משנה: חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים חַייָבִין בַּחַלָּה הַחִיטִּים וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִין וְהַכּוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל וְהַשִּׁיפוֹן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַייָבִין בַּחַלָּה. וּמִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה וַאֲסוּרִין בֶּחָדָשׁ לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח וּמִלִּקְצוֹר לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר. וְאִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר הָעוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן וְאִם לָאו אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא הָעוֹמֶר הַבָּא. MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats1For the determination of these grains, see Kilayim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1">Kilaim 1, Notes 2–3. In current practice, שיפון is interpreted as rye, following Rashi. Flour made from these and only these grains qualifies as bread flour. All other flours are cake flours; bread made from them is legally cake.. These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another2Mixed dough is subject to ḥallah if the volume of flour used is at least that specified in Mishnah 2:6.. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover3Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14. and may not be cut before the ‘omer4The ‘omer is the sheaf of barley cut first in the spring harvest and brought to the Temple (Leviticus.23.10">Lev. 23:10), in rabbinic interpretation on the second day of Passover, the 16th of Nisan.. If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them5While the first harvest is that of barley, all other grains, including wheat, are immediately permitted for profane use. Only for the Temple is new wheat forbidden until the Festival of First Fruits, Leviticus.23.16">Lev. 23:16.; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.
הלכה: חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים חַייָבִין בַּחלָּה כו׳. כְּתִיב וְהָיָה בַּאֲכָלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה לַיי֨. יָכוֹל יְהוּ כָל־הַדְּבָרִים חַייָבִין בַּחַלָּה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מִלֶּחֶם וְלֹא כָל־לֶחֶם. אִם מִלֶּחֶם וְלֹא כָל־לֶחֶם אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חִיטִּין וּשְׂעוֹרִין בִּלְבַד. כּוּסְמִין שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל וְשִׁיפוֹן מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר רֵאשִׁית עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם רִיבָה. וְרִיבָה הַכֹּל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. HALAKHAH: 6This and the next paragraphs are also in Pesachim 2:4:2-12" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.2.4.2-12">Pesaḥim 2:4 (fol. 29b).“Five kinds are subject to ḥallah”, etc. It is written (Numbers.15.19">Num. 15:19): “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave7This is ḥallah which follows the rules of heave. for the Eternal.” I could think that everything8Since לחם can also mean “food”, cf. Genesis.47.12">Gen. 47:12. is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley9Since bread is usually made from these.. From where spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says (Numbers.15.20">Num. 15:20,Numbers.15.21">21) “the first of your dough,10The expression is emphasized by repetition. One has to include every grain usable for making dough.” this includes. Does it include everything11According to this argument, rice and millet for example should also be included.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon12This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.: Rebbi Ismael stated this.
רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אָֽזְלִית לְקֵיסָרִין וְשָֽׁמְעִית רִבִּי אֲחַװָה בֶּן רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְאַבָּא הֲוָה אָמַר לֵיהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נֶאֱמַר לֶחֶם בְּפֶסַח וְנֶאֱמַר לֶחֶם בַּחַלָּה. מַה לֶחֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּפֶסַח דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אַף לֶחֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּחַלָּה דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וּבָֽדְקוּ וּמָֽצְאוּ שֶׁאֵין לָךְ בָּא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אֶלָּא חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד. וּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֵינָן בָּאִין לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אֶלָּא לִידֵי סִירְחוֹן. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Aḥava ben Rebbi Zeïra14The son of R. Zeïra who had been a baraita teacher in his father’s academy. The father of R. Mana was R. Jonah., but my father said it in the name of Rebbi Ismael15A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Pesachim.35a">Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover16Deuteronomy.16.2">Deut. 16:2. and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah17Numbers.15.19">Num. 15:19.. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah18Rice cakes, while unleavened, cannot be called maẓẓah since rice bread (not containing gluten) does not qualify as leavened bread. If left standing with leavening it will not rise but spoil. or leavened but would spoil.
תַּנֵּי אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי קְרָמִית חַייֶבֶת בַּחַלָּה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר בָּאָה הִיא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין אֵינָהּ בָּאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וְיִבְדְּקוּהָ. עַל עִיקַּר בְּדִיקוּתָהּ הֶם חוֹלְקִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אָמַר בְּדָקוּהָ וּמְצָאוּהָ שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין בְּדָקוּהָ וְלֹא מְצָאוּ אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. It was stated19Tosephta 1:1; cf. Tosephta Pesaḥim 2:17; Pesachim.35a">Babli Pesaḥim 35a.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit20According to the Pesachim.33">Geonim (Oẓar Hageonim Pesaḥim p. 33) a grain growing wild among reeds in swamps, used as human food in times of famine. In the opinion of I. Löw (Flora der Juden 1, p. 703) Glyceria fluitans, a grain preferring swampy ground, frequently used for animal feed, also for soups and flour. {Also cf. Latin gramen, -inis, n. “grass, dog’s grass” (Plin. Hist. Nat. 24,19,118, #178) (E. G.)}. is obligated for ḥallah.” Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ וּנְתָנוֹ לְתוֹךְ עִיסָּה וְחִימִּיצָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מוּתָּר. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה מַפְלִיגִין בִּמְחַמֵּץ בְּמֵימָיו אֲבָל בִּמְחַמֵּץ בְּגוּפוֹ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְדַעְתֵּיהּ דּוּ אָמַר תַּמָּן אֵין תַּבְשִׁילוֹ תַּבְשִׁיל בָּרוּר. וְכֵן הוּא אָמַר הָכָא אֵין חִימּוּצוֹ חִימּוּץ בָּרוּר. There21Terumot 10:2. The paragraph is explained there, Notes 15–19., we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.
וּכְמָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר אֵין לָךְ בָּא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ אֶלָּא חֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין בִּלְבַד. וְדִכְװָתָהּ אֵין לָךְ מְגָרֵר עִם כוּלָּן אֶלָּא חִטִּים וּשְׂעוֹרִים בִּלְבַד. רִבִּי הִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לֹא שָׁנִינוּ אֶלָּא הָעוֹשֶׂה עִיסָה מִן הַחִטִּים וּמִן הָאוֹרֶז וְאֵינוֹ נִגְרָר אֶלָּא עִם הַחִיטִּין בִּלבַד. And just as you say only the five kinds can become maẓẓah and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be dragged with anything22They can be dragged to be subject to ḥallah even if only a small part of the dough is grain and the rest is filler. The reference is either to Mishnah 3:6 or Tosephta 2:1, a cake made from rice and wheat is subject to ḥallah if it tastes like bread. The question is whether “wheat” stands for any grain or only for wheat itself and the grains closely related to it.. Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be dragged in.
מַהוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חַייָבִין עַל קָלִי שֶׁלּוֹ מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָה כְּתִיב וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ. אֶת שֶׁחַייָבִין עַל לֶחֶם שֶׁלּוֹ מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ חַייָבִין עַל קָלִי שֶׁלּוֹ מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ. אֶת שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עַל לֶחֶם שֶׁלּוֹ מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ אֵין חַייָבִין עַל קָלִי שֶׁלּוֹ מִשּׁוּם חָדָשׁ. Is one guilty because of new grain23New grain is forbidden until the sheaf of barley is brought to the Temple on Passover; Leviticus.23.9-14">Lev. 23:9–14. It is stated here that the definition of “bread” established for Passover and ḥallah is valid for the prohibition of new grain also. when it is roasted? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14): “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.” Anything for whose bread you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for parched grain because of new grain; but anything for whose bread you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for parched grain because of new grain.
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָּעֵא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא עִירֵב אַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְחִימְּצָן. וְאַרְבָּעַת קַבִּין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְעִירְבָן הֲרֵי בִּשְׁעַת חִיּוּבָן לָבֹא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ. [אָמַר לֵיהּ מִינָן בָא לִידֵי מַצָּה וְחָמֵץ.] אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה כְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. כְּמָה דְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קָרוּי לֶחֶם. כָּךְ רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קָרוּי לֶחֶם. דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי זְעִירָה כְּמָה דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר מִינוֹ קָרוּי לֶחֶם כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר מִינוֹ קָרוּי לֶחֶם. אַתְיָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי הִילָא אַף עַל גַּב דּוּ פַּלִּיג עָלוֹי. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab25Since Mishnah 2:6 states that dough made from 5/4 qab of flour is subject to ḥallah, it is clear that one has to read here “quarter qab” instead of qab. The leavened flour by itself is not enough to induce an obligation of ḥallah. separately and made them leavened, and another four qab26Another 5/4 qab of rice, millet, or pea flour which cannot be leavened and which by themselves never induce an obligation of ḥallah. separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation27After he mixed the leavened dough with the non-grain flour, he now has 2 qab which potentially are obligated for ḥallah. for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? [He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened.28If the leavened flour were more than the unleavened, the unleavened could be disregarded and all would be subject to ḥallah but when is it evenly split it does not satisfy our crtiteria.] Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra. Rebbi Jonah parallels Rebbi Jeremiah, just as Rebbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rebbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread15,A similar text Sifry Num. 110. As regards Passover only, Pesachim.35a">Babli Pesaḥim 35a, Mekhilta deR. Ismael Bo Chap. 8, 17; Sifry Num. 146.16Deuteronomy.16.2">Deut. 16:2.. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Zeïra, just as Rebbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rebbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread12This must be R. Simeon ben Laqish. R. Yose asserts that R. Ismael accepted the inference as valid; “dough” includes every bread-dough made from grains similar to the bread grains wheat and barley.. Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila29He says in Halakhah 3:6 that there can be no obligation of ḥallah unless more then 50% is bread flour and the finished product tastes like bread. R. Zeïra in that Halakhah is quoted as stating that R. Hila got the names of the Tannaïm wrong in his baraita. even though he disagrees with him.
רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בֵּר נַחְמָן שָׁמַע כּוּלְּהֹן מִן אָהֵן קְרָייָא וְשָׂם חִיטָּה שׂוֹרָה וּשְׂעוֹרָה נִסְמָן וְכֻוסֶּמֶת גְּבוּלָתוֹ. וְשָׂם חִיטָּה אֵילּוּ הַחִטִּים. שׂוֹרָה זוֹ שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שׂוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשׂוּיָה כְּשׁוּרָה. שְׂעוֹרָה אֵילּוּ הַשְּׁעוֹרִים. נִסְמָן זֶה הַשִּׁיפוֹן. וְכֻוסֶּמֶת זֶה הַכּוּסְמִין. גְּבוּלָתוֹ לֶחֶם. עַד כָּאן גְּבוּלוֹ שֶׁלְלֶחֶם. וּלְמֵידִין מִן הַקַּבָּלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן מִן מָה דִכְתִיב וְיִסְּרוֹ לַמִּשְׁפָּט אֱלֹהָיו יוֹרֶינּוּ. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse (Isaiah.28.25">Is. 28:25): “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.” “He puts wheat”, that is wheat30The rabbinic equivalents to the biblical Hebrew names are given for all five kinds.. “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line31The expression חטה שׂוֹרה probably means “ripe wheat”, cf. Accadic šer‘u “ripe grain”. All expressions are explained here as names of grains. The interpretation of שׂורה as שׁורה shows that in Talmudic times in Galilee, š was heard as s, under the influence of Greek. Cassuto in his biblical commentary accepts the interpretation as genuine.. “Barley”, that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit”, bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition32The common name for Prophets and Hagiographs. These are sources of moral teachings but have no standing as books of law.? Rebbi Simon said, since it is written (Isaiah.28.26">Is. 28:26): “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,33This interpretation, in contrast to that of the next paragraph, follows the masoretic division of the text.” it is as if it were a word of the Torah34But the next paragraph immediately contradicts this statement; there is no source of biblical law other than the Torah. {Prophets and Hagiographs are used as basis for rabbinic decrees.}.
אָמַר רִבִּי סִימוֹן אִילֵּין נְשַׁייָא דְאָֽמְרָן לָא נֵיעוֹל בְּנֵינָן לִכְנִישְׁתָּא אִין חֲמִי לֵיהּ מֵילַף מֵילַף הוּא. לָא עָבְדִין טַבָּאוּת אֶלָּא וְיִסְּרוֹ לַמִּשְׁפָּט אֱלֹהָיו יוֹרֶינּוּ. Rebbi Simon said, those women who say: we shall not send our sons to the communal school; if he is good at learning he will learn [by himself]; they do not act well, but (Isaiah.28.29">Is. 28:29): “He shall be instructed in his God’s law, it will teach him.”
רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל תָּבִיא מִן הַכּוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְהַשִּׁיפוֹן. וְדִין הוּא וּמָה אִם הַחִיטִּים שֶׁכָּֽשְׁרוּ לִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת לֹא כָֽשְׁרוּ לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר. כּוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְהַשִּׁיפוֹן שֶׁלֹּא כָֽשְׁרוּ לִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּֽשְׁרוּ לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר. הַשְּׂעוֹרִין יוֹכִיחוּ שֶׁלֹּא כָֽשְׁרוּ לִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת וְכָֽשְׁרוּ לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר. לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁמִּנְחַת סוֹטָה בָאָה מֵהֶן. תֹּאמַר בְּכוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְשִׁיפוֹן שֶׁאֵין מִנְחַת סוֹטָה בָאָה מֵהֶן. יָֽצְאוּ הַחִטִּים מִן הַכָּתוּב וְכוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְהַשִּׁיפוֹן מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: This35The Mishnah which forbids harvesting any of the five kinds of grain before the ‘omer. The statement of R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa is in Sifra Wayiqra Paršata 13(5). The problem is Leviticus.2.14-16">Lev. 2:14–16, speaking of the cereal offering of first fruits. The verse cannot speak of individual first fruits (Deuteronomy.26.1-11">Deut. 26:1–11) since no cereal offering is connected with these. For any other cereal offering, the flour is specified. It is always wheat except for the ‘omer sheaf (Leviticus.23.9-14">Lev. 23:9–14) and the offering for the wife suspected of infidelity (Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15). Leviticus.2.14">Lev. 2:14 does not specify the kind of cereal for the offering. The cereal offering of first fruits is identified as the ‘omer offering; this determines the flour as barley flour. is from Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rebbi Joḥanan stated; “Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I could think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ‘omer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ‘omer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife36In Sifra, the second argument also refers to the ‘omer. is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse37The nature of the grain cut for the ‘omer is not specified in Leviticus.23.9-14">Lev. 23:9–14. But since the “new grain” for the cereal offering of the 50th day is specified as fine wheat flour, the earlier offering cannot possibly be wheat.; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by a reasoning a minore ad majus.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִיסְבּוֹר סָבוּר רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי שֶׁמִּנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר בָּאָה מִן הַכּוּסְמִין וְשִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל וְשִׁיפוֹן. אִלּוּ מָן דְאָמַר תְּאֵנִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת עָלַי שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר בִּלְבָנוֹת. אֶלָּא שְׁחוֹרוֹת אָמַר לְבָנוֹת לֹא אָמַר. וְהָכָא שְׂעוֹרָה אָבִיב אָמַר שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל אָבִיב לֹא אָמַר. Rebbi Yose said, who would think that Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi could think that the cereal offering of the ‘omer could come from spelt, foxtail, or oats? If somebody said, black figs are [forbidden] to me, is he not permitted white ones? But “black ones” he said, “white ones” he did not say. And here, “milky white barley” was said38Exodus.9.31">Ex. 9:31. The first-grain cereal offering is described in Leviticus.2.14">Lev. 2:14 as “milky white, parched in fire.” The argument shows that the Mishnah can be the opinion of everybody. A similar argument is attributed in the Menachot.68b">Babli, Menaḥot 68b, to R. Eliezer., “milky white foxtail” was not said.
בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִין שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין הֵן. הַשִׁיפוֹן מִין כּוּסְמִין. שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעַל מִין שְׂעוֹרִים. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בָּֽעְייָן מָה תַנִּינָן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינִין לֹא חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מִין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים מִין אֶחָד. But for the rabbis they are three kinds! Oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail are a kind of barley39In Kilayim 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.1.1.1">Mishnah Kilaim 1:1, oats and spelt, barley and foxtail, are described as “not kilaim one with the other.” Therefore, they must be counted as one botanical species.. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Did we ever state: Five species? No, five kinds. Two times two kinds are one species.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן אֵיזֶהוּ מִין בְּמִינוֹ הַחִטִּים אֵין מִצְטָֽרְפִין עִם הַכֹּל אֶלָּא עִם הַכּוּסְמִין. הַשְּׂעוֹרִין מִצְטָֽרְפִין עִם הַכֹּל חוּץ מִן הַחִטִּים. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן תַּמָּן בְּנָשׁוּךְ וְכָאן בְּבָלוּל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה כֵן וְכוּלָּן שֶׁבָּֽלְלָן תְּבוּאָה קְמָחִים וּבָצֵיקוֹת מִצְטָֽרְפוֹת. עִירֵס רָאשֵׁי עִיסִּיּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְהָהֵן נָשׁוּךְ לָאו כִּמְעוֹרָס הוּא. אַתְּ אָמַר אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף וְהָכָא אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. There40Mishnah 4:2, which seems to contradict the statement of the Mishnah here that the five kinds of grains can be added together for the minimal amount needed for the obligation of ḥallah., we have stated: “What means one species with itself? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites41If different doughs are placed together so they touch one another and, if separated again, small parts of one dough will cling to the other. Then all pieces together form one dough for ḥallah if made from compatible flours., here if it was mixed42If there is only one dough made from mixed flour, it is subject to ḥallah as if it were of homogeneous flour.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rebbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together43Since biting is a weak form of mixing, the rule of the Mishnah here applies only if the entire doughs are mixed, following R. Ḥiyya (the elder)..
מַהוּ שֶׁיִּלְקוּ עַל חַלָּתָן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵין לוֹקִין עַל חַלָּתָן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוּן הַפִּיגּוּל וְהַנּוֹתָר שֶׁשְּׁחָקָן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לֹא בִיטְּלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר בִּיטְּלוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלֹא דָֽמְייָן. תַּמָּן אָמַר זֶה אָסוּר וְזֶה אָסוּר. בְּרַם הָכָא שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים רָבִים עַל אֶחָד וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. וּכְבָר בִּיטְּלוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה אִיסּוּר. אִילּוּ אָמַר עָשָׂה חָמֵשׁ עִיסִּיּוֹת מֵחֲמִשָּׁה מִינִין וְעִירְבוּ. וְאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אֵין לוֹקִין עַל חַלָּתָן דְּבַר תּוֹרָה יֵאוּת. Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law44If somebody made a dough from different kinds of flour that cannot be combined according to Mishnah 4:2 and ate from the bread without taking ḥallah following Mishnah 1:1, he ate ṭevel. Can he be convicted and sentenced to be whipped on the testimony of two eye witnesses?? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law45Mishnah 4:2 is the biblical, Mishnah 1:1 the rabbinic standard.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed46Also quoted Zevachim.75a">Babli Zebaḥim 75a. The Babli states that R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold (a) that different prohibitions are not cumulative but competing and (b) that criminal intent can only be proved by a warning that specifies the exact paragraph of the penal code the perpetrator was warned about; cf. Kilayim 8:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kilayim.8.1.4">Kilaim Chapter 8, Note 9. Here, R. Yose argues only about point (a), not (b).: If somebody ground and mixed piggul47From the verse Leviticus.19.6-7">Lev. 19:6–7 it would seem that פגול (Arabic فجل “soft, mushy”) refers to sacrificial meat left after the time allotted for its consumption. However, since leftover meat already is forbidden in Leviticus.7.17-18">Lev. 7:17–18, פגול is defined as meat from sacrifices which were slaughtered with the intention of eating them outside the holy precinct. Similarly, “leftover” does not really denote leftover meat but meat from sacrifices slaughtered with the intention of eating them after the allotted time. Eating פיגול is a deadly sin, eating leftover meat a sin, and both invalidate the sacrifice. If the sacrifice was slaughtered correctly, then an accidental leftover or piece outside the precinct is still forbidden but does not invalidate the sacrifice. and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another48If somebody makes chopped meat out of piggul and leftover in approximately equal amounts and then eats the volume of an olive of the mixture, for R. Joḥanan he ate a punishable amount of forbidden meat and committed a crime. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, he ate less than an olive-sized piece of either piggul or leftover and cannot be punished for either one.. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar49It is possible that R. Joḥanan agrees with R. Simeon ben Laqish about ḥallah.. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden50Eating from dry flour is not forbidden. The prohibition comes only with the obligation of ḥallah, with the production of dough ready to be baked. Therefore, the case here involves no competition of laws. However, if the dough is large enough that one single kind already would induce the obligation of ḥallah, then everybody agrees that eating the bread without taking ḥallah is a criminal act.. If one made five doughs51Each one large enough to induce the obligation of ḥallah. from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.
הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן הָיָה כוֹרֵךְ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן כְּאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲלוּקִין עַל הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כָּרַךְ מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר. כָּאן בִּשְׁעַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר כָּאן וְכָאן בִּשְׁעַת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים רָבִין עַל אֶחָד וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין הָאִיסּוּרִין מְבַטְּלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה כָּךְ אֵין הַמִּצְוֹת מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ. “Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together52Also quoted in the Pesachim.115a">Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, Zevachim.79a">Zebaḥim 79a. It is written about the Passover sacrifice (Exodus.12.8">Ex. 12:8): “They shall eat the meat in that night, roasted on the fire, and maẓẓot, on bitter herbs they shall eat it.” Similarly, it says about the second Passover (Numbers.9.11">Num. 9:11): “They shall eat it on maẓẓot and bitter herbs.” Hillel held that this means one has to eat of meat, maẓẓah, and bitter herbs together in one bite..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder53The Pesachim.115a">Babli, Pesaḥim 115a, explains R. Joḥanan to say that in Temple times, when all three commandments are biblical, one has the choice to follow Hillel or eat the three ingredients separately. This cannot be the position of the Yerushalmi since then the discussion would not even start.. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs54In the Babli, Rav Ashi (who lived after the compilation of the Yerushalmi) rules that one eats twice, once each item singly and once as a sandwich. Naturally, there cannot be any meat mentioned here; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale NJ, 1995) pp. 332–338. Since R. Joḥanan here is accused of inconsistency, he cannot have followed the custom established by Rav Ashi.? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times55In the absence of a Temple, only maẓẓah is a biblical commandment since it is prescribed separately from any Temple service, Exodus.13.6-7">Ex. 13:6–7. Bitter herbs are mentioned only as accessory to the sacrifice; therefore, today one eats bitter herbs purely as a remembrance of the Temple as rabbinical ordinance. R. Joḥanan must hold that a rabbinic ordinance cannot interfere with a biblical commandment. Therefore, it is possible to eat maẓẓah and bitter herbs together. But he holds that in Temple times, each of the three ingredients must be recognized by its taste. This position is the opposite of that of the Babli.. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it.56This explains the rejection of Hillel’s position in Temple times. Since there are three biblical obligations, they cancel one another and none of them is fulfilled. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Eleazar57Zevachim.79a">Babli Zebaḥim 79a. R. Eleazar supports R. Joḥanan’s position against R. Simeon ben Laqish and his making a sandwich in the manner of Hillel. He must hold that R. Joḥanan reports that most authorities of Hillel’s time disagreed but he himself agrees.: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.
רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּרוֹמִיָּא בָּעֵי עָשָׂה עִיסָּה מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת הַמִּינִין וְחָזַר וְעָשָׂה חָמֵשׁ עִיסִּיּוֹת מִמִּין אֶחָד וְעִירְבוֹ. חִיטִּין שֶׁבּוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ חִיטִּין שֶׁבּוֹ וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבּוֹ מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ שְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אָדָא לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים רָבִין עַל אֶחָד וּמְבַטְּלִין אוֹתוֹ. לֹא צוּרְכָה דְלֹא עָשָׂה חָמֵשׁ עִיסִּיּוֹת מֵחֲמִשָּׁה מִינִין וְעִירְבָן וְחָזַר וְעָשָׂה חָמֵשׁ עִיסִּיּוֹת מֵחֲמִשָּׁה וְלא עִירְבָן. חִיטֵּים שֶׁכָּן מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ חִטִּים שֶׁכָּן וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁכָּן מַהוּ שֶׁיְּבַטְּלוּ שְׂעוֹרִים שֶׁכָּן. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together58This paragraph is rather cryptic and each commentator has his own scenario to make sense of the text; Sefer Nir even has two radically different interpretations. Therefore, the interpretation given here must be considered as tentative.
The first dough is made from five kinds of flour. But Mishnah 4:2 states that if dough is made from wheat and barley then all other kinds of grain add to the dough and cannot be treated separately (spelt adds to wheat and all except wheat add to barley). Therefore, the questions can be asked only about wheat and barley but not about the other three kinds. “Wheat” has to be interpreted as “wheat and spelt” and similarly for barley.
The first dough is subject only to rabbinic ḥallah as explained above, Notes 44–45. The other doughs are too small to be subject to ḥallah by themselves. If they are taken together, does the wheat in the “rabbinic” dough prevent the pure wheat dough to be counted as biblically obligated?. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rebbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it59The answer to the preceding question is obviously “no”.? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together60The five doughs are all subject to ḥallah. Since they were obligated before being mixed, that obligation cannot go away, cf. Note 50. and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together61These doughs are not subject to ḥallah before being put in contact with the large one.. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other62The question is not answered but since the preceding question was answered in the negative, it is implied that this one also is answered in the negative.?
וַאֲסוּרִין בֶּחָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי מִלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי מִלִּפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מַאן דְּאָמַר מִלִּפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר מְסַייֵעַ לְחִזְקִיָּה. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַקָּרְבָּן מַתִּיר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַקָּרְבָּן מַתִּיר. מוֹדֵי חִזְקִיָּה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. “They are forbidden as new grain before Passover3Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14..” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ‘omer63Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14 reads: “Bread, parched and green grains you shall not eat until that day proper, until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice, a permanent rule for your generations in all your dwelling places.” Sifra Emor, Parašah 10(10) points out that the sacrifice must be the ‘omer, the sheaf of barley brought to the Temple. If it would refer to the accompanying sacrifice (v. 13), then “doing” would be used instead of “bringing (in from the outside)”. Since the two conditions, the day proper (the morning light) and the ‘omer, are formulated in parallel, rather than sequential, it is not clear which one is determining when there is a Temple. If there is no Temple, the day is determining by default. The position of Ḥizqiah seems to follow the simple meaning of the verse. Contrary arguments are detailed in the next paragraphs.. He who said “before Passover” supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ‘omer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rebbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice64When there is a Temple., the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits65The difference between R. Jonah and R. Yose is purely in the formulation. According to R. Yose, if there is no sacrifice the meaning of the verse is clear and does not need rabbinic interpretation. In the Menachot.68a">Babli (Menaḥot 68a), the position of Ḥizqiah is that of his cousin Rav and of Samuel.. Rebbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits66In the Menachot.5">Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, 68a, R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish..
אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַד הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת קָרְבַּן אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. יָכוֹל הֲבָאָה מַמָּשׁ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. הָא כֵיצַד טוֹל מִבֵּנְתָייִם זְמַן הֲבָאָה. Rebbi Hila said: The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan is (Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14): “until that day proper,” teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I could think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing67Even R. Joḥanan will agree that new grain is not permitted early in the morning of the day after Passover. The Menachot.5">Babli, Menaḥot 5a/b, holds that R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish hold that dawn is “the day proper” and new grain is permitted immediately..
מוֹדֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּאִיסּוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר. אִיסּוּרוֹ מַהוּ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין אִיסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין מְסַייְעִין לָן. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן אֵין מְבִיאִין מְנָחוֹת וּבִכּוּרִים וּמִנְחַת בְּהֵמָה קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר וְאִם הֵבִיא פָּסוּל. וְאָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּרוֹמִיָּא רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן לא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. הָא שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר עָבַר וְהֵבִיא כָשֵׁר. אִין תֵּימַר אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה הִיא לֹא שַׁנְייָא הִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר הִיא אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר הִיא חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר הִיא שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר עָבַר וְהֵבִיא פָּסוּל. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא עַל יְדֵי דְּרַב בַּר בֵּי דַּעְתּוֹן דִּבְנוֹי דְּרִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָה הוּא סָבַר דִּכְװָתְהוֹן אִין תֵּימַר אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה רַב בַּר דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden68Since the verse stated two conditions for permission to use new grain and in Temple times at dawn of the 16th of Nisan only one condition is satisfied, he holds that new grain still is forbidden, but not as a criminal act, until after the ‘omer was brought.. How is it forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, it is forbidden from their words69As rabbinic decree.. Rebbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there70Mishnah Menaḥot 6:10, Menachot.68b">Babli Menaḥot 68b.: “One may not bring cereal offerings71This can only be the cereal offering of the suspected wife (Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15), which is barley flour. All other cereal offerings are of wheat flour and these cannot be from new harvest until Pentecost (Rashi)., first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices72These are always from wheat flour and cannot be from new grain even after the ‘omer. They are mentioned here only because of the next sentence in the Mishnah, not quoted here, that they may not be brought from new wheat before Pentecost but if brought are not invalid. before the ‘omer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rebbi Joshua the Southerner, Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth73Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, his cousins and fellow students of their father.. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. In addition from the following, as Rebbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya74Of Nisan., he holds with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow75Also follow. There would be no disagreement left. Rebbi Joḥanan!
וְהָתַנִּינָן מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּיי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר. אִין תֵּימַר אִיסּוּרוֹ דְּבַר תּוֹרָה נִיחָא אִין תֵּימַר אִיסּוּרוֹ מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן יֵשׁ תַּקָּנָה אַחַר הַתַּקָּנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן מִפְּנֵי הָֽרְחוֹקִין. Did we not state76Mishnah Menaḥot 6(10):5; Sifra Emor Parašah 10(10); cf. Sukkah 3:11:1-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.3.11.1-3">Mishnah Sukkah 3:13, Roš Haššanah 4:3.: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation77The day of bringing the ‘omer. The language is from Leviticus.23.11">Lev. 23:11: “He shall elevate the sheaf before the Eternal for acceptance in your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the Cohen shall elevate it.” should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine78As the Menachot.68b">Babli, Menaḥot 68b, puts it: Maybe the Temple will be rebuilt instantaneously by a miracle on the second day of Passover and then new grain will be forbidden by biblical law until the ‘omer can be brought.. If you say it is forbidden from their words, is there an institution after an institution79As a matter of principle, there should be no “fence” to guard against infringements of rabbinical decrees.? Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away80They will not know when the ‘omer was presented and, since in classical times longitudes could not be determined with any degree of confidence, were not able to convert Jerusalem local time into their own local time..
רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָא בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן הַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. אָמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא מַתְנִיתָא דְחִזְקִיָּה פְלִיגָא עָלוֹי. עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַיּוֹם מַתִּיר. יָכוֹל אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁעַת הַקָּרְבָּן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר עַד הֲבִיאְכֶם אֶת קָרְבָּן אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. וְהָתַנִּינָן מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אִיתְתָּבַת קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאָמַר אִין יִסְבּוֹר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה כְּרִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר וַהֲלֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה אָסוּר. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rebbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him (Leviticus.23.14">Lev. 23:14): “Until that day proper,” which teaches that the day permits. I could think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan [ben Zakkai] instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rebbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rebbi Jeremiah81The objection from the previous paragraph that the institution of Rabban Joḥanan makes sense only if the prohibition of new grain on the day of the ‘omer is biblical. and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rebbi Jehudah82Mishnah Menaḥot 6(10):5; Sifra Emor Parašah 10(10). R. Jehudah interprets בעצם היום הזה as: “including the essence of the day”, meaning the entire day in the absence of the Temple (Rashi). The Menachot.68b">Babli, Menaḥot 68b, holds that Rabban Joḥanan agrees with R. Jehudah and, therefore, he did not institute a rabbinic decree but decreed the correct interpretation of the biblical law., since Rebbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.
תַּמָּן חָשִׁין לְצוֹמָא רַבָּא תְּרֵין יוֹמִין. אָמַר לוֹן רַב חִסְדָּא לָמָּה אַתֶּם מַכְנִיסִין עַצְמֵכֶם לְמִסְפֵּק הַזֶּה הַמְּרוּבֶּה חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין. אָבוּהּ דְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק חָשׁ עַל גַּרְמֵיהּ וְצָם תְּרֵין יוֹמִין אִפְסַק כְּרוּכֵהּ וּדְמָךְ. There, they were apprehensive to have the great fast for two days84Since all holidays in the diaspora are two days, originally because the exact calendar dates could not quickly be transmitted from the Synhedrion to the diaspora. The Babli, Roš Haššanah 21a, reports that some rabbis in Babylonia fasted two consecutive days; the same is reported from early Medieval German rabbis.. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you bring yourselves into that great uncertainty85The “great uncertainty” is what in the Babli is called “possible danger to one’s life”.. One may trust that the Court is never lazy86Since up to now it never happened that the first of Tishre was not the 30th of Elul (cf. Ševiït 10:2, p. 639), if it should happen the Synhedrion would immediately have sent signals to that effect.. The father of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was apprehensive for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.
אִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר הָעוֹמֶר מַתִּיר. רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר קוֹדֶם לַהֲבָאָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר קוֹדֶם לִקְצִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה הֲבָאָה מַתֶּרֶת לַהֲבָאָה קְצִירָה מַתֶּרֶת לִקְצִירָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קְצִירָה מַתֶּרֶת הֲבָאָה וּקְצִירָה. לְפוּם כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי חַװֵי בָהּ קָצַר לָרַבִּים וְנִטְמָא חָזַר הַיָּחִיד לְאִיסּוּרוֹ. “If they formed roots before the ‘omer, the ‘omer permits them.” Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation87The summer grain must have formed roots before the presentation of the ‘omer in the Temple. Rebbi Yose requires that the roots already be formed at the time of the harvesting of the barley sheaf, usually on the preceding evening.
The Menachot.70b">Babli, Menaḥot 70b, quotes this tradition and the switched one in the inverse order of the Yerushalmi.. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing88He agrees that a private person may start harvesting the moment the sheaf has been cut for the Temple. Though usually one may not perform agricultural work on the intermediate days of a holiday, cutting new grain for the enjoyment of the holiday is permitted since it was impossible to do so before the holiday. But the Temple will not accept a barley cereal offering from new grain before the presentation of the ‘omer. If the barley cut for the Temple became impure before presentation, it cannot be used and its cutting retroactively is invalid. {While the barley and its flour never became wetted, putting the flour in a Temple vessel prepares it for impurity.}, cutting permits to cut. Rebbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rebbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.
רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר קוֹדֶם לִקְצִירָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר קוֹדֶם לַהֲבָאָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה מִילְתֵיהּ דְּכַהֲנָא מְסַייָעָא לִי דְּכַהֲנָא אָמַר וְאִם תַּקְרִיב מִנְחַת בִּיכּוּרִים לַיי֨. זוֹ בִיכִּירָה הָאֲחֶרֶת לֹא בִיכִּירָה. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ אֲפִילוּ עֲשָׂבִים אֲפִילוּ הַשְׁרָשָׁה הָעוֹמֶר בָּא וּמַתִּיר. וְלֹא קוֹדֶם לִקְצִירָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנֵּי הַמְּנַכֵּשׁ בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר וְנִתְלַשׁ הַקֶּלַח בְּיָדוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה שׁוֹתְלוֹ בְמָקוֹם הַטִּינָּא אֲבָל לֹא בְמָקוֹם הַגְּרִיד. הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר וְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וּמִקְצַת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ. Rebbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rebbi Yose said, before cutting. Rebbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said (Lev. 214): “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits89This is the sheaf of barley, cf. Notes 35, 63. to the Eternal.” This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ‘omer comes and permits it. Do we not hold before cutting90As usual, the argument is from a part of the verse which is not quoted explicitly: “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal; milky white roasted in fire, farina from soft kernels you should bring as cereal offering to your God.” The verse prescribes that the barley after cutting must be threshed, roasted, and milled before presentation. But the expression “milky white” specifies which plants are sufficiently ripened to be candidates for cutting. Therefore, the verse must speak of the time of cutting.? In addition, from the following which was stated91In the Pesachim.55a">Babli (Pesaḥim 55a), the baraita is in the name of R. Jehudah who states in Mishnah Ševiït 2:6 that any transplant which does not form roots in three days will not survive.: “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole92If the action of the ‘omer would be counted from presentation, then replanting on the 14th would still leave three days, part of 14th, 15th, part of 16th, to form a root. Since the baraita specifies the 13th as last day for replanting, it follows that the operative time of the ‘omer is early in the night of the 16th, the time of cutting the barley..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מִילְתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֲבִינָּא מְסַייְעָא לִי דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אֲבִינָּא תִּיפְתָָּר כְּהָדָא מַתְנִיתָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר אֲבָל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לֹא בְּתָלוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא בִּמְחוּבָּר. אַשְׁכַּח תַּנֵּי מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּתָלוּשׁ עוֹשִׂין אֲפִילוּ בִּמְחוּבָּר. Rebbi Yose said, the word of Rebbi Abinna supports me, since Rebbi Abinna said, explain it93Pesachim 4:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Pesachim.4.1.1">Mishnah Pesaḥim 4:1 states: “In a place where one is used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may work; in a place where one is not used to work in the morning of the 14th [of Nisan], one may not work.” If work on the 14th is forbidden, it is obvious that the 13th is the last day for weeding and the baraita quoted in the preceding paragraph does not prove anything about the ‘omer. Since it is stated that one may replant on the 14th, it follows that only the presentation of the ‘omer is relevant. following this baraita: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where one is used to work on the 14th.” If it is cut; maybe also when it is standing94An objection by R. Jonah. Maybe agricultural work, while permitted on the morning of the 14th, is restricted.? It was found stated95Tosephta Pesaḥim 3:18: “In a place where one is used to work on standing grain on the 14th until noon, one may do so.”: “In a place where people are used to work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”
וְאִם לֹא אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא עוֹמֶר הַבָּא. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שָׁאַל מַהוּ שֶׁיָּבִיא הָעוֹמֶר מֵהֶן. אֵיפְשָׁר לוֹמַר חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן אֵין תּוֹרְמִין וּמְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵן. הָתִיבוּן הֲרֵי שְׁאָר הַמִּינִין הֲרֵי הֵן תְּלוּיִין בָּעוֹמֶר וְאֵין הָעוֹמֶר בָּא מֵהֶן. לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁאָר הַמִּינִין שֶׁלֹּא כָֽשְׁרוּ לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר תֹּאמַר בְּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁכָּֽשְׁרוּ לְמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר. חֲבֵרַייָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר רֵאשִׁית קְצִירְךָ וְלֹא סוֹף קְצִירְךָ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בִּיכּוּרִין אֵין אֵילּוּ בִּיכּוּרִין. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. עָבַר וְהֵבִיא. עַל דַּעְתְּהוֹן דַּחֲבֵרַיָּא פָּסוּל. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כָּשֵׁר. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רָבִין בַּר חִייָה וְהֵן שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיאוּ שְׁלִישׁ לְאַחַר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה הָעוֹמֶר בָּא מֵהֶן. “Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.” Rebbi Eleazar asked, may they96If it is barley. be used to bring [next year’s] ‘omer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so97In this version, nothing sown before the New Year can be used for the ‘omer.? They objected, are there not the other kinds98All grains which are not barley. which are dependent on the ‘omer but cannot be used for the ‘omer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ‘omer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ‘omer? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Leviticus.23.10">Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (Leviticus.2.14">Lev. 2:14) “First fruits,” these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra it is acceptable99It is explained in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 15(1) that “first fruits” is a requirement that is waived if no ripe barley is found in the fields by Passover. Since it can be disregarded under certain circumstances this cannot be an absolute requirement.. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya100He is R. Abin bar Ḥiyya, student of R. Zeïra. That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it only was one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ‘omer comes from it.