Menachot 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

If so:

although, as a matter of fundamental law, the gentile’s leveling of the produce exempts it from teruma, nevertheless the Sages decreed that it is obligated, due to the decree concerning those with full purses,

with regard to dough as well

they should likewise have decreed that dough kneaded by a gentile be obligated in ḥalla, and because of that same decree, so that people would not give their produce to a gentile to knead it and then repurchase it from him?!

And we answer: There is no concern that the wealthy will do so, for if they wish to exempt themselves from ḥalla,

it is possible for them to bake it from less than five quarter-kav of flour and a little more.

That is, they have the option of making small batches of dough, less than the measure of dough obligated in ḥalla [the measure is five quarter-kav of flour and a little more], and thus they will be exempt from separating ḥalla. And we challenge this: Surely

with regard to teruma as well

they can exempt their produce from teruma in two other ways:

a.

It is possible for him to do this [

he can arrange matters so that the produce will not become obligated in teruma],

as Rabbi Oshaya taught.

For Rabbi Oshaya said:

Produce becomes obligated in the separation of terumot and ma’aserot under two conditions. The first is that it has been leveled, which is the completion of its processing. The second is that the produce must be fixed for ma’aser by being brought into a house through the house’s usual entrance, for the sight of the entrance of the house determines the produce for ma’aser. Therefore,

a person may employ a ruse with regard to his produce [

so that it will not become obligated in ma’aser],

and bring it

into the house

with its chaff [

that is, before winnowing and leveling], and level it only after bringing it into the house,

so that his animal may eat it, and it will be exempt from ma’aser.

Since the produce saw the “face of the house” before it was leveled, its presence in the house after it was leveled is not considered “seeing the face of the house” in a manner that obligates it in ma’aser.

b.

Alternatively,

he can arrange matters so that the produce will not become obligated in ma’aser, for example,

by bringing it through roofs and courtyards and enclosures.

He does not bring it into his house through the house’s entrance, and he is exempt, because a house determines produce for ma’aser only when it sees the “face of the house,” meaning that the produce entered through the entrance. If so, with regard to teruma as well, we should not decree that produce leveled by a gentile be obligated because of those with full purses, since in any event they can exempt themselves in these ways?! b. Regarding what they said, “ so that his animal may eat”: Rashi wrote in Nidda 15a that only his animal may eat from the produce, because his animal’s eating is considered incidental eating, whereas his own established eating is prohibited by rabbinic law. For even when the produce was not leveled at all and had not seen the face of the house, established eating of it is prohibited by rabbinic law ; [ and this is likewise explained by Rashi in Pesaḥim there, that established eating is prohibited]. However, the Tosafot here cited the position of the R Ephraim, who holds that it is not specifically his animal that is permitted to eat from it; rather, even a person’s established eating of it is permitted ; and the Gemara’s formulation, “so that his animal may eat,” does not mean that only the animal is permitted to eat it. Rather, when he employs this ruse and does so, it is customary for him to say: “I am doing this because I intend only to feed my animal”; but he is embarrassed to employ a ruse for his own benefit. The Tosafot explained the rationale for this position of Rabbi Ephraim as follows: Although established eating is prohibited before the produce sees the face of the house, that is where it can come to a state of obligation when it sees the face of the house. But where he brought it in with its chaff and leveled it in the house, it can no longer come to a state of obligation ; [ and see also the innovations of Rabbi David in Pesaḥim 9a, who wrote according to this position, and this is his wording: “Although initially, when it was in the field, established eating of it was prohibited, that was because ultimately it was destined to be tithed, and the Sages prohibited established eating of it because of the theft of the koen’s due. But this produce can no longer be fixed for ma’aser: not through seeing the face of the house, since it was not yet winnowed, and not through leveling, since leveling applies only at the time of winnowing. Since it cannot become obligated in ma’aser, why should established eating of it be prohibited? There is no theft of the koen’s due here”]. However, the Tosafot disagreed with Rabbi Ephraim and maintained Rashi’s position, that established eating of the produce is prohibited. And the Ḥazon Ish [ Shevi’it 1:8] wrote that he could prove from the passage in Yoma 10b that afterward bringing it through the face of the house is no longer effective in obligating it. He wrote that even though the Tosafot disagreed with Rabbi Ephraim, they did not disagree with the fundamental point that it can no longer come to a Torah-level obligation; rather, the Sages nevertheless did not exempt it, and established eating remains prohibited by rabbinic law. But by Torah law the status of teruma does not take effect upon it, since it cannot come to a state of obligation. The passage in Yoma establishes this, as we wrote above ; [ and see further in the Ḥazon Ish, Ma’aserot, section 3]. And if he brought it into the house and took it out before leveling, and leveled it outside, and afterward brought it into the house, it is explained in the Shita Mekubetzet here, in the name of another Tosafot, according to the position of Rabbi Ephraim, and it is likewise explained in the Tosafot of Rabbi Peretz on Pesaḥim 9a, that bringing it into the house after leveling is effective in obligating it in ma’aser. Only if he leveled it inside does subsequently bringing it into the house no longer help ; but Ramban, Bava Metzia 85b [cited in the Shita Mekubetzet], cited in the name of Rashbam that even in such a case the produce is exempt, and Ramban wrote that his words are not convincing. And in explaining the matter, the Shi’urei Rabbi Shmuel wrote in Pesaḥim, section 8: If he took it out before leveling, it follows that the leveled produce had not yet seen the face of the house. It is through his bringing it in that it comes to see the face of the house, and therefore it becomes obligated in teruma through this act ; but if he leveled it inside the house, it is considered that the leveled produce had already seen the face of the house, except that this had not occurred in a manner that obligates it in teruma, because he had brought it into the house with its chaff. Since it had already seen the face of the house, it can no longer become obligated even if he brings it into the house again, for it already has the status of having seen the face of the house after being leveled inside. d. Now, the position of Rabbi Ephraim is seemingly proven from the passage here [ see in the Tosafot and the Shita Mekubetzet the wording of their proof from here]. For if you say that the produce remains prohibited with regard to established eating, then what is the Gemara’s difficulty: “He can act in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya,” and there is no need to decree because of those with full purses ; for if he acts in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya, this helps him only to exempt it from incidental eating, whereas if a gentile levels it, it is permitted even for established eating, since leveling by a gentile exempts it even from the prohibition of established eating. And in the Shita Mekubetzet in the name of another Tosafot, wrote regarding Rashi’s view, that even leveling by a gentile—if the produce was initially in a Jew’s possession—exempts it only from incidental eating, whereas established eating remains prohibited, just as it was before leveling. If so, there is no concern about those with full purses, since even if they sell it to a gentile, it will be permitted only for incidental eating, just as when they bring it in with its chaff ; however, the Tosafot rejected this distinction, and in their view leveling by a gentile provides a complete exemption even when the produce was in a Jew’s possession. And see what the Tosafot wrote to explain our passage according to their disagreement with Rabbi Ephraim. e. Concerning the fundamental prohibition against feeding untithed produce to one’s animal, the Tosafot wrote: “But if you ask: Where do we find that untithed produce is prohibited for benefit?! We can answer: We derive it as it is expounded in the chapter ‘With What May One Light’—one may not light with impure untithed produce, because of ‘You shall safeguard My terumot’; the verse speaks of two terumot. Just as pure teruma is not available to you except from the time of its raising onward—that is, its eating [is not permitted except from the time of its raising onward]—so too with impure teruma, meaning its use for lighting ; and then we derive pure teruma from impure teruma: just as it is prohibited to use it for lighting before its raising, so too it is prohibited to feed it to one’s animal; all forms of benefit through consumption are akin to lighting .” Their intention is that since teruma is prohibited for benefit through consumption, it necessarily follows that untithed produce is also prohibited, since teruma is mixed into it.

And we answer:

There, with regard to the two ruses that he can employ with teruma, if he does not sell the produce to a gentile,

it is done

publicly,

and

it is a disgraceful matter for him [

he is considered degraded in the eyes of the people who see him doing this]. For this reason, those with full purses will not do so; rather, they will sell the produce to a gentile. Therefore, the Sages decreed that leveling by a gentile should not exempt it.

But

here,

making small batches of dough so as not to become obligated in ḥalla

is done discreetly,

and

it is not a disgraceful matter for him. Therefore, those with full purses will not hesitate to do so. Accordingly, there is no need to decree that kneading by a gentile should not exempt the dough.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues and explains the order of offering the omer and its laws:

The koen who offers the omer

comes to the tenth of an eifa

that he is to offer:

He placed

first

its oil and frankincense,

that is, he placed some of the oil in the vessel together with the frankincense,

and placed the fine flour upon them. He poured

more of the oil,

and mixed

it with the fine flour, as with the other meal-offerings.

b. The Tosafot asked: It is difficult that “he salted” was not taught, as it was taught in HaKometz Rabba [above, 18a]: “If he did not pour, did not mix, and did not salt”?! And in the Tosafot Yom Tov he wrote to resolve this: “I can say that it lists and teaches only the actions specific to meal-offerings, whereas salting is included in ‘You shall offer salt with every one of your sacrifices’ ; and see there further.” And in writings attributed to the Gra he explained the Tosafot’s question based on what he proved: that there are two laws of salting. The first is “You shall offer salt with every one of your sacrifices,” and this law is not part of the mitzva of the offerings but is a general requirement to salt offerings ; the second is “You shall salt every meal-offering of yours with salt.” This is a specific law applying to a meal-offering and is part of the mitzva of the meal-offering. This is the basis of the Tosafot’s question ; and in this way he precisely explained the wording of the Tosafot: They needed to cite proof for the law of salting, but their intention was to prove from the wording of the Mishna that salting is part of the procedure of the meal-offering, like pouring and mixing ; see there at length. And in the innovations of Mahari Ḥ printed at the end of the Mishnayot, he suggested as a novel point that the omer meal-offering does not require salting, because salting was stated only with regard to a “meal-offering sacrifice,” whereas we do not find that the omer is called a “sacrifice” ;

and one who examines the wording of the verses [Leviticus 2] will see that in each of the four meal-offerings mentioned there, the term “sacrifice” is written, whereas with regard to the omer meal-offering mentioned there, it says, “And if you bring a meal-offering of first fruits,” and it does not call it a “sacrifice”; see there.

He waved

the omer meal-offering,

and brought

it to the point opposite the edge of the southwestern horn of the altar, for the omer meal-offering requires both waving and bringing.

He took a handful

from it with his fist,

and burned

the handful together with the frankincense upon the altar, as with all the other meal-offerings.

And the remainder,

what remained of it after the taking of the handful,

was eaten by the kohanim

in the Courtyard, like the remainder of all the meal-offerings.

Once the omer was offered [

immediately after its offering], they would already

go out and find the market

of Jerusalem, which was

already

full of parched flour

made from the new grain, which they necessarily had prepared before the omer was offered—

not with the consent of the Sages

did they do so—

these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

For the Sages were concerned that, while occupied with the new grain, they might eat from it before the omer.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do so with the consent of the Sages,

for the Sages were not concerned that they might eat from it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Once the omer had been brought, they would go out and find the marketplace of Jerusalem filled with roasted flour, not with the consent of the Sages; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would prepare it with the consent of the Sages:

The Gemara is puzzled:

And

is it because

Rabbi Yehuda did not issue a decree lest one come to eat from it

that Rabbi Yehuda does not issue a decree that a person should not engage with a prohibited matter, lest he eat from it?!

And we raise a contradiction

from that which we learned, ostensibly contradicting this, in Pesachim 10b:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One checks

the chametz three times:

on the night

of the

fourteenth

of Nisan,

and on the

morning of the fourteenth,

if he did not check on the night of the fourteenth,

and at the time of the removal,

at the sixth hour if he did not check in the morning.

But after this time, he may not check, even if he did not check at all, because we are concerned that, since the time when eating chametz becomes prohibited at midday has arrived, if he checks afterward, he may come to eat it.

And the Sages say: If he did not check on the night of the fourteenth, he should check on the fourteenth. If he did not check on the fourteenth [in the morning], he should check during the period [at the sixth hour, which is the time of the removal]. If he did not check during the period, he should check after the period [from six hours onward until nightfall].

It is therefore clear that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned lest one who engages with a prohibited matter come to eat it, contrary to what is indicated in our Mishna!?