bring them from dates that grow in the mountains, and one may not bring them from produce that grows in the valleys. Such produce is of inferior quality and may not be used. Ulla says: Even if one did bring such produce, he does not thereby consecrate it, i.e., it does not attain the consecrated status of first fruits.

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The Torah refers to the two loaves offering as: “A first offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11), which indicates that it is to be the first of all the meal offerings that come from the new crop. And similarly the verse states with regard to the festival of Shavuot: “On the day of the first fruits, when you bring a new meal offering to the Lord” (Numbers 28:26). By designating the two loaves as “new,” the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

I have derived only that it must be new, i.e., the first, of all wheat meal offerings. From where do I derive that it must also be new, i.e., the first, of all barley meal offerings, e.g., the meal offering of a sota? With regard to the two loaves, the verse states the word “new,” and again states the word “new,” once in Numbers 28:26 and again in Leviticus 23:16. If the second mention is not needed to teach the matter of being the new meal offering of wheat, apply it to the matter of being the new meal offering of barley.

The baraita continues: And from where is it derived that the two loaves precede the bringing of the first fruits as well? The verse states: “And you shall make for yourself a festival of Shavuot, the first fruits of the wheat harvest” (Exodus 34:22). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the Festival, which is the two loaves offering, precedes the bringing of the first fruits of the wheat harvest. I have derived only that the two loaves precede the first fruits of the wheat harvest. From where do I derive that they also precede the bringing of the first fruits of the barley harvest? The verse states with regard to the festival of Shavuot: “And the festival of the harvest, the first fruits of your labors, which you will sow in the field” (Exodus 23:16). The order of the verse teaches that the offering of the Festival, which is the two loaves offering, precedes all forms of first fruits that are sown in the field, which includes barley.

From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of the first fruits that sprouted from seeds you sowed, as the verse states: “Which you will sow.” From where do I derive that they precede even the bringing of first fruits that sprouted by themselves? The continuation of that verse states: “In the field” (Exodus 23:16). The term is superfluous and serves to include even produce that sprouted by itself.

The baraita continues: From this verse, I have derived only that the two loaves precede the bringing of produce that grew in a field. From where do I derive to include even produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, or that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship? The verse states with regard to the priestly gifts: “The first fruit of all that grows in their land, which they shall bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13). The term “first fruits” in this verse is referring to all types of first fruits. This teaches that when the two loaves are referred to as the first fruits (see Exodus 34:22), the intention is that they should be brought first before all other types of produce.

The baraita concludes: From where is it derived that the offering of the two loaves is to precede both the bringing of libations from grapes of the new crop and the bringing of the first fruits of the tree? It is stated here, with regard to the two loaves: “The first fruits of your labors” (Exodus 23:16), and it is stated there at the end of that verse: “When you gather in the products of your labors from the field.” Just as there, the term “your labors” is referring both to fruits used for the libations and the fruit of the tree, so too, here, the term is referring to both fruits used for the libations and the fruit of the tree.

Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba explains how the baraita poses a challenge to Ulla’s ruling: In any event, it was taught in this baraita that bringing the two loaves must precede even the bringing of produce that grew on a roof, that grew in a ruin, that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship. This indicates that all these types of produce are valid to be brought as first fruits, despite the fact that they are of inferior quality. This would appear to contradict Ulla’s ruling that dates that grow in the mountains and produce grown in the valleys are not fit to be brought as first fruits. Rabba explains: Whereas in the first clause, the baraita discusses which types of produce can be used for the first fruits, in the latter clause we come to discuss which grains can be used for meal offerings. Produce that grew in these atypical locations is valid to be brought as meal offerings, but not as first fruits.

The later clause of the baraita explained that the verse: “The first fruit of all that grows in their land” (Numbers 18:13), is referring to produce that grows in atypical locations. Rabba defended Ulla’s opinion by explaining that the verse concerns meal offerings only. Rav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: If so, that which is written in the latter part of the verse: “Any pure member of your household may eat of it,” is difficult, as the phrase “your household” includes a priest’s wife and daughters and teaches that they may also partake of the priestly gifts referred to in the verse; but if the verse is referring to meal offerings, that is problematic as they are permitted to be eaten only by male priests.

In resolution of this difficulty, Rav Mesharshiyya said: Perforce this verse should be read as if two verses are written, as otherwise it contains an inherent contradiction: The first clause states: “The first fruit…shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13), indicating that only a priest himself may partake of the priestly gifts. And it is written in the continuation of the verse: “Any pure member of your household may eat of it,” indicating that even female family members may partake of it. How can these texts be reconciled? Here, the latter part of the verse, concerns the first fruits, which even female family members may eat, and there, the first part of the verse, concerns meal offerings, which may be eaten only by male priests.

Rav Ashi said that there is an alternative resolution: The verse in its entirety concerns meal offerings, but with the latter clause of the verse we come to the specific case of the loaves of a thanks offering, which even female family members of the priest may eat.

§ The Gemara notes: Ulla and Rav Aḥa bar Abba disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of earlier amora’im: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if one did bring mountain dates or valley produce as first fruits, he does not thereby consecrate them, i.e., they do not attain the sanctified status of first fruits. Reish Lakish says: If one did bring them, he has consecrated them; they are regarded just like a gaunt animal with regard to sacrificial animals. Although it is improper to consecrate such animals or such produce as an offering, if one does, the consecration certainly takes effect.

The Gemara discusses the dispute: Granted, the opinion of Reish Lakish is well founded, as he stated the reason for his ruling. But as for Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason for his ruling? Rabbi Elazar said: I have an explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling and since I was privileged to see Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, I know that I am saying a proper matter. The verse states with regard to first fruits: “And you shall take from the first of all the fruit” (Deuteronomy 26:2). The addition of the word “from” indicates that one should take from some of the first fruits, but not from all the first fruits. This teaches that one should use only the seven species for the mitzva. The verse continues: “That you shall bring from your land.” The addition of the word “from” indicates that one should take first fruits from some areas of the land, but not from all areas in your land. This teaches that one should not take dates from the mountains or produce from the valleys.

The Gemara asks: And as for Reish Lakish, for what halakha does he use this term “your land”? He holds that the term is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, says: “From your land” is stated here (Deuteronomy 26:2), with regard to the first fruits, and “land” is stated there with regard to the praise of Eretz Yisrael: “A land of wheat and barley, vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive oil and honey” (Deuteronomy 8:8), which are the seven species. This serves as the basis for a verbal analogy and teaches that just as there, the verse is referring only to the produce that is the praise of Eretz Yisrael, so too, here, with regard to the mitzva to bring the first fruits, the verse is referring only to the produce that is the praise of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the seven species.

The Gemara asks: And the other one, Rabbi Yoḥanan, since he has already expounded the term “from your land” to teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce, from where does he derive that only the seven species may be used? Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that since the Torah could have just written “your land” but instead writes “from your land,” the word “land” can be used to form the verbal analogy while the word “from” can teach that one may not use mountain dates or valley produce.

And the other one, Reish Lakish, what does he derive from the fact that the Torah adds the word “from”? He does not learn anything from the fact the Torah could have just written “your land” but instead writes “from your land.” In Hebrew, the term: From your land, is expressed by a single word: Me’artzekha. Reish Lakish holds that the verbal analogy uses the entire word.

§ It is taught in one baraita: With regard to produce that grew on a roof, or that grew in a ruin, or that grew in a flowerpot, or that grew on a ship, the owner brings it to the Temple and recites the accompanying passage of thanks to God (see Deuteronomy 26:1–11). And it is taught in another baraita with regard to such fruits: The owner brings them but does not recite the accompanying passage.

The Gemara attempts to reconcile the baraitot: Granted according to Reish Lakish, both baraitot accord with his opinion that even inferior produce can be brought as first fruits, and they contradict each other only with regard to whether or not one should recite the accompanying passage. And even with regard to that, the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew on a roof is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew on a roof is not difficult. One can explain that this baraita, which states that the passage is recited, is referring to a roof of a cave, which is considered part of the ground, whereas that baraita, which states that the passage is not recited, is referring to a roof of a house.

Similarly, the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew in a ruin is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew in a ruin is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited, is referring to a cultivated ruin, whereas there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited, is referring to an uncultivated ruin.

And the fact that the ruling of one baraita about produce that grew in a flowerpot is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about produce that grew in a flowerpot is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited, is referring to a perforated flowerpot, where the produce is able to draw nourishment from the soil beneath it, whereas there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited, is referring to an unperforated flowerpot.

And the fact that the ruling of one baraita about fruit that grew on a ship is contradicted by the ruling of the other baraita about fruit that grew on a ship is not difficult. One can explain that here, the baraita that states that the passage is recited is referring to a ship made of wood, where the fruit were able to draw nourishment through the wood from the ground, whereas, there, the baraita that states that the passage is not recited is referring to a ship made of earthenware.