Талмуд к Менахот 8:8

“The `omer<sup>1</sup>The offering of barley grain on the 16th of Nisan to permit consumption of grain from the new harvest; Lev. 23:9–14., and the Two Breads<sup>2</sup>The two leavened breads on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17.., and the shew-bread.” The Mishnah<sup>19</sup>The part of the Mishnah which states that the watchmen over grain for the `omer are paid from public funds. If it were possible to import the grain during a sabbatical year, the expense would be unnecessary and therefore forbidden. is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria<sup>20</sup>Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. There, we have stated:<sup>21</sup>Mishnah Menaḥot8:1. The sacrifices referred to are offerings of flour and wine. “All private and public sacrifices come from the Land and from outside the Land, from new or old [grain], except for `omer and the Two Breads, which only come from new grain²²This is not obvious since the `omer permits the profane use of new grain also from outside the Land and the Two Breads permit the use of new wheat in the Tabernacle which according to the Mishnah includes wheat imported from Syria. While the Mishnah states that grain is acceptable from outside the Land, this refers to grain from outside the Land on both sides of the Jordan and Syria only if it remained impervious to the impurity of Gentile lands (i. e., if it was guarded from any contact with water or fluids whose status is like water in this respect.) and from the Land.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria²³And certainly not from impure lands.. There, we have stated²⁴Mishnah Kelim1:6.: “There are ten levels of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than other lands; and what is its holiness? That one brings from it the `omer, first fruits, and the Two Breads, which cannot be from other lands.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah, this is Rebbi Ismael’s, since Rebbi Ismael said, the `omer is not brought from Syria. There, we have stated²⁵Mishnah Ševi`it1:5.: “Rebbi Ismael says, since sowing is a voluntary act, also harvesting is a voluntary act. This excludes harvesting the `omer, which is a commandment²⁶This refers to Ex. 34:21: Six days you may work but on the Seventh Day you must rest, from ploughing and harvesting you must rest. According to R. Ismael while this forbids any optional harvesting on the Sabbath, it implies that harvesting required by a religious commandment must be performed on the Sabbath. (Cf. Ševi`it Chapter 1, Notes 43 and 2.)
ג adds here the one-sentence Halakhah Ševi`it1:5 (Note 44)..” Who is the Tanna of “the watchmen for aftergrowth in the sabbatical year take their wages from the disbursement from the lodge”? Rebbi Ismael²⁰Syria in matters of religious law is the area which was part of David’s empire but not permanently settled by one of the Twelve Tribes. The rules of the Land do not apply biblically but the land is not ritually impure. Therefore grain for use in the Temple could be bought from there.. Rebbi Yose said, it is everybody’s opinion. If one would not find in Syria,.one would bring from the aftergrowth in the Land of Israel²⁷While not needed every year, in a year of drought in Syria it might be obvious that one has to look for any available grain in the Land.. Could one sow from the start for the `omer<sup>28</sup>Since the verse Lev. 25:3 introducing the Sabbatical year combines sowing and harvesting, one could make the point that only voluntary sowing in a Sabbatical is forbidden, therefore obligatory sowing leading to obligatory harvesting is permitted.? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada asked before Rebbi Mana, would he not take the fistful for leftovers than cannot be eaten<sup>29</sup>Only a fistful of the grain brought for the `omer(a tenth of an ephah, about 3.8 l) is burned on the altar, the leftover has to be consumed by the priests in the Sanctuary. But produce sown in a Sabbatical is forbidden; the leftover of the flour could not be consumed.? He said to him, it has a status like the five kinds which can be brought in impurity but may not be eaten in impurity³⁰The leftover has to be burned. The same would happen if all available grain and all available personnel were impure, Mishnah Pesaḥim7:4..

It⁸⁵The statement in Mishnah 4 about the leftover of produce, whose existence is denied by R. Aqiba and R. Ḥanina. is all Rebbi Ismael’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph explains the Mishnah: The leftover of produce⁷⁴The gain made by the Temple in providing flour, oil, and wine, for private sacrifices. is the gain of the Temple⁸⁶The money made by the Temple in selling for a profit flour, oil, and wine, for flour offerings and libations.; the leftover of libations is the fourth seah⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah, The leftover of produce is the fourth seah; the leftover of libations is the overflow⁸⁸In order to avoid the sin of me`ilah, the suppliers of produce of all kinds to the Temple have to deliver slightly more than the measure which was contracted for, while the Temple will distribute this product for private libations and flour offerings at the exact measure. The small differences will add up to a considerable amount during a full year; this kind of gain is approved also by the opponents of R. Ismael.. Does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph not have overflow? Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, what is counted for the fourth seah is overflow<sup>89</sup>He holds that the reason that the Temple always is the beneficiary of changes in the market place also is to serve as a precaution against me`ilah infractions; both kinds of additions have the same status.. The opinion of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph is understandable. “one does not gain neither for the Temple nor funds for the poor,” therefore “neither of them did agree about produce.” The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan is difficult. We have stated⁸⁷As explained in Mishnah 11, the Temple does not have to hedge its purchases of produce because it is protected against changes in the market place at all times. If the Temple contracted for flour at the rate of 3 seah per tetradrachma and at the time of delivery it was 4 seah per tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4. But if the contract was for 4 and the price went up and now stands at 3 for a tetradrachma, the provider has to deliver 4 while the Temple will sell at the going rate.: “if the going rate was three, he has to deliver for four” and we have stated, “neither of them did agree about produce.” They did not agree about produce to adorn the altar; they did agree for Service vessels⁹⁰Since Mishnah 11 is unanimous opinion, the opponents of R. Ismael cannot deny that the Temple always makes money which has to be used for definite purposes.. So far overflow of public {sacrifices}. Even overflow for private {sacrifices}. Would then not Service vessels come from private donations? It is as it was stated, “a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public.⁹¹This was discussed earlier, Note 14.” So far the overflow of fluids; even the overflow of dry goods; as that which we stated⁹²Mishnah Menaḥot7:4. This is not directly overflow but a third way in which the Temple accumulates a surplus. If a sacrifice was brought and the offerer bought the libations including the flour offering from the Temple, if then these flour offerings could not be used because the sacrifice was disqualified, the priests in charge may use the flour, etc., for the next sacrifice. In this case the Temple is paid twice for the same produce; Tosephta Menaḥot10:8 states that the money accumulated in this way is given to the gift account to buy elevation offerings for the idle altar., “in case libations were sanctified in a vessel when the sacrifice was found disqualified, if there is another sacrifice they should be brought with it; otherwise they will become disqualified by staying overnight.”

HALAKHAH: “One is more restrictive for heave in that in Judea one is trustworthy.” Rebbi Simon, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi Pedaiah: Because a strip of Samaritans interrupts¹⁵⁰This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.. But did we not state¹⁵¹Mishnah Menaḥot 8:3., “the second best is Regev in Transjordan”? Without this would not a strip of Samaritans interrupt¹⁵⁰This statement must be late Amoraic, after the exclusion of Samaritans from Judaism according to its rabbinic interpretation (cf. Avodah zarah 3:1 Note 27). The correct version is Rashi’s reading in the Babli: “A strip of Gentile territory”, which is impure in the general impurity of lands outside Jewish Palestine; cf. Dikduke Sopherim Ḥagigah 25a Note 8.? Rebbi Shammai said, explain it if he brings whole olives¹⁵²Which never were wetted and therefore are impervious to impurity. and pounds them there. And in Judea one is trustworthy about the wine but not about the flasks. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Southerner who said, I brought this from Galilee is trustworthy; a Galilean who said, I brought this from Judea is not trustworthy¹⁵³In both cases the heave is impure unless under control of a trustworthy person..

But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian¹³⁴Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?? A formulation which is an exaggeration¹³⁵Arabic فرط “excess, exaggeration”. The Mishnah is formulated to give leeway in the choice of materials.. There, we have stated¹³⁶Mishnah Menaḥot8:5, about the oil qualified for the lamp and the flour sacrifices in the Temple. Since the Mishnah is known, the corrector’s addition is not absolutely necessary.: “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written¹³⁷In Lev. 16:23 linen is mentioned only once, in contrast to 4 times in v. 4..