Menachot 66b — the Talmud in English

And the Sages say: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the folio")

there is no

light

in the expression “

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

but

rather

specifically inside

another thing, namely, a pipe, as was explained in the Mishna.

namely, a perforated tube, as was explained in the Mishna.

Lishna aharina,

the Sages said this:

the expression “

roasted”

means only something light [in a copper vessel that is light],

in a light copper vessel].

how so? —

There was a pipe for roasting [for sellers of roasted grain]

and it was perforated like a sieve,

so that the light would rule over all of it. “

Roasted fresh grain” [by

fire] “

ground.”

I do not know

to which part the word “roasted” is connected:

If “

roasted fresh grain,”

meaning, while the barley was still whole, before its grinding, they would roast it —

if “

roasted ground grain,”

meaning, at first they would grind it and afterward roast the ground flour —

when it says “

by fire,”

between “roasted” and “ground,”

the matter is interrupted,

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

Carmel” —

it is an acronym:

soft and crushable.

The grain should be soft and crushed by hand.

And so it says,

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

as it is written [II Kings 4:42]: “

And a man came from Baal-shalishah, and he brought the man of God bread of first fruits and twenty loaves of barley, and fresh grain 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, saying:

Come and pour for us,

and we shall eat, and it was pleasant [

pleasant]

was

the bread.

And it says,

that is, we find another word that is 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 loves” —

And the word “let us delight” is interpreted as follows: this is what the adulterous woman says to the one with whom she is coming to commit adultery:

Let us carry and give, and let us go up

to the bed,

and let us rejoice, and let us stroll [

let us walk about]

in loves.

And it says

further: “

The wing of joyful ones” [

the name of a large bird; and in the language of the Mishna, “the son of Yochani”] “

strolls” —

And the word “strolls” is interpreted:

it carries

its egg in its entrails,

it rises

upward to its particular nest,

and it strolls [

lowers it] in its nest; for it does not cast its egg until it rises into its particular nest.

And it says

further [Numbers 22]: “And the she-donkey saw the angel of the Lord, and it lay down under Balaam. And Balaam’s anger burned, and he struck the she-donkey with a staff. And the Lord uncovered Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, with his sword drawn in his hand, and he bowed and prostrated himself on his face. And the angel of the Lord said to him: Why have you struck your she-donkey these three times? Behold, I have gone out as an adversary,

because the way has turned aside before me” —

And the word “has turned aside” is interpreted:

it feared [

the language of fear],

it saw

the angel [and therefore]

it turned aside,

because the way is before me [against my will].

And here the Gemara returns to the explanation of the word “carmel”:

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: “

Carmel,”

it is

a full cushion.

The husk should be full of its kernel, that is, it should be fully cooked.

We learned in the Mishna: “And the remainder is redeemed and eaten by any person. And it is obligated in challa, and exempt from tithes.”

And Rabbi Akiva obligates

the remainder

in challa

and in tithes:

Rav Kahana said:

The reason of the Sages, who exempt the surplus grain from the tithe, is because grain becomes obligated in the tithe only once it has been made into a smooth pile. [After threshing and winnowing, a pile, called a kri, is made from the kernels of the grain and smoothed; this is the completion of the fieldwork, and from the time of the completion of the work the grain becomes obligated in the tithe.] And since the verse says, “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 smoothing of the grain was done while it was in the possession of consecrated property, so that it is not “your grain,” it is exempt from the tithe. But the reason of Rabbi Akiva is that he

says [

holds]

that Rabbi Akiva would say: the smoothing of consecrated property does not exempt.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

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

The surplus of these three seah [

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

what would they do with it? —

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 challa and in the tithes.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Akiva: Behold, 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 consecrated property],

proves that it is obligated in challa,

because the kneading of the dough was already in the possession of an ordinary person,

and exempt from the tithes,

because the smoothing was when the grain was in the possession of consecrated property.

And this beraita is a difficulty for Rav Kahana, for

if it is so,

if this is indeed so,

that the smoothing of consecrated property

according to Rabbi Akiva

does not exempt

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

what are they saying to him [

what is the proof that the Sages bring against Rabbi Akiva]? For

it is —

it is!

Just as Rabbi Akiva disagreed concerning what remained from the omer, so did he disagree concerning all grain that was consecrated and smoothed by the treasurer!?

And further, Rav Kahana bar Tachlifa raised an objection to Rav Kahana from

that

which was taught: Rabbi Akiva obligates

the surplus of the three seah of the omer

in challa and in the tithes, because the money was not given

of consecrated property for the purchase of the three seah of the omer

except for what was needed for them.

At the outset, all three seah were not consecrated, but only that tenth of an ephah which would ultimately emerge from them; the remainder was unconsecrated all along. Therefore the surplus is obligated in tithes, for it was not smoothed in the domain of consecrated property; rather, it was unconsecrated throughout, although what it was had not been defined. But after they separated the tenth of an ephah of flour from the three seah, what the remainder was became clear: it was the portion that had never been consecrated.

Rather, Rabbi Yochanan said: It is an established teaching in Rabbi Akiva’s mouth [

that is, it is a received tradition in Rabbi Akiva’s possession]

that the money was given only for what was needed for them.

Rava said:

These three laws

are obvious to me: A.

That

for

everyone

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

concerning the surplus of the omer,

but

because of

the money being given only for what was needed for them —

But ordinary smoothing of consecrated property [

with other grain that was certainly consecrated]

exempts.

B. And it is also obvious to me that

the smoothing of a gentile,

if it exempts,

is a dispute among the tannaim,

who disagreed about this matter.

For it was taught: One separates teruma from

the grain of

an Israelite for that of an Israelite, and from

their grain

of gentiles [

which was purchased from them after smoothing]

for that of gentiles, and from the grain of Kutim [

which was purchased from them after smoothing]

for that of Kutim, and

even

from that of all [

Israelites, gentiles, Kutim]

for that of all,

that is: from each of the grains mentioned he may separate teruma for one of the grains mentioned, even from the grain of a gentile for that of an Israelite—and this is because, in their view, the smoothing of a gentile and a Kuti does not exempt, and their grain is subject to obligation like the grain of an Israelite; therefore one separates from any for any.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:

One separates teruma from that of an Israelite for that of an Israelite, and from that of gentiles for that of Kutim, and from that of Kutim for that of gentiles —

But not from that of an Israelite for that of gentiles or

for that

of Kutim, and not from that of gentiles or of Kutim for that of an Israelite;

because he holds: the smoothing of a gentile exempts, and the Kutim too have the status—according to this tanna—of gentiles, and if he separates from their grain, which is exempt from teruma, for that of an Israelite, which is obligated, he is separating from exemption for obligation; and if he separates from that of an Israelite for that of a gentile, he is separating from obligation for exemption.

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