The opening mishnah of our tractate declared that when the handful destined for the altar is removed from a meal offering not for its own sake (meaning, the priest had in mind the wrong sacrifice), the offering is still fit to be offered and consumed, but it does not fulfill the obligation of the owner. The mishnah noted only two exceptions, the meal offering of a sinner and that brought by a sotah, which are also disqualified from being sacrificed in this case. However, on yesterday’s daf, Rav added another exception: the omer.
The word omer likely conjures the counting of the omer, a 49-day ritual that extends from the second day of Passover to Shavuot. But in the context of the Temple, the omer itself is a meal offering of barley sacrificed on the 16th of Nisan, the second day of Passover. Until it was offered, all grain that had taken root since the previous Passover was forbidden. Once the omer was offered, however, grain that had taken root and been harvested in the past year became permitted for consumption.
Rav explained why he thinks the omer offering should be disqualified if a handful is removed with the intention of making a different sacrifice:
If the priest removed a handful from it not for its own sake, it is disqualified, since an omer meal offering came for a specific purpose, namely, to permit the consumption of the new crop, and this meal offering did not permit.
In other words: The omer meal offering exists for the exclusive purpose of permitting new grain. If it can’t perform that function, Rav argues, the entire offering should be disqualified.
On today’s daf, Reish Lakish offers a different ruling on the matter:
And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, with regard to an omer meal offering from which a priest removed a handful not for its own sake, that it is valid. But its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until a priest brings another omer meal offering on the same day and thereby permits it.
Contra Rav, and apparently in greater alignment with the mishnah, Reish Lakish believes that removal of a handful from the omer offering, not for its own sake, doesn’t disqualify the offering. However, he acknowledges that this permission does create a funny dilemma. Usually, once the handful of a meal offering has been sacrificed, the remainder of the meal offering is permitted for the priests to consume. However, in this case, the offering was brought from chadash, new grain that isn’t permissible until a proper omer offering is made. Therefore, the remainder of this first offering is still forbidden new grain until another successful omer offering is sacrificed and permits grain grown in the past year.
The Gemara brings a challenge to this suggestion:
If its remainder may not be consumed by the priests until they bring another omer meal offering, how can the handful be sacrificed? The verse states: “From the well-watered pastures of Israel; for a meal offering, and for a burnt offering and for peace offerings” (Ezekiel 45:15) — that one may sacrifice only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.
We learn from this verse in Ezekiel that Jews are only allowed to sacrifice food that is permissible to eat. If the first omer offering, whose handful was removed not for its own sake, is inedible as new grain until a second omer is brought, how can that first handful be sacrificed?
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Reish Lakish holds that an offering is not considered one whose time has not yet arrived if it is to be brought on that day.
Reish Lakish believes that if an item will become fit later in the same day, then even now it is considered suitable for the altar. Therefore, since they can sacrifice another omer offering later that day and render the first one permitted, even now, it’s considered permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.
As noted, Reish Lakish’s interpretation seems to be in closer alignment to the mishnah, which implied that the meal offering of a sinner and a sotah are the only cases in which the entire offering is disqualified when a handful is removed not for that offering’s sake. However, Rav’s interpretation could be motivated by multiple factors. For one, he may have been troubled by the very dilemma posed to Reish Lakish, i.e., how can we sacrifice something that, due to its own failure to perform its intended function, remains inedible? For another, sticking more closely to the words of Rav’s objection, there may have been something that simply felt deeply unintuitive about the permissibility of sacrificing and consuming a grain offering that failed to perform its essential function of permitting other grain. Therefore, while Reish Lakish’s read adheres closer to our mishnah, for Rav, the strength of these arguments wins out.
Read all of Menachot 5 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 16, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
