Menachot 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say:

there is no “

light”

in the expression “

roasted”

as in: “there is no roasted light”], meaning that the flashing of the barley itself, without placing it in a vessel, is not called “roasted,”

but

specifically inside

another vessel,

namely, an avuv [a roasting tube], as was explained in the Mishna.

Alternatively,

the Sages said as follows:

the expression “

roasted”

means only something light

in a light copper vessel].

How so? —

There was a roasting tube

belonging to those who sold roasted grain],

and it was perforated like a sieve, so that the fire could reach all of it. “

Roasted grain”

in fire] “

crushed.”

I do not know

to which word the word “roasted” is connected:

If “

roasted grain,”

meaning that while the barley was still whole, before it was ground, they would roast it—

If “

roasted crushed grain,”

meaning that initially they would grind it and afterward roast the ground flour—

When it says “

in fire,”

between “roasted” and “crushed,”

the matter is interrupted,

teaching that the word “roasted” refers to what precedes it, and teaching that they would roast it while it was still grain, and not after grinding. “

Carmel” —

the acronym is

soft and easily peeled.

The grain must be soft and capable of being peeled by hand.

And similarly it says,

that is, we find another word that is interpreted by way of an acronym:

As it is written [II Kings 4:42]: “

A man came from Baal-shalisha, and he brought the man of God bread of first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and carmel in his sack.

And he said: Give it to the people, and let them eat.”

And the word “in his sack” is interpreted by way of an acronym, meaning:

Come and pour for us,

and we shall eat, and it will be pleasant

fine]

was

the bread.

And it says,

that is, we find another word interpreted by way of an acronym:

As it is written in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 7], in the description of the words of an adulterous woman: “

Let us delight in love” —

And the word “let us delight” is interpreted as meaning that the adulterous woman says to the man with whom she is about to commit adultery:

Let us engage in commerce and ascend

to the bed,

and rejoice and stroll

walk about]

in love.

And it says

further: “

The wing of the ostrich

the name of a large bird; in the language of the Mishna, “bar yokhni”]

rejoices” —

And the word “rejoices” is interpreted as follows:

It carries

its egg within its body,

ascends

upward to its particular nest,

and strolls

lowers it] into its nest; for it does not lay its egg until it ascends to its particular nest.

And it says

further [Numbers 22]: “The she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and it crouched beneath Balaam. Balaam’s anger flared, and he struck the she-donkey with a stick. The Lord uncovered Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with his sword drawn in his hand; and he bowed and prostrated himself on his face. The angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you strike your she-donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary,

because the road was contrary to me” —

And the word “contrary” is interpreted as follows:

It saw

an expression of fear],

it saw

the angel

and therefore]

turned aside, because the road was contrary to me

against my will]. Here the Gemara returns to interpreting the word “carmel”:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “

Carmel”

is

a full cushion.

The husk must be full of its kernel; that is, it must be completely cooked.

We learned in the Mishna: “And the remainder is redeemed and eaten by anyone. It is obligated in ḥalla and exempt from tithes.”

And Rabbi Akiva obligates

the remainder

in ḥalla

and in tithes:

Rav Kahana said:

The reason of the Sages, who exempt the surplus grain from tithes, is that grain becomes obligated in tithes only once it has been smoothed into a pile. After threshing and winnowing, the kernels are made into a heap called a kri, and it is smoothed; this is the completion of the fieldwork, and from the time the work is completed the grain becomes obligated in tithes. Since the verse states: “The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil you shall give him,” we expound it as though the verse had said: “Your smoothing,” and the verse comes to exclude “the smoothing of consecrated property”: if the grain was smoothed while in the possession of the Temple treasury, then it is not “your grain,” and it is exempt from tithes. But the reason of Rabbi Akiva is that

he says

holds]

that Rabbi Akiva held: The smoothing of consecrated property does not exempt.

Rav Sheshet challenged

Rav Kahana, who holds that the reason of Rabbi Akiva is that, in his view, the smoothing of consecrated property does not exempt from tithes, from that which is taught in a beraita:

What would they do with the surplus of these three se’a

which were harvested in order to obtain from them the tenth of an ephah for the omer]?

They redeem it, and it is eaten by anyone, and it is obligated in ḥalla and exempt from tithes.

It is redeemed, and eaten by any person, and it is obligated in challa, and exempt from the tithes.

Rabbi Akiva obligates

the surplus

in ḥalla and tithes.

They said to him

the Sages said to Rabbi Akiva: A person who

redeems

consecrated grain

from the treasurer,

after the grain was smoothed while it was consecrated, and the redeemer made dough from the grain

after redeeming it from the consecrated property], proves that it is obligated in ḥalla,

because the kneading of the dough took place while it was already in an ordinary person’s possession,

but exempt from tithes,

because the smoothing took place while the grain was in the possession of the Temple treasury.

This beraita presents a difficulty to Rav Kahana, for

if it is so,

if this is indeed the case,

that the smoothing of consecrated property

according to Rabbi Akiva

does not exempt

at all, and Rabbi Akiva obligates even other grain redeemed from the treasurer in tithes, then

what are they saying to him

what proof are the Sages bringing against Rabbi Akiva]? After all,

it is

the same thing!

Just as Rabbi Akiva disputes the matter concerning what remains from the omer, so does he dispute it concerning all grain that was consecrated and smoothed while in the treasurer’s possession!?

Furthermore, Rav Kahana bar Taḥalifa challenged Rav Kahana from

that

which is taught: Rabbi Akiva obligates

the surplus of the three se’a of the omer

in ḥalla and tithes, because the money was not given

of the Temple treasury for the purchase of the three se’a for the omer

except for what was needed.

Initially, not all three se’a were consecrated, but only the tenth of an ephah that would ultimately be taken from them; the remainder remained non-sacred throughout. Therefore the surplus is obligated in tithes, since it was not smoothed while in the possession of the Temple treasury; rather, it was non-sacred the entire time, although it had not yet been determined which part it was. Once they selected the tenth of an ephah of flour from the three se’a, it became clear which was the remainder, which had never been consecrated.

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is an explicit teaching in Rabbi Akiva’s mouth

that is, it is a received tradition of Rabbi Akiva],

that the money was given only for what was needed.

Rava said:

These three laws

are obvious to me: a.

That

That

according to everyone,

the smoothing of consecrated property exempts, and even Rabbi Akiva does not obligate there,

in the case of the surplus of the omer,

but

because

the money was given only for what was needed —

But ordinary smoothing of consecrated property

in the case of other grain that certainly belonged to the Temple treasury]

exempts.

b. And it is likewise obvious to me that

the smoothing of a gentile’s grain,

if it exempts,

is subject to a dispute between tanna’im

who disagree on this matter.

As it is taught: One may separate teruma from

grain

belonging to an Israelite for grain belonging to an Israelite, and from

their grain

belonging to gentiles

which was purchased from them after smoothing]

for grain belonging to gentiles; and from the grain of Samaritans

which was purchased from them after smoothing]

for grain belonging to Samaritans; and

even

from that belonging to all

Israelites, gentiles, and Samaritans]

for that belonging to all,

meaning: From any one of the types of grain mentioned, one may separate teruma for any other of the types mentioned, even from a gentile’s grain for an Israelite’s grain. This is because they hold that the smoothing of a gentile’s grain and of a Samaritan’s grain does not exempt, and their grain is therefore subject to the obligation just like an Israelite’s grain; consequently, one may separate from any type for any other type.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

One may separate teruma from an Israelite’s grain for an Israelite’s grain, from a gentile’s grain for a Samaritan’s grain, and from a Samaritan’s grain for a gentile’s grain —

But not from an Israelite’s grain for a gentile’s grain or

for

a Samaritan’s grain, and not from a gentile’s grain or a Samaritan’s grain for an Israelite’s grain;

because he holds that the smoothing of a gentile’s grain exempts, and that the Samaritans too have the status—according to this tanna—of gentiles, and if one separates from their grain, which is exempt from teruma, for an Israelite’s grain, he is separating from exempt produce for obligated produce; while if he separates from an Israelite’s grain for a gentile’s grain, he is separating from obligated produce for exempt produce.

The kneading of the dough is what obligates it in challa.