Study Menachot folio 72B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud asks: And did R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, not know of this? He must have known of his father’s statement that a mitzva performed at its proper time overrides Shabbat. If so, his ruling that reaping at an improper time is unfit cannot be proven from the fact that reaping the omer override
Rather, it must be that R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, was aware of that principle, and nevertheless he maintains that the requirement to perform a mitzva at its optimal time does not apply to the case of the reaping of the omer. This is because there, in the case of the burning of the fats and limb
The Talmud asks: But if so, according to R' Yehuda HaNasi, he should agree that the case of the burning of the sacrifice’s fats and limbs is different from the omer, since also there, the slaughter of the animal already overrode Shabbat. Therefore, the Talmud gives a new explanation: Rather, R' Yeh
The Talmud asks: And does R' Yehuda HaNasi not maintain that the reaping of the omer overrides Shabbat? But didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (63b) in response to R' Yishmael’s opinion that when the 16th of Nisan occurred during the week, 5 se’a of barley were reaped, and when it occurred on Shabbat only
The Talmud raises a difficulty from the latter clause of that Mishnah. R' Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: On Shabbat the barley was reaped by an individual, with one sickle and one basket into which the barley was placed, whereas during the week it was reaped by 3 people, with 3 baskets and 3