משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא יום הנף כולו אסור מאי טעמא מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו בהאיר מזרח השתא נמי ניכול The Gemara questions the claim that the purpose of waiting until the sacrifice of the omer is only in order to fulfill the mitzva in the most optimal fashion. The mishna teaches: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is completely prohibited and one may partake of the new crop only the next day. The Gemara analyzes this statement. What is the reason for this? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year [eshtakad], when there was no Temple, didn’t we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time.
ולא ידעי דאשתקד לא הוה עומר האיר מזרח מתיר והשתא דאיכא עומר עומר מתיר ואי סלקא דעתך למצוה משום מצוה ליקום וליגזור And they would not know that last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern horizon permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, but now that the Temple has been rebuilt and there is an omer offering, it is the omer that permits the consumption of the new grain. When the Temple is standing, the new grain is not permitted until the omer offering has been sacrificed. The Gemara concludes its question: And if it enters your mind to say that one waits to partake of the new crop until the omer offering permits the new grain only in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal fashion, would we arise and decree that the entire sixteenth of Nisan is entirely prohibited only due to the performance of a mitzva in the optimal manner?
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בשיטת רבי יהודה אמרה דאמר מן התורה אסור שנאמר (ויקרא כג, יד) עד עצם היום הזה Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is prohibited by Torah law to eat of the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is stated: “And you shall eat neither bread nor parched grain, nor fresh stalks, until this selfsame [etzem] day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14).
עד עיצומו של יום וקסבר עד ועד בכלל This does not mean that it is permitted to eat the new grain on the morning of the sixteenth, when the eastern horizon is illuminated. Rather, it is prohibited until the essence [itzumo] of the day. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when the verse says “until,” it means until and including, meaning that the grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth. If so, by Torah law, eating the new grain is permitted only after the conclusion of the sixteenth, unless the omer offering was sacrificed, in which case it is permitted to eat the new grain immediately afterward.
ומי סבר לה כוותיה והא מיפלג פליג עליה דתנן משחרב בית המקדש התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהא יום הנף כולו אסור אמר ר' יהודה הלא מן התורה הוא אסור דכתיב עד עצם היום הזה The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But he disagrees with him, as we learned in the mishna: From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda says: But isn’t it forbidden by Torah law, as it is written: “Until this selfsame day”? This indicates that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda.
רבי יהודה הוא דקא טעי הוא סבר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מדרבנן קאמר ולא היא מדאורייתא קאמר והא התקין קתני מאי התקין דרש והתקין The Gemara rejects this. It is Rabbi Yehuda who is mistaken. He thought that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan is prohibited by rabbinic law. And that is not so; Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai is actually saying that it is prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara asks: But it is taught in the mishna that Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted, which indicates that it is a rabbinic ordinance. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the term: Instituted, in this context? It means that he interpreted the verses in the Torah and instituted public notice for the multitudes to conduct themselves accordingly.
רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אכלי חדש באורתא דשיתסר נגהי שבסר קסברי חדש בחוצה לארץ דרבנן ולספיקא לא חיישינן § Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, ate from the new crop on the evening of the conclusion of the sixteenth of Nisan, leading into the seventeenth of Nisan. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by rabbinic law. And therefore we are not concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the day we think is the sixteenth of Nisan is really the fifteenth, due to the court proclaiming the previous month of Adar a full thirty days long.
ורבנן דבי רב אשי אכלו בצפרא דשבסר קסברי חדש בחוצה לארץ דאורייתא And conversely, the Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi ate from the new crop only on the morning of the seventeenth. They held that the prohibition against eating the new crop outside Eretz Yisrael applies by Torah law. Consequently, they did entertain the concern that the day they thought was the sixteenth might actually be the fifteenth of Nisan, which would mean that the new crop is permitted only the following morning.
ורבן יוחנן בן זכאי מדרבנן קאמר וכי תקין ליום הנף לספיקא לא תקין This is problematic, as if there is a concern that the sixteenth is really the fifteenth of Nisan, then the seventeenth would be the sixteenth of Nisan. Accordingly, how could they eat from the new crop on that morning? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai institute that the new crop is prohibited the entire day? The Gemara explains that those Sages of the study hall of Rav Ashi held: And Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai is saying that eating new grain on the sixteenth of Nisan nowadays is prohibited by rabbinic law. And the Sages instituted this prohibition only for the actual day of waving the omer offering, whereas it was not instituted for a day with regard to which the real date is uncertain.
אמר רבינא אמרה לי אם אבוך לא הוה אכיל חדש אלא באורתא דשבסר נגהי תמניסר דסבר לה כר' יהודה וחייש לספיקא: Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father would eat from the new crop only on the evening at the conclusion of the seventeenth of Nisan, leading into the eighteenth. The reason for this was that he held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that nowadays it is prohibited to eat of the new crop on the sixteenth of Nisan by Torah law, and he was therefore concerned for the uncertainty that perhaps the sixteenth of Nisan was really the fifteenth, and consequently the seventeenth was really the sixteenth. Therefore he waited until the eve of the eighteenth, when he could be sure that there was no prohibition by Torah law against eating from the new crop.
מתני׳ העומר היה מתיר במדינה ושתי הלחם במקדש אין מביאין מנחות וביכורים ומנחת בהמה קודם לעומר אם הביא פסול קודם לשתי הלחם לא יביא אם הביא כשר: MISHNA: Sacrifice of the omer offering would permit consumption of the new crop in the rest of the country outside the Temple, and the two loaves offering would permit the sacrifice of the new crop in the Temple. One may not bring meal offerings, or first fruits, or the meal offering brought with libations accompanying animal offerings, from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer, and if he brought them from the new crop they are unfit. After the omer but prior to the two loaves one may not bring these offerings from the new crop, but if he brought them from the new crop, they are fit.
גמ׳ יתיב רבי טרפון וקא קשיא ליה מה בין קודם לעומר לקודם שתי הלחם GEMARA: The mishna teaches that meal offerings brought from the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering are unfit, whereas those brought after the omer but prior to the two loaves are fit. Rabbi Tarfon sat and posed the following difficulty: What is the difference between meal offerings brought before the omer and those brought before the two loaves?
אמר לפניו יהודה בר נחמיה לא אם אמרת קודם לעומר שכן לא הותר מכללו אצל הדיוט תאמר קודם לשתי הלחם שהותר מכללו אצל הדיוט Rabbi Yehuda bar Neḥemya said before Rabbi Tarfon: No, one cannot compare the two situations. If you said that this is the halakha with regard to before the omer sacrifice, this is because at that stage there are no circumstances in which the new crop’s general prohibition was permitted, even with regard to an ordinary person; shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to before the sacrifice of the two loaves, when the new crop’s general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person? The new crop ingredient in the meal offering is at least permitted in consumption after the omer is brought. Therefore, the meal offerings that were brought after the omer but before the two loaves are fit.
שתק רבי טרפון צהבו פניו של רבי יהודה בן נחמיה אמר לו רבי עקיבא יהודה צהבו פניך שהשבת את זקן תמהני אם תאריך ימים אמר רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי אותו הפרק פרס הפסח היה כשעליתי לעצרת שאלתי אחריו יהודה בן נחמיה היכן הוא ואמרו לי נפטר והלך לו Rabbi Tarfon was silent, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya’s face brightened. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Yehuda, has your face brightened because you answered the elder? I will be astonished if the days of your life will be lengthy. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, said: That period in which that interaction occurred was half a month before Passover. When I ascended again to the study hall for the festival of Shavuot, I asked about him: Where is Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya? And they said to me: He passed away and left this world.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לדברי יהודה בן נחמיה נסכים ביכורים שהקריבם קודם לעומר כשירין פשיטא Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Neḥemya, libations from first fruits that one brought before the omer offering is sacrificed should be valid. The reason is that the prohibition of the new crop does not apply to fruits at all, and therefore they are never prohibited to ordinary people. When the mishna states that first fruits are prohibited it is referring to first fruits of grain, not the fruit of a tree. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that libations from first fruits brought before the omer offering are valid? Why would one think that they should not be valid?
מהו דתימא התם הוא דהותר מכללו אצל הדיוט אבל הכא דלא הותר מכללו לא קמ"ל כל שכן הכא דלא איתסר כלל The Gemara answers that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement is necessary, lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the meal offering of grain brought after the omer sacrifice, that it is valid, as the new crop’s general prohibition was permitted with regard to an ordinary person. But here, since with regard to these fruits there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted, one might say that the libation should not be valid. Therefore, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches us that the opposite is the case: All the more so here it is a valid offering, where the fruit was not prohibited at all.
(סד"ר הנצ"א גל"י פי"ל סימן) בעי רמי בר חמא שתי הלחם מהו שיתירו שלא כסדרן § The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the ensuing discussions in the Gemara: Order, sprouting, dung of, elephant. The mishna teaches that a meal offering using the new crop may not be brought prior to the omer sacrifice or the two loaves. Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: With regard to the two loaves offering on Shavuot, what is the halakha as to whether they permit the new grain to be used in the Temple, if this sacrifice was performed out of their order? The sacrifice of the omer permits ordinary people to eat from the new grain, whereas the sacrifice of the two loaves permits the new grain to be used in the Temple. What is the halakha if a new crop sprouted after the omer offering was brought but before the two loaves were brought?
היכי דמי כגון דזרעינהו בין העומר לשתי הלחם וחליף עלייהו שתי הלחם ועומר מאי כסדרן שריין שלא כסדרן לא שריין או דלמא שלא כסדרן נמי שריין The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? The Gemara explains: This is referring to a case where they planted the grain in between the time of the sacrifice of the omer and the time of the two loaves offering. And therefore the sacrifice of two loaves passed by first, and then the time of the omer offering of the following year. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Does the sacrifice of the omer and two loaves permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings if sacrificed only in their proper order, whereas if sacrificed out of their order the sacrifice does not permit the new crop? Or perhaps they permit the new grain to be used for meal offerings even when sacrificed out of their order.
אמר רבה תא שמע (ויקרא ב, יד) ואם תקריב מנחת ביכורים במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר מהיכן באה מן השעורין אתה אומר מן השעורין או אינו אלא מן החיטין Rabba said: Come and hear proof from a baraita: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). The verse is speaking of the omer meal offering. From where, i.e., of which grain, is it brought? It is brought from barley. The baraita asks: Do you say that it is brought from barley, or perhaps it is only from wheat?
רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר אביב במצרים ונאמר אביב לדורות מה אביב האמור במצרים שעורין אף אביב האמור לדורות שעורין Rabbi Eliezer says that it is stated “in the ear” with regard to the plague of hail in Egypt: “And the flax and the barley were smitten; for the barley was in the ear, and the flax was in bloom” (Exodus 9:31), and it is stated “in the ear” with regard to the mitzva of the new crop, which is for all generations. Just as the term “in the ear” that is stated with regard to plague of hail in Egypt is referring to barley, as is clear from the next verse: “But the wheat and the spelt were not smitten, for they ripen late” (Exodus 9:32), so too the term “in the ear” that is stated with regard to the new crop for all generations is referring to barley.
ורבי עקיבא אומר מצינו יחיד שמביא חובתו מן החיטין וחובתו מן השעורין The baraita cites another proof that the omer offering is brought from barley. And Rabbi Akiva says: We found an individual who brings his obligation of a meal offering from wheat, which is brought by a poor person for a false oath of testimony, a false oath of utterance, or for entering the Temple while ritually impure, and one who brings his obligation of a meal offering from barley, in the case of a sinner’s meal offering or the meal offering of a sota.
וציבור שמביאין חובתן מן החיטין מביאין חובתן מן השעורין ואם אתה אומר בא מן החיטין לא מצינו ציבור שמביא חובתו מן השעורין And we also found with regard to the community that they bring their obligation of a meal offering from wheat, in the case of the two loaves offering of Shavuot, and therefore, to keep the halakha of a community parallel to that of an individual there should be a case where the community brings their obligation of a meal offering from barley. And if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then we will not have found a case of a community that brings its obligation of a meal offering from barley. Consequently, it must be that the omer offering comes from barley.
דבר אחר אם אתה אומר עומר בא מן החיטין אין שתי הלחם ביכורים Rabbi Akiva suggests another proof: Alternatively, if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be from the first fruits. The verse states that the two loaves offering of Shavuot should come from the first fruits: “Also in the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord in your feast of weeks” (Numbers 28:26). If the omer is from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be the first offering of the first fruit, as the omer offering of Passover precedes it. Therefore, the omer offering must come from barley. This concludes the baraita.
ואם איתא דשתי הלחם שלא כסדרן שריין משכחת לה דמקריב עומר מהנך דאשרוש קודם לשתי הלחם ובתר העומר דאשתקד Rabba resolves Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma from this last proof of Rabbi Akiva: And if it is so, that the two loaves sacrificed not in their proper order still permit the use of the new crop for meal offerings, you can in fact find a case where the two loaves are from the first fruits even though they are also brought from wheat, just like the omer offering. This is a case where the community sacrifices the current omer offering from these wheat grains that took root prior to the bringing of the two loaves offering but after the bringing of the omer offering of last year.
ושתי הלחם מהנך דאשרוש קודם לעומר דהשתא ובתר שתי הלחם דאשתקד And the current two loaves offering is brought from these grains that took root prior to the current omer offering and after the two loaves offering of last year. In this scenario, the two loaves come from wheat of this year’s crop and yet they are still called the first fruits, despite the fact that the omer offering also came from wheat, as that wheat is considered the previous year’s crop. Since this case is not mentioned in the baraita, evidently if the two loaves are not in the proper order with regard to a certain crop they do not permit that crop to be used in offerings in the Temple. This resolves Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma.
מי סברת In this manner Rabba has attempted to prove that the proper order of the omer offering followed by the two loaves is necessary to permit the new grain for use in meal offerings. The Gemara rejects the proof: Do you hold