Rujukan Talmud untuk Imamat 2:7: Jerusalem Talmud Yoma, Jerusalem Talmud Nazir & Jerusalem Talmud Sotah

³¹Babli 47a, Menaḥot11a, Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 9(6).“His full handful³²Lev. 2:2.. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful³³Lev. 6:8.. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan³⁴Lev. 2:5. or frying pan³⁵Lev. 2:7. and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

There²⁸Mishnah Menaḥot 12:2., we have stated: “If somebody says, ‘I undertake [to bring] on a pan²⁹A cereal offering fried in oil on a flat clay pan, Lev. 2:5–6.’ and he brought in a deep vessel³⁰A cereal offering cooked in boiling oil in a deep clay vessel, Lev. 2:7., in a deep vessel and he brought on a pan.³¹“What he brought is acceptable but he did not fulfill his vow.”” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is the House of Shammai’s³²Why should a flour offering be acceptable if it was not properly dedicated? Since it is forbidden to bring profane food into the Temple precinct (Deut. 12:26), the House of Hillel should hold that an offering which does not fulfill the specification of the donor’s vow has to be rejected by the officiating priests. But for the House of Shammai, who hold that a dedication is always valid, even if made in error, the nonconforming offering is not profane., since the House of Shammai say, “dedication in error is dedication.” Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yose³³Since R. Yose was R. Ze‘ira’s student’s student, one has to read: R. Yasa (Assi).: Why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he said, “I said, on a pan”?³⁴If the person who made the vow agrees that the present offering does not satisfy his vow, there is no reason why it should not be accepted as a separate offering. But if he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan,” and then he changed his mind³⁵Immediately. and said, “in a deep vessel”, he fulfilled his duty. Rebbi Ḥanina³⁶It seems that one has to read “R. Ḥinena”. and Rebbi Yasa came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: it is everybody’s opinion. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he said, “I undertake [to bring] on a pan or in a deep vessel,” turned around³⁵Immediately. and said, “on a pan”, and turned around and said, “in a deep vessel”?³⁷Since he demonstrates that he did not make up his mind, do we hold him to his last statement or can he satisfy his vow with any of the kinds mentioned as possibilities? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Hama in the name of Rebbi Yose: He determines even orally³⁸This is an independent statement. From the Mishnah in Menaḥot it follows that the donor’s statement determines the kind of cereal sacrifice he is required to bring, even if as yet he owes no flour.. They thought to say, even holidays determine³⁹If he vows the sacrifice for a holiday, he cannot satisfy his vow on a workday., even vessels determine⁴⁰If he vowed a cereal sacrifice without specifying its kind and then put the flour into one of the acceptable vessels without saying a word, the vessel determines the kind of offering he vowed and he cannot change it any longer..

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: ³⁹This sentence is also quoted in Halakhah 3:1. The argument refers to Lev. 2:14, where “a flour offering of first fruits” is mentioned which is identified as the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14), traditionally brought from barley (since early in spring there is no wheat ready). The argument attempts to show that the offering mentioned in Lev. 2:14 must be the ‘omer offering of barley. The argument of R. Ismael is quoted only here because it cannot be sustained. The basis of the argument is the position that a word used in the legal parts of the Torah can only have one meaning. Since the construct form “flour offering of” used for the ritual of the suspected wife (Num. 5:15,16,18) refers to barley, it is concluded that the “flour offering of first fruits” also must refer to barley. The problem is that the construct state is also used in Lev. 2:7, 6:14,16; Num. 4:16, 28:8 clearly referring to wheat offerings.“Flour offering of, flour offering of.” Since “flour offering of” said there is of barley, here also it is of barley. ⁴⁰A slightly garbled version of a text dealing with the same problem, preserved in Sifra Wayyiqra Paršata 13(4). The reading Liezer for the first Tanna mentioned here, as against Lazar as suggested by the text, follows the reading of Sifra. Since this Tanna is mentioned before R. Aqiba, a reading of Lazar would refer to R. Eleazar ben ‘Arakh. Rebbi Eliezer said, it says here “milky white⁴¹Lev. 2:14, a word used in the description of the offering of first fruits. For the translation of אביב as “milky white”, see J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1991, pp. 192–194.” and it says in Egypt “milky white⁴²Ex. 9:31, referring to barley.”. Since “milky white” mentioned in Egypt refers to barley, here also it refers to barley. Rebbi Aqiba said, it was said to the public, bring first fruits on Passover and bring first fruits on Pentecost⁴³During or after the Holiday of Unleavened Bread (depending on the interpretation of the term “after the Sabbath”) the ‘Omer offering is required as “first harvest” (Lev. 23:9–14). Pentecost is described as “holiday of first fruits” (Num. 28:26).. ⁴⁴This text is slightly garbled. A more intelligible text is in Sifra (but one cannot exclude the possibility that the text in Sifra is Amoraic and has been edited to make it more intelligible) and the Babli, Menaḥot 68b:
רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר לַצִּיבּוּר. הֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בַּפֶּסַח וַהֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בָּעֲצֶרֶת. כְּמָה מָצִינוּ שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בָּעֲצֶרֶת. אַף מִמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ יְהֵא הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרָיו בַּפֶּסַח. מֵאֵי זֶה מִין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ. מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַף הַצִּיבּוּר לֹא יָבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אִם תֹּאמַר. מִן הַחִיטִּין. אֵין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּיכּוּרִים.
Rebbi Aqiba says: It was said to the public, bring First Fruits on Passover and bring First Fruits on Pentecost. As we find that, from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public has to bring their First Fruits on Pentecost, also from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering the public brings their First Fruits on Passover. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say, from wheat, the Two Breads are not First Fruits. If we find that from the kind a private person brings his obligatory offering⁴⁵The only obligatory flour offerings of a private person are the purification offering of the poor (Lev. 5:11) and the offering for the suspected wife. The voluntary offerings of a private person are all high quality wheat. the public bring their first fruits on Pentecost. From which kind does the private person bring his obligatory offering? From barley! Also the public should bring only from barley. If you say from wheat, the Two Breads⁴⁶Two wheat breads made from sour dough to be presented to the altar but not burned, Lev. 23:17. These are called “First Fruits”. If the ‘Omer offering, whose nature is not specified in the verse, were to be brought from wheat, the Two Breads would not be baked from “First Fruits”. would not be first fruits.