אבל בארץ לא פליגי דעומר ושתי הלחם מארץ אין מחוצה לארץ לא But with regard to the requirement to use grain grown in Eretz Yisrael, they do not disagree that if the omer and the two loaves come from Eretz Yisrael, indeed, they are valid, but if they come from outside of Eretz Yisrael, they are not valid.
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 In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says that the omer may come from outside of Eretz Yisrael. How do I realize the meaning of the verse that introduces the obligation to bring the omer: “When you come into the land which I give to you” (Leviticus 23:10)? This verse appears to indicate that the bringing of the omer is restricted to Eretz Yisrael. That verse teaches that the Jewish people were not obligated in the mitzva of bringing the omer before they entered Eretz Yisrael.
וקסבר חדש בחוצה לארץ דאורייתא היא דכתיב ממושבותיכם כל מקום שאתם יושבין משמע וכי תבאו זמן ביאה היא וכיון דאורייתא היא אקרובי נמי מקריבין: The Gemara explains the basis of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion: And he holds that even outside of Eretz Yisrael, consuming the new crop is prohibited by Torah law, as it is written: “From all your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:17), which indicates that the prohibition applies anywhere that you dwell, even outside of Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, the earlier verse, which introduces the prohibition with: “When you come into the land which I give to you” (Leviticus 23:10), is a reference to the time of the Jewish people entering Eretz Yisrael, and it indicates that the prohibition takes effect only from that time. And since Rabbi Yosei holds that the new crop outside of Eretz Yisrael is prohibited for consumption by Torah law, he consequently holds that one may also offer the omer from crops grown there.
תנן התם שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה § We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shekalim 4:1): The guards who are appointed by the court to protect some of the produce that grew without being purposely planted [sefiḥin] during the Sabbatical Year, in order that it can be used for the omer and the offering of the two loaves, collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber.
רמי ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא תנן שומרי ספיחין בשביעית נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ורמינהו (ויקרא כה, ו) לאכלה ולא לשריפה Rami bar Ḥama raises a contradiction to Rav Ḥisda: We learned in that mishna that the guards of sefiḥin during the Sabbatical Year collect their wages from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber. This indicates that even in the Sabbatical Year, the omer is brought from that year’s crop. And one can raise a contradiction to this from a baraita: The verse states: “And the Sabbatical Year of the land shall be for you for eating” (Leviticus 25:6), which indicates it is to be used for eating, but not for burning. Accordingly, since the omer is burned on the altar, it should not be brought from produce of the Sabbatical Year.
אמר ליה רחמנא אמר לך (ויקרא כג, יד) לדורותיכם ואת אמרת תיבטל Rav Ḥisda said to him: The Merciful One said to you about the omer: “It is a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 23:14), indicating that the mitzva can be fulfilled in all times, and you say the omer should be canceled in a Sabbatical Year?
אמר ליה ומי קאמינא אנא תיבטל לייתי מדאשתקד בעינא כרמל וליכא Rami bar Ḥama said to him: But am I saying that the omer should be canceled? Certainly not. Let one bring the omer from grain that sprouted during the previous year, concerning which there is no prohibition against burning it. Rav Ḥisda rejects this suggestion: But to fulfill the mitzva I require that the grain be of the “fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14), i.e., young grain, and this requirement is not fulfilled with grain that sprouted during the previous year, as it has already been growing a long time.
ולייתי מכרמל דאשתקד אמר קרא (ויקרא ב, יד) כרמל תקריב בעינא כרמל בשעת הקרבה וליכא Rami bar Ḥama persists: But let one bring the omer from the young grain that was cut during the harvest of the previous year, when it was still fresh. Rav Ḥisda rejects this suggestion: The verse states: “Fresh ear, you shall bring” (Leviticus 2:14). The juxtaposition of the mitzva to bring the grain with the requirement that it be young indicates that I need it to still be young grain at the time of offering it, and this condition is not fulfilled if one uses grain from the previous year’s harvest. Young grain is soft (see 66b), whereas grain that was reaped during the previous year would have become brittle.
איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר כרמל תקריב ר' אלעזר אומר ראשית קצירך ראשית קצירך ולא סוף קצירך § An amoraic dispute was stated concerning the source of the halakha that the omer may not be brought from the previous year’s crop: Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is derived from: “Fresh ear, you shall bring,” as Rav Ḥisda explains. Rabbi Elazar says it is derived from the fact that the omer is referred to as: “The first of your harvest” (Leviticus 23:10), which indicates that the omer is brought only from the first of your harvest, i.e., from the first produce of the current year’s crop, and not from the last of your harvest, i.e., from produce taken from the remainder of the previous year’s crop.
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 Rabba raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, from a baraita: The verse states: “And when you shall bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:14). The verse is speaking of the omer meal offering. From which type of grain does it come? It comes from barley. Do you say that it comes from barley, or does it come only from wheat?
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 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 the 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.
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 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. 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 the offering 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 their 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 אלמא משום ביכורים הוא תיובתא Rabbi Akiva suggests another proof: Alternatively, if you say that the omer offering comes from wheat, then the two loaves offering would not be brought 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. Rabba explains the objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion: Evidently, the omer offering is brought from the new crop because the grain used is referred to as first fruits, i.e., “the first of your harvest.” The Gemara concludes: This baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion.
תנן התם אין מביאין ביכורים חוץ משבעת המינין ולא § We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Bikkurim 1:3): One may bring first fruits only from the seven species with which Eretz Yisrael is praised in the verse: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8). But one may not