Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Since before the omer you permitted one to harvest the crop only by picking it by hand and not in the typical manner, he will remember the prohibition and refrain from eating it. With regard to searching for leaven, there is no reminder.
מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא הִיתַּרְתָּה לוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי קִיטּוּף, זָכוּר הוּא.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye said to him: This works out well in explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion with regard to picking the grain. But with regard to grinding and sifting, what can be said? Apparently, it is permitted to perform these acts in a typical manner. Why, then, is there no concern that one may eat the grain at that stage?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תִּינַח קְצִירָה, טְחִינָה וְהַרְקָדָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one also performs grinding in an atypical manner. One must grind the grain before the sacrificing of the omer with a hand mill, not with a mill powered by an animal or by water. Likewise, sifting is performed unusually, not in the interior of the sifter. Instead, it is performed on top of the sifter. Since all of these actions are performed in an atypical manner, there is no concern that one might eat the grain.
הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, טְחִינָה – בְּרִיחְיָא דִּידָא, הַרְקָדָה – עַל גַּבֵּי נָפָה.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara raises another difficulty from the case of a field that requires irrigation, where typical harvesting is permitted, as we learned in a mishna (71a): One may harvest grain from an irrigated field and from fields in the valleys, as their grain ripens long before the omer is sacrificed, but one may not pile the produce. The use of the term: One may harvest, indicates that the grain was harvested in a typical manner, not by hand. In this case, what can be said? Why doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest someone eat from the new grain?
בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, דְּשַׁרְיָא קְצִירָה, דִּתְנַן: קוֹצְרִין בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין שֶׁבַּעֲמָקִים, אֲבָל לֹא גּוֹדְשִׁין – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, Abaye said: This difference between the cases of the omer and leaven is not based on the manner in which one harvests, grinds, or sifts. Instead, the reason for the different rulings is that one distances himself from new grain, as it is prohibited to eat the new grain all year until the omer is sacrificed. By contrast, one does not distance himself from leavened bread, as eating it is permitted during the rest of the year. Therefore, he is more likely to eat leavened bread unwittingly.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: חָדָשׁ – בָּדֵיל מִינֵּיהּ, חָמֵץ – לָא בָּדֵיל מִינֵּיהּ.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said: Does the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda pose a difficulty, while the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and the other statement of the Rabbis does not pose a difficult? There is also an apparent contradiction between the opinion of the Rabbis, who claim that the Sages issued a decree with regard to new grain but did not issue a decree with regard to leaven.
אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rather, Rava said that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we resolved it previously. The contradiction between one ruling of the Rabbis and the other ruling of the Rabbis is also not difficult: The Rabbis maintain that there is no need to issue a decree prohibiting searching for leaven after it becomes prohibited, as with regard to one who himself is seeking out leaven specifically in order to burn it, will he eat from it? By contrast, in the case of new grain he is processing the grain and preparing it for consumption. Consequently, there is a concern that he might eat it unwittingly.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא: הוּא עַצְמוֹ מְחַזֵּר עָלָיו לְשׂוֹרְפוֹ, מֵיכַל אָכֵיל מִינֵּיהּ?!
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Ashi said: The contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and the other statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as the difficulty can be resolved in another manner. As we learned in the mishna that the markets of Jerusalem were filled with flour of parched grain. It is permitted to prepare only such foods before the omer, as they are not eaten without further preparation. Therefore, there is no concern lest one eat it unwittingly before the omer offering is sacrificed.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, ״קֶמַח קָלִי״ תְּנַן.
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara rejects this interpretation: And this statement of Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as this suggestion can easily be refuted: That works out well with regard to the status of the grain from the point that it was processed into flour of parched grain and forward, as there is no concern that perhaps one will come to eat it. But with regard to its status initially, until it became parched grain, what can be said? There must have been a certain point when the grain kernels were edible before they were transformed into parched grain. Why is there no concern that one might eat the kernels at this earlier stage?
וְהָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא, תִּינַח מִקָּלִי וְאֵילָךְ, עַד קָלִי מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And if you would say that here too the grain is distinguished by the atypical manner in which it is harvested, through picking by hand, in accordance with the earlier statement of Rabba, nevertheless with regard to the difficulty raised to Rabba’s opinion from the case of an irrigated field, which is permitted to be harvested in the typical manner, what can be said? Rather, the Gemara rejects this explanation and concludes that this statement of Rav Ashi is an error.
וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכָא נָמֵי עַל יְדֵי קִיטּוּף, וְכִדְרַבָּה, בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין דְּשַׁרְיָא קְצִירָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אֶלָּא, הָא דְּרַב אָשֵׁי בְּרוּתָא הִיא.
Mishna 1
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : MISHNA: From the moment that the omer offering was sacrificed, the produce of the new crop was permitted immediately. For those distant from Jerusalem, the new crop is permitted from midday and beyond. From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is entirely prohibited, i.e., one may partake of the new crop only the next day.
מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר הוּתַּר חָדָשׁ מִיָּד, הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הֶנֶף כּוּלּוֹ אָסוּר.(משנה)
Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rabbi Yehuda said: But isn’t it forbidden by Torah law, as it is stated: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor parched grain, nor fresh grain, until this selfsame day, until you have brought the offering of your God” (Leviticus 23:14)? This means that the new crop is prohibited on the day of the waving unless permitted by sacrifice of the offering. And if so, for what reason is it permitted for those distant to eat the new crop from midday and beyond, when the Temple is standing? It is due to the fact that they know that the members of the court are not indolent in its sacrifice, and certainly by midday the sacrifice of the omer offering has been completed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וַהֲלֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה הוּא אָסוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״עַד עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה״, מִפְּנֵי מָה הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וּלְהַלָּן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ.