The Omer Offering
When Rashi explains the prohibition of using the new grain before the Omer offering is brought he offers two explanations as to the parameters of the prohibition. This Sicha investigates the need for both explanations, the advantages of each of them and the mechanism of how the offering affects the Jewish people.
This week’s Torah portion discusses the prohibition of eating of the new grain (“chadash”) before the Omer sacrifice was brought. The Torah tells us, “When you come to the Land which I am giving you, and you reap its harvest, you shall bring to the kohen (priest) an omer of the beginning of your reaping.” Until the Omer is brought as an offering, the new grain is forbidden to be used.
When the Torah records this prohibition, it makes the following statement:
Text 1
You shall not eat bread or [flour made from] parched grain or fresh grain, until this very day, until you bring your G-d's sacrifice. [This is] an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Vayikra 23:14
Though the words “in all your dwelling places” implies that the prohibition of the new grain is even outside the land of Israel, Rashi comments on the words “in all your dwelling places” and explains that there are two opinions as to where this prohibition applies.
Text 2
The Sages of Israel differ concerning this. Some learned from here that [the prohibition of eating] the new crop [before the Omer] applies [even] outside the Land [of Israel], while others say that this phrase comes only to teach [us] that they were commanded regarding the new crop only after possession and settlement, after they had conquered and apportioned [the land].
Rashi, ibid
Why explain anything?
When Rashi explains something on a verse it is because there was a specific difficulty that would not have been understood, were Rashi not to have added his explanation. Seemingly, in this verse there is no difficulty in the words “in all your dwelling places” at all which would require an explanation, as the translation of these words seems to be straightforward according to the simple explanation of the Torah. This is because:
- The rudimentary translation of the verse means in all the places that the Jewish people will dwell. There is ostensibly no need to explain the basic understanding of the verse.
- These words, “in all your dwelling places” are used in regard to many other mitzvos as well, even prior to the current verse, and in the vast majority of them Rashi did not feel the need to explain this phrase.
If so, why in this case regarding the new grain, does Rashi feel the need to explain the meaning of the words “in all your dwelling places” when he did not do so on other occasions?
The importance of explaining
In order to understand the reason that Rashi explains the words “in all of your dwelling places” in this verse and clarifies that (according to the first interpretation) it means that the law of the new grain applies outside the land of Israel, can be understood through first prefacing Rashi’s explanation to the same words found in another verse.
This similar terminology of “in any of your dwelling places” is employed in the verse concerning the prohibition to consume blood. The verse states:
Text 3
And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals.
Vayikra 7:26
Rashi there elucidates that the prohibition of eating blood is applicable both in the land of Israel and outside of it and explains the reason for this as follows:
Text 4
Since this prohibition [of eating blood] is an obligation relevant to a person, rather than being dependent on land, it applies to all dwelling places.
Rashi, ibid
The rationale that causes the prohibition of eating blood to be forbidden in all places—i.e., the fact that it is an obligation on the individual rather than the land and is there therefore prohibited no matter the person—is the same logic that would cause one to think that the prohibition of new grain only stands in the land of Israel. This is because:
- The prohibition of eating the new grain is not an obligation upon the individual, it is rather a prohibition pertaining to the grain and therefore dependent on the land. It should presumably only be prohibited in the land of Israel.
- In the simple sense, not only is the prohibition of the grain itself not one that relates to the individual but the prohibition of the new grain is dependent on the bringing of the Omer offering, which must be brought from the land of Israel. Consequently, the prohibition against using the new grain should also only pertain in the land of Israel, and thus one would not understand that “in all your dwellings” would be a reference to all places.
It was due to these two logical assumptions that could cause one to think that the law of the new grain is not applicable outside the land of Israel, which necessitated Rashi to explain the words “in all your dwelling places” in this verse, though it would have otherwise have been obvious.
He therefore clarifies with his commentary, that although it may seem that there are reasons that this law should apply only in the land of Israel, it nevertheless is applicable everywhere because this is the simple meaning of the words “in all your dwelling places.”
Two explanations
In Rashi’s second interpretation of the words “in all your dwelling places” he says: “this phrase comes only to teach [us] that they were commanded regarding the new crop only after possession and settlement, after they had conquered and apportioned [the land].”
What must be understood is why Rashi found it necessary to bring his second explanation as well. If the first explanation adequately explains the basic understanding of the verse, what is the purpose of bringing a second interpretation?
Not only does this explanation seem to be extra, but it runs contrary to the way that the words “in all your dwelling places” are usually understood. For, whereas the phrase is generally used to include the land outside of Israel, here those very words exclude those lands.
What makes this question more bothersome is the fact that he prefaces his explanation to the verse with the atypical declaration and says, “The Sages of Israel differ concerning this.”
Typically, when Rashi brings two explanations on the same verse and prefaces one to the other, it is because the first is more viable in the simple explanation of the verse, yet because of some specific difficulty with it, he brings a second interpretation as well.
However, this is not the case when Rashi prefaces both explanations by telling us on the onset that there are two interpretations concerning the verse’s meaning.
In such a case—when he introduces his commentary by explaining that the interpretation of the verse is a matter of dispute—he is conveying that both of the following explanations are equally viable according to the simple meaning of the verse. Since, however, it is impossible to bring both explanations at once, he is bringing one before the other and prefaces that they are both the simple explanation.
Accordingly we must understand the verse concerning the new grain. When Rashi specifically mentions that “the Sages of Israel differ concerning this,” he is implying that both explanations of the phrase “in all your dwelling places” are equally sustainable according to the simple understanding of the verse. The second explanation (that the prohibition only began after the Israelites were completely settled in their land) is not any further removed from the verse’s simple meaning than the first (that the prohibition applies even both inside and outside the land of Israel).
This point though, is not understood: How can it be that the second explanation is as much the rudimentary explanation of the verse as the first, when the former is the simple meaning of the words and congruous to the way that these words are explained throughout the Torah, while the second interpretation is neither?
Even if there is some reason that necessitated Rashi’s bringing the second explanation of the verse, (due to the difficulty with the first reason—being that it is not understood why indeed a prohibition regarding the land could apply even outside of Israel) how is possible that the second interpretation of the words “in all your dwelling places,” (i.e., that the prohibition of the eating the new grain only stood after the Israelites were completely settled in their land,) be as close to the rudimentary understanding of the verse as the basic translation of the words “in all your dwelling places,” which seem to include the land outside of Israel?
Explanation
The reason that the second explanation is as rudimentary to the basic explanation of the Torah can be understood through first understanding another prohibition expressed in this week’s Torah portion as well, which is also applicable outside the land of Israel.
The Torah states:
Text 5
[Any animal whose testicles were] squashed, crushed, pulled out, or severed, you shall not offer up to the Lord, and in your land, you shall not do [it].
Vayikra 22:24
Though the Torah states regarding this prohibition, “in your land, you shall not do [it],” which implies that this prohibition is only in the land of Israel, Rashi comments on the words “and in your land, you shall not do [it]” and explains that according to the simple explanation of the Torah this cannot be. He says,
