Levítico 23:10 Referencias del Talmud: Jerusalem Talmud Challah, Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat, Jerusalem Talmud Megillah & Jerusalem Talmud Rosh Hashanah

MISHNAH: Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats¹For the determination of these grains, see 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 Passover³Lev. 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 (Lev. 23:10), in rabbinic interpretation on the second day of Passover, the 16^th 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, Lev. 23:16.; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ‘omer.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁴The question is whether R. Eliezer permits to perform preparations on the Sabbath which could have been made on Friday for circumcision only or in general for any action prescribed for the Sabbath even if it involves doing work which under other circumstances would be Sabbath violations.. Since Rebbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ˋomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside²⁵The ˋomer is a measure, a tenth of an epha, about 3.5 liter, of new barley grain which is offered in the Temple to permit the consumption of grain from the new harvest. It has to be brought on the day after the Sabbath (Lev. 23:15) which in rabbinic tradition is the second day of the Feast of unleavened bread, in the Sadducee tradition of the Book of Jubilees the day following the Feast, and in Boethusian tradition on the Sunday in the Feast. The common testimony of Philo and Josephus shows that rabbinic tradition was followed in the Temple service. The ˋomer had to be brought to the Temple on a fixed date, even if this date was a Sabbath (except for Boethusians for which this never could happen.) Therefore it is clear that there is a biblical prescription to cut the barley on the Sabbath if that is the day on which the grain has to be offered.
The Two Breads are the only leavened bread ever permitted in the Temple precinct; they have to be presented to the altar (but not offered on it) on the festival of Weeks (Lev. 23:17), which falls on the 50th day after the ˋomer, on the same day of the week as the ˋomer. These Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Temple service. R. Eliezer concludes from an argument of “equal cut”, since both the ˋomer and the Two Breads are referred to in the verse as “first fruits” that they follow the same rules and, therefore, if the two loaves were not baked before the Sabbath they may be baked on the Sabbath.; this implies that Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases²⁶If it were understood that in all cases of a prescribed action on the Sabbath the preparation also can be done on the Sabbath the argument of “equal cut” would be unnecessary. Babli 131a.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rebbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases²⁷This sentence is missing in modern editions of the Yerushalmi., and why did Rebbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work²⁸R. Joḥanan’s argument is not convincing. For the ˋomer the action of harvesting is prescribed on the day of the sacrifice (Lev. 23:10); the grain must be roasted (Lev. 2:14) and part of it burned on the altar. This means that both the preparation and the offering involve actions that are violations of Sabbath prohibitions. But the Two Breads are simply presented to the altar; no part of them may be burned on the altar (Lev. 2:12); they have to be eaten by the priests in the Temple precinct. This means that the offering itself does not imply any Sabbath violation; there is no intrinsic reason which would allow baking the breads on the Sabbath.. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside²⁹Babli 131a,b. Lev. 23:40 requires that on the first day of Tabernacles one has to take four kinds of greenery tied to a palm branch, the lulav. Since this is required at a fixed day of the calendar, it has precedence over the rules of the Sabbath. For R. Eliezer cutting the plants may be done on the Sabbath. The statement has to be dated before the destruction of the Temple since in Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s reconstruction of rabbinic Judaism at Jabneh, in imitation of a Temple ceremony the obligation to take the “four kinds” was extended to all seven days of Tabernacles which automatically re-instituted the rules of the Sabbath as preeminent. Here the situation is completely parallel to that of the Two Breads in that taking the Four Kinds on the holiday does not involve any Sabbath desecration; but the preparation involves forms of harvesting which are forbidden on the Sabbath.? Rebbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree³⁰It is possible to explain that R. Eliezer in this case permits only rabbinic prohibitions, not work by biblical standards.. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary³¹This statement also refers to the time before the reforms of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai which permanently extended the holiday of the New Year to two days, thereby eliminating the power of the duty to sound the shofar to override the rules of the Sabbath (including rabbinic rules). The prohibition to bring anything from outside the Sabbath boundaries (at least if the distance is less than three parasang) certainly is rabbinic,. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off³²This text seems corrupt. S. Liebermann reads מגדד “one cuts” instead of the second מגרד. It is not clear whether the topic is preparing a ram’s horn for use as a shofar or the preparation of the Four Kinds. מפרך means breaking off outcroppings to produce smooth surface.. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rebbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished³³The baraita about not scraping, not cutting, etc., is separate from the statement attributed to R. Eliezer about the lulav.. It was stated: It happened that Rebbi instructed following Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rebbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rebbi Eliezer³⁴Such an act contradicts ail our rules for determining practice.? Rebbi Hoshaia said, we asked Rebbi Jehudah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden³⁵Rabbinically. to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street³⁶As explained in the next paragraph, this is a matter of different interpretations of rabbinic rules. Since R. Eliezer allows biblical rules to be broken, saying that Rebbi instructed following R. Eliezer is a misrepresentation of what he did..

“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: (Lev. 23:10) “The first of your harvest,” not the last of your harvest. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: (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.