בִּזְכָרִים אֲבָל בִּנְקֵבוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל עַל שְׁחוּטִין מִתְחַלְּלִין עַל חַיִּין אֵין מִתְחַלְּלִין גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶן עֲדָרִים
is specifically with regard to male animals, which do not bear offspring. However, with regard to female animals, everyone agrees that upon slaughtered animals, produce is deconsecrated, but upon animals that are alive, produce is not deconsecrated. The reason is that a decree was issued lest one raise flocks from the females, as typically they bear offspring. The Sages extended the decree to include males as well. From the fact that the baraita uses the term deconsecrated, and not the term purchased, apparently the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption as well.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּפָרִי רִאשׁוֹן אֲבָל בִּפְרִי שֵׁנִי דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ מִקָּח בֵּין דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי לָקַח לָקַח אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא לָקַח תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא לָקַח
Rav Ashi said: This dispute whether the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect by means of redemption or only by means of purchase is with regard to the original Sabbatical-Year produce itself. However, with regard to secondary produce purchased in exchange for Sabbatical-Year produce, everyone agrees that its sanctity takes effect both by means of purchase and by means of redemption. And the fact that the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Elazar teaches: Purchased, purchased, employing that term even with regard to secondary produce, and not the terms deconsecrated or redeemed, does not prove that sanctity takes effect only by means of purchase. Rather, since the tanna of the baraita taught the first clause of the halakha employing the term purchased, he taught the latter clause employing the term purchased, even though sanctity takes effect even by means of redemption.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סֶלַע שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית וּבִיקֵּשׁ לִיקַּח בּוֹ חָלוּק כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה יֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל חֶנְווֹנִי הָרָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ תֵּן לִי בְּסֶלַע פֵּירוֹת וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ וְחוֹזֵר וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ הֲרֵי פֵּירוֹת הַלָּלוּ נְתוּנִים לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵא לְךָ סֶלַע זוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה וְהַלָּה לוֹקֵחַ בָּהֶן מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה וְהָא הָכָא דִּפְרִי שֵׁנִי הוּא וְקָתָנֵי דֶּרֶךְ מִקָּח אִין דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל לָא
Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ashi: With regard to one who has a sela coin that has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year and seeks to purchase a garment with it, how should he do so? He should go to the storekeeper whose store he typically patronizes and say to him: Give me fruits in exchange for this sela, and the storekeeper gives him fruits. And then he says to the storekeeper: These fruits that you sold me and that assumed the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year are given to you as a gift. The storekeeper may then eat them as one eats Sabbatical-Year produce. And the storekeeper says to him: Here is a sela for you as a gift, and that person purchases with it whatever he wants, as the sela was deconsecrated. Ravina asks: But here, isn’t it secondary produce, as the sela had previously been exchanged for the original Sabbatical-Year produce, and nevertheless the baraita teaches: By means of purchase, yes, it is effective; by means of redemption, no, it is not?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי מַחֲלוֹקֶת בִּפְרִי שֵׁנִי אֲבָל בִּפְרִי רִאשׁוֹן דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל דֶּרֶךְ מִקָּח אִין דֶּרֶךְ חִילּוּל לָא וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי אֶחָד שְׁבִיעִית וְאֶחָד מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי מַאי שְׁבִיעִית דְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית
Rather, Rav Ashi said, contrary to the suggestion above, that the dispute is specifically with regard to secondary produce; however, with regard to original produce, everyone agrees: By means of purchase, yes, it is deconsecrated; by means of redemption, no, it is not deconsecrated. And with regard to that which is taught in the baraita cited in support of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Both Sabbatical-Year produce and second-tithe produce are deconsecrated upon cattle, undomesticated animals, and fowl, indicating that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce takes effect through both purchase and redemption. What is the meaning of Sabbatical-Year produce? It is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce but not to the produce itself.
דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי מַעֲשֵׂר מַעֲשֵׂר מַמָּשׁ וְהָא כְּתִיב וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר הָכָא נָמֵי דְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית:
And the same must be said with regard to the second tithe mentioned in this baraita, as, if you do not say so but say instead that the second tithe referred to in the baraita is actual second-tithe produce, isn’t it written with regard to the second tithe: “Then shall you turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand…and you shall bestow the money for whatsoever your soul desires” (Deuteronomy 14:25–26), indicating that second-tithe produce can be redeemed only with money, with which other food items may be purchased? Rather, the baraita must be referring to money exchanged for second-tithe produce and not to the produce itself. Here, too, with regard to the Sabbatical Year, the baraita is referring to money exchanged for Sabbatical-Year produce and not to the produce itself.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה לוּלָב נִיטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא לוּלָב נִיטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ
MISHNA: Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.
וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר:
And for similar reasons, he instituted an ordinance that for the entire day of waving the omer offering, it should be prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. It is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop until the omer offering is brought and waved in the Temple on the sixteenth of Nisan. The offering was sacrificed in the morning; however, after taking potential delays into consideration, the new crop remained prohibited until it was clear that the offering had been sacrificed. Practically speaking, it was prohibited to eat the new grain until the sixteenth of Nisan was over; it was permitted only on the seventeenth. Once the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer an omer offering sacrificed, it was permitted to eat the new crop on the sixteenth. However, Rabban Yoḥanan instituted an ordinance that eating the new grain would remain prohibited until the seventeenth to commemorate the Temple.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא לַן דְּעָבְדִינַן זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר קְרָא כִּי אַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה לָךְ וּמִמַּכּוֹתַיִךְ אֶרְפָּאֵךְ נְאֻם ה׳ כִּי נִדָּחָה קָרְאוּ לָךְ צִיּוֹן הִיא דּוֹרֵשׁ אֵין לָהּ דּוֹרֵשׁ אֵין לָהּ מִכְּלַל דְּבָעֲיָא דְּרִישָׁה:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that we institute ordinances in commemoration of the Temple? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is as the verse states: “For I will restore health unto you and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord; because they have called you an outcast, she is Zion, there is none that seeks her” (Jeremiah 30:17). From the fact that the verse states: “There is none that seeks her,” it can be learned by inference that it requires seeking, i.e., people should think of and remember the Temple. That is the reason for Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai’s ordinance.
וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף מַאי טַעְמָא מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְיֹאמְרוּ אֶשְׁתָּקַד מִי לֹא אָכַלְנוּ בְּהֵאִיר מִזְרָח הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי נֵיכוֹל וְאִינְהוּ לָא יָדְעִי דְּאֶשְׁתָּקַד דְּלָא הֲוָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הֵאִיר מִזְרָח הִתִּיר הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיכָּא בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ עוֹמֶר מַתִּיר
§ The mishna continues: Rabban Yoḥanan instituted that for the entire day of waving the Omer offering, it is prohibited to eat the grain of the new crop. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this ordinance? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year, when the Temple was in ruins, didn’t we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately with the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time. And they do not know that although last year, when there was no Temple, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain immediately, now that there is a Temple, the omer offering permits one to eat the new grain. Until the omer offering is sacrificed, the new grain is not permitted.
דְּאִיבְּנִי אֵימַת אִילֵּימָא דְּאִיבְּנִי בְּשִׁיתְּסַר הֲרֵי הִתִּיר הֵאִיר מִזְרָח אֶלָּא דְּאִיבְּנִי בַּחֲמֵיסַר מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן תִּשְׁתְּרֵי דְּהָא תְּנַן הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִים בּוֹ
The Gemara asks: When is it that the Temple will be rebuilt in this scenario? If we say that it will be rebuilt on the sixteenth of Nisan, since in the morning the Temple was not yet built, the illuminating of the eastern sky permitted one to eat the new grain, as the omer offering could not yet be brought. Rather, say that it will be rebuilt on the fifteenth of Nisan or on some earlier date, in which case the new grain would not become permitted by the illuminating of the eastern sky. In that case, from midday and onward let it be permitted to eat the new grain, as we learned in a mishna in tractate Menaḥot: The people distant from Jerusalem, who are unaware of the precise time when the omer was brought, are permitted to eat the new grain from midday and onward because the members of the court are not indolent with regard to the omer and would not postpone bringing the offering after midday.
לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאִיבְּנִי בְּלֵילְיָא אִי נָמֵי סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה (אָמַר) רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמָרָהּ דְּאָמַר מִן הַתּוֹרָה הוּא אָסוּר דִּכְתִיב
The Gemara says: No, it is necessary to institute the ordinance only in the case where the Temple will be rebuilt at night, on the evening of the sixteenth, and there was no opportunity to cut the omer that night. Alternatively, it was necessary to institute the ordinance in the case where the Temple was built adjacent to sunset on the fifteenth because there would not be sufficient time to complete all the preparations and sacrifice the offering by noon the next day. Therefore, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the new grain is prohibited for the entire day of the sixteenth. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: That is not the reason; rather, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai stated his ordinance in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: It is prohibited by Torah law to eat the new grain until the seventeenth of Nisan, as it is written: