</span> For food.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 6.');">⁹</span>

אמר ליה רחמנא אמר לך (ויקרא כג, יד) לדורותיכם ואת אמרת תיבטל

but it must not be burnt!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then can the aftergrowth be used for the 'Omer'-offering seeing that a handful thereof must be burnt?');">¹⁰</span> - He replied.' The Divine Law says, Throughout your generations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 14. I.e, this law was to continue in force for all time without interruption.');">¹¹</span>

אמר ליה ומי קאמינא אנא תיבטל לייתי מדאשתקד בעינא כרמל וליכא

and you are suggesting that it be dispensed with!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every Sabbatical year.');">¹²</span> 'Am I suggesting', retorted the other, 'that it be dispensed with? [I say] it can offered of last year's produce!' - 'It must be fresh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 14.');">¹³</span>

ולייתי מכרמל דאשתקד אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, יד) כרמל תקריב בעינא כרמל בשעת הקרבה וליכא

and it is not so in that case'.' Then it can be offered the fresh corn of last year's produce!' - 'The text says. Thou shalt bring.

איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר כרמל תקריב ר' אלעזר אומר ראשית קצירך ראשית קצירך ולא סוף קצירך

fresh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 14.');">¹³</span> that is, it must be fresh the time of offering, and it is not so in that case. It was stated: R'Johanan said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is for the following reason that' the 'Omer may not be offered from last year's produce. ofrhme lrhme');">¹⁴</span>

מותיב רבה (ויקרא ב, יד) ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר מהיכן היא באה מן השעורים אתה אומר מן השעורים או אינו אלא מן החיטין

[It is written,] 'Thou shal bring. fresh'; R'Eleazar said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is for the following reason that' the 'Omer may not be offered from last year's produce. ofrhme lrhme');">¹⁴</span> [It is written.] The first of your harvest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 10. Read for .');">¹⁵</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר (שמות ט, לא) אביב במצרים ונאמר (ויקרא ב, יד) אביב לדורות מה אביב האמור במצרים שעורים אף אביב האמור לדורות אינו בא אלא מן השעורים

but not the end of your harvest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by taking last year's produce for the 'Omer one would be offering it at the time when the harvest (sc. last year's harvest) is already at its end.');">¹⁶</span> Rabbah raised the following objection:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 405 and notes.');">¹⁷</span> The verse, And if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 14.');">¹⁸</span>

רבי עקיבא אומר מצינו יחיד שמביא חובתו מן החיטין ומביא חובתו מן השעורין ואף ציבור מביא חובתו מן החיטין ומביא חובתו מן השעורין אם אתה אומר מן החיטין לא מצינו ציבור שמביא חובתו מן השעורין

refers to the meal-offering of the 'Omer. Of what was it offered? Of barley.

דבר אחר אם אתה אומר עומר בא מן החיטין אין שתי הלחם ביכורים אלמא משום ביכורים הוא תיובתא

You say 'of barley'; but perhaps it is not so but rather of wheat! Said R'Eliezer, The expression 'in the ear'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. IX, 31.');">¹⁹</span> is stated in regard to the incidents in Egypt, and the expression 'in the ear'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 14.');">¹⁸</span> 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.

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