משנה: הָיָה מֵבִיא אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ בִּכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל יָדֶיהָ כְּדֵי לְייַגְּעָהּ. כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת תְּחִילָּתָן וְסוֹפָן בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְזוֹ תְחִילָּתָהּ בִּכְפִיפָה מִצְרִית וְסוֹפָהּ בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנה לֹא שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא לְבוֹנָה. כָּל־הַמְּנָחוֹת בָּאוֹת מִן הַחִטִּים וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אָלָּא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים. מִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בָאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים הִיא בָאָה גֶרֶשׂ וְזוֹ הָֽיְתָה בָאָה קֶמַח. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ מַעֲשֵׂה בְהֵמָה כָּךְ קָרְבָּנָהּ מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה. MISHNAH: He1The husband; Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15. The volume of the offering was 1/10 of an epha or about one US Gallon. Cf. also Sotah 1:6:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.6.3">Chapter 1, Note 239. brought her flour offering in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and then puts it on her hands to tire her out. All flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel except this which at the start is in an Egyptian palm-leaf basket and at the end in a Temple vessel2All other offerings must be in a Temple vessel when given to a Cohen to be processed. It is true that the soṭah-offering also must be in a Temple vessel once the Cohen takes it, but as long as the Cohen is still occupied with the preliminaries it may not be in a Temple vessel.. All flour offerings need oil and incense except this one which needs neither oil nor incense3This is not quite correct; the offering of the poor sinner (Leviticus.5.11">Lev. 5:11) is likewise without olive oil and incense.. All flour offerings come from wheat except this one which only comes from barley. The ‘omer flour offering, even though it comes from barley, comes as roasted kernels but this one comes as flour. Rabban Gamliel said, since she behaved like an animal so her offering is animal feed.
הלכה: הָיָה מֵבִיא אֶת מִנְחָתָהּ כול׳. כְּתִיב וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָֽרְרִים. מֵעַתָּה כְדֵי לְייַגְּעָהּ. אֶלָּא כְדֵי לְהַטִּיל אֵימָה עָלֶיהָ. HALAKHAH: “He brought her flour offering,” etc. It is written4Numbers.5.18">Num. 5:18. The verse requires that the offering be in the woman’s hands all the time the water is in the Cohen’s hand.: “In the Cohen’s hand shall be the spell-inducing bitter water.” Is that to tire her out? Rather to inspire her with fear.
מִנְחָתָהּ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִיא קְדֹשָׁה לִשְׁמָהּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא קְדֹשָׁה לִשְׁמָהּ כָּךְ הִיא קְדֹשָׁה לִשְׁמוֹ. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה וּפְלִיג. לִיקָרֵב כָּלִיל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה מִפְּנֵי שׁוּתָפוּתָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה. לֵאָכֵל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה מִפְּנֵי שׁוּתָפוּתוֹ שֶׁלָּאִישׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הַקּוֹמֶץ קָרֵב לְעַצְמוֹ וְהַשְּׁייֵרִים קְרֵיבִין לְעַצְמָן. וְאַתְּ אָמַר. מִנְחָתָהּ. וְאֶלָּא מַה דְאִישְׁתָּעֵי קִרְייָא אִישְׁתָּעֵית מַתְנִיתָא. וְהֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ. “Her flour-offering.” Does that mean that it is sanctified in her name5A flour-offering in order to be valid must be offered by a Cohen in a Temple vessel on behalf of its owner (Menachot 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Menachot.1.1">Mishnah Menaḥot 1:1). The Mishnah notes that “he (the husband) brings her (the wife’s) flour-offering.” Does this mean that the offering is to be offered only on her behalf?? Just as it is sanctified in her name, so it is sanctified in his name6It must be brought in both their names.. Rebbi Hiyya stated and disagreed7He does not disagree here at all; he supports the previous opinion. The text is from Sotah 3:6:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.6.2-6">Halakhah 3:7 (fol. 19b line 37) where R. Ḥiyya disagrees. Cf. Tosephta 2:6.: “It8If a Cohen suspects his wife of adultery, the flour-offering cannot be burnt as a Cohen’s offering (Leviticus.6.16">Lev. 6:16) and cannot be eaten as the wife’s offering (Leviticus.6.9">Lev. 6:9). cannot be brought completely because of the participation by the wife. It cannot be eaten because of the participation by the husband.” He said to him, the handful9Of any flour-offering, a handful of the flour (with the incense) has to be burned on the altar and, normally, the rest is eaten by the Cohanim within the Temple enclosure (Leviticus.6.7-11">Lev. 6:7–11). is brought separately and the remainder is brought separately10This is a matter of dispute; R. Ḥiyya disagrees with the opinion that the remainders which cannot be eaten by the Cohanim have to be dispersed on the ashes but holds that they have to be burned as a kind of fuel (Sotah 3:6:2-6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.6.2-6">Halakhah 3:7, Sotah.23a">Babli 23a).. And you say, “her flour offering”? But the expression used by the verse is used by the Mishnah: “He shall bring her flour-offering for her.11Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15.”
בַּעֲלָהּ מַהוּ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִדַּעְתָּהּ. [מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שׁוּתָפוּת בַּמִּנְחָה מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִדַּעְתָּהּ.] אַחֵר מַהוּ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִדַּעְתָּהּ. ייָבֹא כַּיי דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. [דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר] אַרְבָּעָה מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה מַפְרִישִׁין עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתָּן. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַמְצוֹרָע וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת. שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ עַל בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן וְהוּא נָתוּן בָּעֲרִיסָה. נִיחָא זָב וְזָבָה וּמְצוֹרָע. וְיוֹלֶדֶת. וְיֵשׁ קְטַנָּה יוֹלֶדֶת. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי רְדִיפָה רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם רַב חוּנָא. עִיבֵּרָה וְיָֽלְדָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת הִיא וּבְנָהּ מֵתִים. מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת [הִיא וּבְנָהּ חַייִן. עִיבֵּרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת וָֽלְדָה מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵי שְׂעָרוֹת] הִיא חָיָה וּבְנָהּ מַת. מַאי כְדוֹן. שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ עַל בִּתּוֹ קְטַנָּה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבִיאָהּ לוֹ כְּבַר יָצָאת מֵרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ. אֶלָּא שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מַפְרִישׁ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ חֲרֶשֶׁת. וְכָאן סוֹטָה קְטַנָּה אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. דָּמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. קְטַנָּה שֶׁזִּינָת אֵין לָהּ רָצוֹן לְהֵיאָסֵר עַל בַּעֲלָהּ. וַחֲרֶשֶׁת אֵין אַתְּ יָכוֹל. דִּכְתִיב וְאָֽמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבִין. מִכֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב וְשָׂמַחְתָּ אַתָּה וּבֵיתֶךָ וְהוּא מְעַכֵּב מִלִּשְׂמוֹחַ עִמָּהּ. מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ חוּץ מִדַּעְתָּהּ. May her husband dedicate for her without her knowledge? Since he is a partner in the flour offering, may he dedicate for her without her knowledge? May another person dedicate for her without her knowledge14In case the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is a second question to be answered.? It comes following what Rebbi Joḥanan said, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, for the four who need cleansing15Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Leviticus.12.6-8">Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Leviticus.14.1-32">Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Leviticus.15.14-15">Lev. 15:14–15,29–30). others may dedicate without their knowledge; these are the following: Man or woman [healed from] genital discharges, one [healed from] scale disease, and the woman after childbirth; since a father may dedicate for his small son who is lying in a crib16Who could have been afflicted with scale disease and, if female, with a discharge at birth mimicking menstruation.. One understands man or woman [healed from] genital discharges or [healed from] scale disease, but a woman after childbirth? May a minor give birth? 17Text from Yevamot 1:2:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.2.9">Yebamot 1:2, Note 153. Did not Rebbi Redifa, Rebbi Jonah, say in the name of Rebbi Hila: If a woman became pregnant and gave birth before she grew two hairs, she and her son will die. After she grew two hairs, she and her son will live. If she became pregnant before she grew two hairs and gave birth after she grew two hairs, she will live but her son will die. How is the situation? Since a man may dedicate for his underage daughter18Therefore, he should be able to dedicate for his wife who also is dependent upon him.. Since she grew [pubic hair] she already left his power19Even without growing pubic hair, if he married her off she is emancipated from him. If she is not married, she cannot be a suspected wife.. But it must be since a man may dedicate for his deaf-mute wife. Here, in the case of the suspected wife, the case of the minor does not apply 20This statement is from Sotah 1:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.2.5">Chapter 1, Note 91. since Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: An underage girl who whored has no will to be forbidden to her husband. The case of the deaf-mute does not apply since it is written21Numbers.5.22">Num. 5:22. The answer of the wife is a requirement that cannot be waved, cf. Sotah 1:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.1.1.2">Chapter 1, Note 8. Therefore, a mute woman cannot undergo the ordeal. The Sotah.27b">Babli concurs, 27b, quoted in Num. rabba 9(18).: “The woman shall say: Amen, amen.” Rebbi Abin said, since it is written22Deuteronomy.14.26">Deut. 14:26. “A man’s house” always means his wife. For example, since the High Priest must purge his sins and those of his house on the day of Atonement (Leviticus.16.17">Lev. 16:17), an unmarried High Priest cannot officiate.: “You shall enjoy together with your house,” and he is the cause that he cannot enjoy with her, he may dedicate without her knowledge23Since he cannot enjoy himself if his wife is forbidden to him, she cannot hinder him in the preparations for her rehabilitation. This answers the original question for the husband. At the same time, R. Abin disagrees with R. Joḥanan and holds that only the husband may dedicate the purgation offering of the woman after childbirth without her knowledge since he has a direct interest in it. While the woman after childbirth is permitted to her husband once she is recovered and pure, she cannot enjoy the holiday sacrifices with him as long as her sacrifice has not been handed over to the Temple personnel..
רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. אֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף אֶלָּא חַטָּאת הָעוֹף. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מַכְשֵׁרָתָהּ לֶאֱכֹל בִּזְבָחִים. תַּנֵּי. אֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא מַתִּירָהּ לָהּ בְּזֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵין לָךְ אֶלָּא זֶה. תַּנֵּי. מַה זֶה מְעַכְּבָהּ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּזְבָחִים. מְעַכְּבָה הִיא מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּזְבָחִים. וּמִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא מְעוֹכָּב מִלִּשְׂמוֹחַ עִמָּהּ. כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא מְעַכְּבָהּ מִלֶּאֱכוֹל בִּזְבָחִים. תַּנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ הַקָּפַת נְזִירוּת עַל רֹאשָׁהּ מְעַכְּבָה הִיא מִלּוֹכַל בִּזְבָחִים. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא מְנוּוֶּלֶת וְהוּא מְעוֹכָּב מִלִּשְׂמוֹחַ עִמָּהּ. כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא מְעַכְּבָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּזְבָחִים. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila: He may not dedicate for her the bird elevation offering, only the bird purification offering because the latter enables her to eat family sacrifices24This speaks about the woman after childbirth whose husband is poor and can afford only two birds as purgation offering. It is asserted here that the husband on his own can only dedicate a sacrifice in which he has a direct interest, as stated by R. Abin. Keritot 6:4" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.6.4">Mishnah Keritut 6:4 notes that only the purification offering enables her to eat family sacrifices. The elevation sacrifice also may be paid by him but only with his wife’s knowledge.. It was stated: He may dedicate for her only something that enables her to eat family sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that25The offerings of the woman after childbirth. is all. It was stated: Just as that disables her from eating family sacrifices, so she disables others from eating family sacrifices; since he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her from eating family sacrifices26In all cases, those whose impurity was produced by their own body and the suspected wife, where the husband cannot enjoy a holiday without having seen to it that her sacrifice has been presented in good order, any dereliction on his part to remove her disability is put on the same level as his hindering her from eating sacrifices. Therefore, it is his duty to bring these sacrifices and he does not need his wife’s consent for the dedication.. It was stated: Even by the shearing of her head27The wife made a vow to be a nazir who may not drink any wine and the husband did not use his right to free her from any vow of self-punishment. As long as she is forbidden to drink wine, he cannot fully enjoy the holiday with her. Therefore, after she has cut her hair, the husband can dedicate the three offerings due from the nazir (Numbers.6.14">Num. 6:14) without the knowledge of his wife (according to R. Ila only the family sacrifice which permits the wife to drink wine.) she hinders him from eating family sacrifices. Since she is ugly28Because of her long hair. and he is hindered from enjoying with her it is as if he disabled her29By not having vetoed her vow he is responsible for the problem. from eating family sacrifices.
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. מֵבִיא אָדָם עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ כָּל־קָרְבָּן שֶׁהִיא חַייֶבֶת. אֲפִילוּ אָֽכְלָה חֵלֶב וַאֲפִילוּ חִילְלָה שַׁבָּת. וְכֵן הָיָה רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. פָּֽטְרָהּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב בָּהּ. שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כוֹתֵב לָהּ. וְאַחְרָן דִּי אַתְייָן לִי עֲלָךְ מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא. 30From Yebamot 15:3, explained there in Sotah 2:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.1.9">Notes 43–45. The words in Italics are changed in gender from the text in Yebamot: The text here refers to the obligations the husband takes upon himself at the time of marriage; the text in Yebamot refers to the receipt the divorcee writes upon delivery of the divorce settlement. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: A person brings for his wife any sacrifice she is obligated for, even if she ate suet or desecrated the Sabbath. Also, Rebbi Jehudah says, once he divorces her, he is no longer obligated for her, for he writes to her31While he is married, he is liable also for sacrifices she was obligated to obligations cease, before marriage. Upon divorce, all his obligations cease. “any other obligations that come to me because of you from earlier times.”
וְהָתַנֵּי. סֵדֶר מְנָחוֹת כָּךְ הִיא. מְבִיאִין מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ בִּכְלִי כֶסֶף וּבִכְלִי זָהָב. וּרְאוּיָה לִיקָּרֵב בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת. Was it not stated32The objection is to the Mishnah which states that “all flour offerings are from start to finish in a Temple vessel” when the baraita (Menachot 1:10" href="/Tosefta_Menachot.1.10">Tosephta Menaḥot 1:16) states that flour offerings are brought in private vessels to the Temple and only there transferred to Temple vessels.: “The order of flour offerings is the following: One brings from his house in silver or gold vessels.” These would be acceptable as Temple vessels33If they were dedicated together with the flour, no other vessels would be necessary. But an Egyptian palm leaf basket is never acceptable as a Temple vessel. The same question and answer in the Sotah.14b">Babli (14b)..
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. מִפְּנֵי מַה אָֽמְרוּ. כָּל־הַחַטָּאוֹת וְהָאֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין טְעוּנִין נְסָכִים. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא קָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁלַּחוֹטֵא נִרְאֶה מְהוּדָּר . הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי חַטָּאתוֹ וָאֲשָׁמוֹ שֶׁלַּמְצוֹרָע. אִין תֵּימַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. הָאָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְצוֹרָע. זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. אָמַר רִבִּי לָא. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְייַסֵּר וּכְתִיב וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעִינֶיךָ כְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai stated35The Sotah.15a">Babli, 15a, quotes a more detailed statement by R. Simeon bar Ioḥai: Why is the sinner let off cheaply in that he saves the expenses for wine, flour, and oil, required for all other private sacrifices?: Why did they say that no purification36The idea is that חפאת should be considered as “sin offering”. It seems more likely that the root חטא basically means “to cleanse”. The noun חֵטא then means “cleansable sin”, i. e., inadvertent sin, in contrast to פֶּשַׁע “crime, intentional sin”, for which no Temple ritual is available (cf. Temurah.15b">Babli Temurah 15b). The sacrifices of the persons needing purge from impurity (Sotah 2:1:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.2.1.8">Note 15) shows that “sin offering” is not a primary meaning of our word. An intentional sin can be expiated only by death or by God’s grace following sincere repentance. or reparation sacrifices need wine offerings? That the sacrifice of a sinner should not be magnificent. They objected: There are the purification and the reparation offerings of the scale-diseased15Anyone whose own body was the source of impurity, when he is pure again cannot enter the Temple precinct unless he first brought a sacrifice of cleansing: The woman after childbirth (Leviticus.12.6-8">Lev. 12:6–8), the person healed from scale disease (Leviticus.14.1-32">Lev. 14:1–32), and the persons healed from genital discharges (Leviticus.15.14-15">Lev. 15:14–15,29–30).. If you say that he is no sinner, did not Rebbi Isaac say: “That shall be the instruction for the scale-diseased,” this is the instruction for the slanderer37Taking apart the word מצוֹ-רע. In the Sotah.15a">Babli (mentioned 15a, main source Arakhin.16a">Arakhin 16a), R. Joḥanan holds that scale-disease is a punishment for (1) calumny, (2) homicide, (3) perjury, (4) incest, (4) haughtiness, (5) robbery, (6) envy.! Rebbi Hila said, since he was made to suffer and it is written38Deuteronomy.25.3">Deut. 25:3. It is to be noted that in Arabic one of the meanings of both roots צרע and צ̇רע, corresponding to the Hebrew צרע “having scale-disease”, is “to humble oneself”. “that your brother should [not] be contemptible in your eyes,” he is as if he had not sinned.
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. מִנְחַת מִנְחַת. מַה מִנְחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן שְׂעוֹרִין אַף כָּאן שְׂעוֹרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אָבִיב וְנֶאֱמַר בְּמִצְרַיִם אָבִיב. מַה אָבִיב הָאָמוּר בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׂעוֹרִין אַף כָּאן שְׂעוֹרִין. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר לַצִּיבּוּר. הֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בַּפֶּסַח וַהֲבֵא בִיכּוּרִים בָּעֲצֶרֶת. אִם מָצִינוּ שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ הַצִּיבּוּר מֵבִיא בִּיכּוּרִים בָּעֲצֶרֶת. מֵאֵי זֶה מִין הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ. מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אַף הַצִּיבּוּר לֹא יָבִיא אֶלָּא מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. אִם תֹּאמַר. מִן הַחִיטִּין. אֵין שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם בִּיכּוּרִין. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: 39This sentence is also quoted in Sotah 3:1:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.3.1.2-5">Halakhah 3:1. The argument refers to Leviticus.2.14">Lev. 2:14, where “a flour offering of first fruits” is mentioned which is identified as the ‘Omer offering (Leviticus.23.9-14">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 Leviticus.2.14">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 (Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15,Numbers.5.16">16,Numbers.5.18">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 Leviticus.2.7">Lev. 2:7, Leviticus.6.14">6:14,Leviticus.2.16">16; Numbers.4.16">Num. 4:16, Numbers.4.28">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 white41Leviticus.2.14">Lev. 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">Leviticus 1–16, 1991, pp. 192–194.” and it says in Egypt “milky white42Exodus.9.31">Ex. 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” (Leviticus.23.9-14">Lev. 23:9–14). Pentecost is described as “holiday of first fruits” (Numbers.28.26">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 Menachot.68b">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 (Leviticus.5.11">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, Leviticus.23.17">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.
תַּמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. חִילְקָא לִשְׁנַיִם. טְרַגִיס לִשְׁלֹשָׁה. טִיסָנֵי לְאַרְבָּעָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בָּעֵי. מִיכָּן וָהֶילַךְ קְמָחִין הֵן. אֵין צָרִיךְ לָבוּר אֶת הַסּוֹלֶת מִתּוֹכָן. There, said by Rebbi Jonah: “Halica47J. Levy, supported by H. L. Fleischer, sees in חילקה Latin alica, halica “groats of spelt”. This is confirmed by the (Galilean) spelling חליקה of the Rome ms. The spelling חילקה is Babylonian; cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Fshutaḥ Nedarim, p. 456. He explains that R. Jonah derives חילקה from the Hebrew root חלק “to split” and pronounced טרגיס, trayis from Latin tres or Greek τρεῖς.
The Mishnah, Makhshirin 6:2" href="/Mishnah_Makhshirin.6.2">Makhširin 6:2, mentions “spelt groats, tragos, tisana” as manufactured products; R. Jonah defines these trade names. In the Babli, Mo‘ed Qaṭan 13b, R. Jonah’s definition is described as Babylonian; the Galilean definition of חילקה given by Rav Dimi is כונתא, explained by the commentary ascribed to Rashi as “spelt for chewing” and by “Rashi’s commentary” edited by E. Kupfer as “shelled spelt”, confirming the determination as halica., into two parts. Tragos48Greek τράγος, “spelt (or other grains); goat”. Latin tragos, tragum “porridge”., into three. Tisana49Latin “barley groats, pearl barley; barley water”; originally Latin ptisana, Greek πτισάνη, “peeled barley, barley gruel”., into four.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked: From there on, is it coarse flour50The offering of the suspected wife is defined (Numbers.5.15">Num. 5:15) as “coarse barley flour”. Is it enough if the kernels are broken into at least five parts or does there have to be a real grinding process? The question is not answered.? One does not have to sift out the fine flour from in between51The presence of a few finely ground pieces of barley does not invalidate the offering if it is recognizable as coarse flour by the naked eye..