Emor: New Beginnings

The Mishnah teaches:5

The omer offering would permit [consumption of grain from the new crop6 ] in the region [outside the Beis HaMikdash, i.e., everywhere else,4] and the two loaves [brought on Shavuos] would permit [meal offerings to be brought from the new crop] in the Beis HaMikdash, [for before the offering of the two loaves, meal offerings should not be brought from the new crop4].

One may not bring meal offerings… [from the new crop] prior to the offering of the omer, and if one brings [these from the new crop] they are unfit. [After the omer, but] prior to [offering] the two loaves, one should not bring [these offerings from the new crop,] but if he nevertheless brought them [from the new crop,] they are acceptable.

In their commentaries, the Rabbis offer different reasons for the distinction between the omer and the two loaves – that “before the omer offering, if one brought [meal offerings from the new crop] they are unfit,” but [if one brought them from the new crop] before the offering of the two loaves,... they are acceptable.”7 The difference is dependent on the explanation of why offering the two loaves releases8 the prohibition against bringing meal offerings in the new crop. There are three general approaches:9

a) The prohibition against offering grain from the new crop in the Beis HaMikdash before bringing the two loaves is the same as that which applies regarding partaking of the new crop before the omer offering.10 The only difference is that before offering the omer, the new crop was forbidden both for personal use as well as for offerings for the Altar, and after the omer was brought, the new crop was permitted for personal use, but remained forbidden as an offering for the Altar until the two loaves were brought.

According to this approach, the reason why a meal offering brought from the new crop before the two loaves were offered was acceptable after the fact, is because it was already permitted11 and “released from the category of forbidden foods for an ordinary person.”12 As a result, “the power of the prohibition was reduced. Since it was partially permitted, the prohibition was not as severe as it was originally. Therefore, even if it was brought as part of G‑d’s [service in the Beis HaMikdash], it was acceptable [after the fact].”13

b) The prohibition against using the new crop for G‑d’s service in the Beis HaMikdash that was released by bringing the two loaves is an independent prohibition that is not included in the prohibition against an ordinary person using the new crop. The prohibition – against using the new crop for G‑d’s service in the Beis HaMikdash – applies only as an initial preference, but is not absolute. The rationale for that logic is that there is a general principle14 regarding sacrificial offerings – for a restriction to be absolutely binding even after the fact, it must be repeated in Scripture – and there is no repetition of the prohibition against using the new crop before the two loaves.

The reason why an offering to G‑d from the new crop was not acceptable even after the fact before the omer was brought is dependent on another factor. Sacrifices may be brought only “from the banquet of Israel,”15 i.e., what is permitted for a Jew to eat. Since an ordinary person is forbidden to eat from the new crop before the omer was brought, the new crop was also completely unacceptable for the Altar at that time.16

c) The omer and the two loaves are of a fundamentally different nature. The omer is defined as a releasing agent, for the Torah prohibited partaking of the new crop, specifically stating,17 “You shall not eat bread or [flour made from] dried grain or fresh grain… until you bring the offering of your G‑d.” And the concluding phrase in that verse clarifies that the prohibition was released only through offering the omer. By contrast, the Torah did not forbid bringing a meal offering from the new crop before bringing the two loaves. Scripture does not state such a prohibition. Instead, the Torah merely stresses18 that the two loaves should serve as a “new meal offering,” i.e., it must be the first meal offering from the new crop of wheat. This is the reason why it is forbidden to offer a meal offering from new grain before offering the two loaves. Were such an offering to be brought, the two loaves would not have been a “new meal offering.”19

This logic explains why a meal offering of new grain brought before the two loaves is acceptable after the fact – “there is no [inherent] invalidating factor in bringing [a meal offering] before [that time]; it is only that this results in a deficiency in the mitzvah of [bringing the] two loaves,”17 for they will not be a ‘new meal offering’. ”

The difference in these approaches leads to an actual difference in practice. According to the third approach, if the kohanim transgressed and brought a meal offering from the new grain before the two loaves, it is possible that there was no longer a prohibition against bringing a meal offering from the new grain before the two loaves were brought since the two loaves would not, in any event, be a “new meal offering.”17

Our Sages20 state, “These and these are the words of the living G‑d.” With this statement, they were underscoring a general principle: Every opinion and rationale mentioned by our Sages has a place in the Torah’s thought system. True, only one of these approaches is accepted as definitive halachah. However, there is a logical basis for the other approaches as well.

Moreover – and on a deeper level – the principle, “These and these are the words of the living G‑d,” teaches us that not only is each of these approaches valid in the context of the study of the Torah,21 but also that each of these approaches has validity in our actual performance of Divine service22 in the personal sphere. The fact that the halachah has been decided according to one approach applies only regarding one’s actual conduct because, in practice, it is impossible to follow two opposing approaches. However, with regard to the spiritual dimension of the mitzvos, there is a place for all the approaches, i.e., every rationale and opinion stated by the Sages also leads to an applicable conclusion with regard to Divine service. This dimension can – and sometimes must – be applied even if, with regard to actual practice, it is not accepted as halachah.23

Similarly, in the instance at hand, the three explanations concerning the two loaves described above represent three approaches to Divine service and spiritual conduct.24 This is particularly true in this instance since the discussion concerns a sacrifice, and the fundamental dimension of a sacrifice is the intent and mindset of the person while bringing the sacrifice.25 Thus, Sefer HaChinuch writes regarding the mitzvah of bringing the two loaves,26 “The concept of a sacrifice… is that, as a result of the action [he is performing], a person’s thoughts will be aroused regarding [the spiritual counterparts of his actions]. Accordingly, the person’s heart will be aroused regarding the matter in proportion to the importance of the sacrifice and his [degree of] proper preparation for it.”

The spiritual counterparts to the three halachic perspectives mentioned before can be clarified by first explaining the difference between the Divine service associated with the omer offering and that associated with the two loaves. That difference stems from the straightforward distinction between the grains used for these offerings. The omer offering is from barley,27 which is primarily animal fodder,28 while the two loaves are made from wheat,29 which is primarily used for human consumption.

As is well known,30 the omer offering that is brought on Pesach, the time of the Exodus from Egypt, alludes to the initial stages of a person’s Divine service immediately upon leaving his personal Egypt. At that time, his animal tendencies and the evil in his soul still possess their full natural power.31 Bringing the omer offering from barley, animal fodder, alludes to bringing the animal in man, i.e., his animal soul, closer to G‑d. At this initial stage of Divine service, one is incapable of transforming the animal soul. Instead, he must slaughter his natural inclination and subjugate it to G‑d’s service.

This is the spiritual intent of our Divine service during the counting of the omer, which comes after – and as a continuation of – the offering of the omer. During the 49 days of the counting, a person purifies and refines his undesirable emotional qualities and cleanses himself from his impurity, as we say in the Yehi Ratzon prayer recited after the counting of the omer. That prayer praises G‑d for “commanding us… to count the omer to cleanse us from our kelipos and our impurity… so that the souls of Your people Israel be purified from their impurity.”

By contrast, during the holiday of Shavuos, which comes after the completion of the counting of the omer, the two loaves of bread made from wheat – food for human consumption – are brought. At this stage, a person is on the level of an adam, a man in the spiritual sense of the term, one whose drawing close to G‑d does not involve merely nullifying and refining his animal tendencies, but also elevating and drawing his human dimension close to G‑d, as indicated by the phrase,32 “The spirit of man, which rises upward….”

Since the person has already ascended and is involved in Divine service in the realm of holiness itself, his service is not primarily focused on nullifying his identity. Instead, it centers on building a new identity through service that is thought out and structured, based on sacred wisdom. This enables him to ascend within the realm of holiness itself by studying the Torah and observing its mitzvos. For this reason, the two loaves must be leavened, as the verse33 commands, “They shall be baked as chametz.”34

In the initial stage of Divine service, when the animalistic tendencies of a person are potent, his Divine service must be characterized by subduing them and accepting the yoke of Heaven. This is alluded to by matzah, “the bread of poverty,”35 that has no taste.36 However, after a person has ascended to the extent that his Divine service is in the realm of holiness itself, which by nature involves understanding and comprehending holy matters, his service is characterized by “flavor” and pleasure.37

Based on the above, we can also understand why the omer offering permits the new crop to be eaten by ordinary people and the two loaves permit its use for offerings for the Altar: The intent of bringing barley – animal fodder – as “the first of your harvest”38 as an offering to G‑d is to nullify and refine the ordinary and mundane aspects of a person’s character. It affects his everyday conduct, i.e., the matters that are neither mitzvos, nor prohibitions, but rather left to man’s own discretion.39 Before one may benefit from the new crop and use it for his own purposes, it is necessary to bring the omer offering of barley, which refers to slaughtering his animal tendencies. This will establish an imprint within his heart, ensuring that his involvement in all aspects of his conduct will be “for the sake of Heaven.”40

In this way, the mitzvah of offering the omer somewhat resembles the obligation to recite one’s morning prayers before seeing to one’s needs.41 Just as one is not permitted to partake of the new crop before offering the omer, one should not involve himself in his personal affairs before prayer. Or to cite another example: A person is obligated to recite a blessing “before benefiting from this world.”42

By contrast, offering the two loaves relates to the Altar, to G‑d’s service, i.e., Divine service in the realm of holiness, which includes the person’s occupation with the Torah and its mitzvos. Once he has elevated himself and is conducting himself as appropriate for an adam, carrying out his Divine service based on reason and knowledge, a further step is necessary. He must first perform the equivalent of offering the two loaves so that his service in the realm of holiness itself will be in the desired manner.

To explain: The foundation of all Divine service – even Divine service based on reason and knowledge – is bittul and the acceptance of G‑d’s yoke,43 as reflected in the Jews’ acceptance of the Torah, when they promised “we will do” before “we will listen.”44 As explained in many sources, this is the intent of reciting the blessings for Torah study; before studying, we must “recite a blessing on the Torah.”45 Before using our powers of understanding to study the Torah, we must recite blessings that acknowledge that G‑d “gave us His Torah,” i.e., that the Torah we are studying is G‑d’s Torah.46 In this way, one gains an awareness that, fundamentally, the Torah transcends intellect. That awareness motivates a commitment to it that transcends intellect.

This is the spiritual counterpart of offering the two loaves together with two sheep, as the Torah requires.47 The sheep are waved together with the loaves, indicating a bond between the two.48 The bread alludes to Torah, the person’s comprehension, while the sheep reflect bittul, because sheep “are timid by nature… and the quality of bittul is dominant in their nature.”49

This is the intent of offering the two loaves together with the two sheep – to ingrain the quality of bittul within man’s understanding and comprehension.

Indeed, this concept is also alluded to in the offering of the loaves themselves, for specifically two loaves are brought. The Zohar50 explains that the two loaves refer to the Written Law and the Oral Law. The fundamental dimension of the Oral Law is man’s comprehension as reflected in the explicit ruling regarding the Oral Law that if one does not understand what he is studying, “it is not considered as study at all.”51 By contrast, the Written Law is not clothed in an intellectual form to the same degree. Therefore, without the explanation of the Oral Law, it is impossible to understand the Written Law in a thorough manner.52 For this reason, one fulfills the mitzvah of Torah study even by merely reading the Written Law although he does not understand what he is saying. Moreover, even then, he should recite the blessings for Torah study before reading.53 Accordingly, the bittul to the Giver of the Torah is more prominently felt while studying the Written Law.

Offering the two loaves itself reflects joining the two disciplines of Torah study.54 The understanding and comprehension associated with the study of Oral Law should be permeated by bittul associated with the Written Law.

According to this explanation of the difference between the omer offering and the two loaves, it is possible to understand the reason for the distinction between the two – that if one brought a meal offering from the new grain before the omer, it is not acceptable, but when brought before the offering of the two loaves, it is acceptable after the fact.

Offering the omer, the animal aspect of one’s personality, which relates to a person’s ordinary conduct is something of absolute necessity. If one does not offer his natural inclination to G‑d, not only will his material concerns not be carried out for the sake of Heaven, they will draw him downward55 to the material plane, as it is written,29 “the spirit of an animal, which descends downward.”

This is the reason why, if one brings an offering from the new crop before the omer, it is unacceptable. Before a person offers his animal soul to G‑d, the evil within him still possesses its natural strength. Accordingly, even his service in the Torah and its mitzvos – which parallels service in the Beis HaMikdash – are tainted by the input of his animal soul. Therefore, when speaking about something new – “the new crop” – then, to borrow a phrase from our Sages,56 “his [natural inclination] has a prior claim.” For this reason, he may not bring an offering of this type. This would blemish his service in holiness; to refer to our Sages’ words57 regarding Torah study, “If one is worthy,58 [the Torah] becomes an elixir of life for him; if one is not worthy, it becomes [poison] for him.”59

These concepts do not apply regarding the offering of the two loaves. They are brought after the omer offering, i.e., after the person has already offered his animal soul to G‑d. The focus of offering the loaves is preparation for a person’s service in the realm of holiness itself, so that he can elevate himself to a loftier level of holiness, and so that his Divine service will be performed in a more consummate manner, with an even deeper and more encompassing bittul. Accordingly, bringing the loaves is not an absolute necessity, but merely an initial – and desired – preference. That offering is a preparatory step that endows one’s Divine service with perfection. However, even if this preparatory step is lacking in some way, the person’s service is not disqualified because he has already reached a level of holiness.

The three halachic conceptions of the function of the two loaves can be seen as paralleling three levels of Divine service:

a) The first conception – that the prohibition against using the new crop for G‑d’s service in the Beis HaMikdash and the prohibition against an ordinary person using it constitute the same prohibition – refers to a low level of Divine service. At this level, even when the person is involved in holy matters, there are grounds for concern that if he does not go through the necessary preparatory steps, not only will he not advance to higher levels in holiness, but rather he will eventually stumble and fall from his current level. In other words, even if he has already brought the omer offering, i.e., his animal tendencies, nevertheless, if he is lacking the offering of the two loaves – a desired level of bittul – it is still possible that he will eventually fall from his spiritual level.

At this stage, the two prohibitions that apply to the new crop – that it may not be used by an ordinary person or for service in the Beis HaMikdash – are of the same nature. They are motivated by the same concern: that a person might fall into undesirable conduct. The offerings – the omer and the two loaves – both serve the function of releasing60 a prohibition or restriction, i.e., releasing and severing the person’s connection with coarse materialism. These offerings ensure that the service the person performs afterwards will not be tainted by the intermingling of evil or blemished elements.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the omer and the two loaves. The offering of the omer is an absolute requirement. Without it, the evil within the person would retain its inherent power. By contrast, after offering the omer, the concern that the person will stumble and fall into evil conduct has lessened – to refer back to the statement of the Rabbis, “The power of the prohibition was reduced.” True, initially there is concern that, without this preparatory stage, the person might fall from his spiritual level. Accordingly, the preference is that he should first offer the two loaves before performing service in his personal Beis HaMikdash. Nevertheless, this is not an absolute requirement. This offering is brought only out of concern that because the person’s involvement in holiness is only second nature, a learned trait – and his natural tendencies have a prior claim – his commitment may be subject to change. However, it is possible that the person will not falter spiritually despite the two loaves being lacking. Therefore, offerings that he brings before the two loaves service are not disqualified.

b) The second approach is that the prohibition against using the new crop for service in the Beis HaMikdash is an independent prohibition. However, from the outset, it is not so severe, as reflected by the fact that Scripture does not repeat it and make it absolutely binding. This refers to a person on a higher level of Divine service. There is no concern that such a person will stumble and fall into evil. Instead, offering the two loaves enables him to reach a more consummate and splendid level of service. When such a person attains a preliminary stage of bittul, all the service he conducts afterwards will be on a higher level; the greater his bittul to G‑d, the loftier his understanding of the Torah will be. The preparation of bittul will enable him to align himself better with the true intent of the Torah.61

However, even according to this approach, the two loaves function to release a restriction, i.e., their goal is to prepare the person for the Divine service that follows, enabling it to be as desired.

c) The loftiest level in Divine service is that the prohibition against bringing meal offerings from the new crop for G‑d’s service in the Beis HaMikdash is only so that the two loaves will be “a new meal offering.” In other words, offering the two loaves is not a preparation for what follows. Instead, it serves an independent objective. It represents a unique and elevated approach to Divine service, fusing “the two loaves,” i.e., the Written Law and the Oral Law.

For this truly lofty form of service to be carried out as desired, the Torah instructed that it be brought as something completely new, “a new meal offering,” for the beginning of every new initiative involves its most superior elements.62 Furthermore, undertaking a new initiative engenders more energy and pleasure.63 Therefore, in order to carry out the lofty level of Divine service involved with offering the two loaves in the most consummate manner, it must be “a new meal offering.”

Adapted from sichos delivered on Shavuos, 5711 [1951], and 5714 [1954]
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 32, P. 134ff.