Menachot 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

And if so,

it would be

like a vessel

made of

dung, and like a vessel

made of

earth,

and they do not contract ritual impurity, as the Master said: A vessel

made of

stones, a vessel of dung, or a vessel of earth does not contract ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law—

Or perhaps: It is not digestion,

but rather they remain as they were, and once they were made into a vessel they became susceptible to impurity, like a wooden vessel, which contracts impurity by Torah law.

And we challenge this:

Resolve

this question

from what Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

It once happened that two wolves swallowed two infants in Transjordan,

and expelled them dead through their digestive tracts.

The incident came before the Sages, and they declared the flesh pure

from impurity imparted by a corpse, because this was not the flesh of the dead infants but rather wolf dung; so it follows that digestion has occurred?

We reject this:

Flesh is different, for it is soft [

the flesh is soft], and even in such a case the flesh is considered digested.

We challenge this:

But resolve it from the latter clause,

which indicates that it was not digested, for we learned in the latter clause:

And they declared the bones impure

with impurity imparted by a corpse!? We reject this:

Bones are different, for they are especially hard [

they are extremely hard], and this is not digestion.

Rabbi Zeira raised a question:

Wheat that descended in clouds [

with rain clouds, which, when drinking from the sea, swallowed a ship full of wheat],

what is the law?

He proceeds to explain the question.

We challenge this:

If

the question was whether the wheat could be used

for the meal-offerings,

there is no reason for this doubt, because

why would it not

be fit for them!?

Rather,

the question is whether it can be used

for the two loaves!

What

is the meaning of the verse,

“From your dwelling places

you shall bring two loaves of waving,”

the Merciful One said, to exclude

wheat

from outside

the Land, from which one may not

bring the two loaves [as will be derived below, on 83b],

but

wheat

from clouds is entirely acceptable

for bringing the two loaves from it?

Or perhaps:

“From your dwelling places”

is precise, and even

wheat

from clouds may not

be used to bring the two loaves.

We ask: Is there such a phenomenon [

is it possible for wheat to descend in clouds]!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed such a thing once occurred, for

the

Arab named Bar Adda [

an Arab whose name was Bar Adda]

had wheat descend for him, a handbreadth high, over a distance of three parasangs [

wheat descended upon his field to a height of a handbreadth, over a length of three parasangs].

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazzi raised a question:

A stalk that had reached one-third of its growth before the Omer, and was uprooted

before the Omer, and the Omer passed over it while it was uprooted and permitted it, and afterward he

planted

that stalk

after the Omer, and it increased

by any amount,

what

is the status of the increase?

The sides of the doubt are as follows:

Whether

we follow the original, and the Omer permitted it,

that is, whether the increase follows the original, which the Omer permitted, and it too is permitted like the original—

or perhaps we follow the increase,

meaning that the increase follows only itself,

and

the entire stalk is not permitted

until the next Omer arrives,

since it contains an admixture of increase that is forbidden as hadash.

We challenge this: Resolve this doubt

from what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Orlah and the produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species are not nullified by a majority of permitted produce, as are other prohibitions; rather, they are nullified only when, corresponding to one part of prohibited produce, there are two hundred parts of permitted produce.

A young sapling [a sapling within its first three years of planting, whose fruit is orlah] that became intertwined with an old tree [it was grafted onto an old tree that had already completed its years of orlah], and which has no fruit on the young sapling, is nullified by the old tree, and fruit that subsequently grows is not forbidden as orlah; but:

A young sapling that became intertwined with an old tree and on it—on the young sapling—

there were fruits

of orlah:

Even if it increased by two hundred,

even if two hundred parts were added to those fruits, which are themselves permitted and capable of nullifying the orlah mixed with them, nevertheless it is

forbidden,

because the increase follows the original, and since the original is orlah, the increase is likewise forbidden.

even if two hundred parts were added to those fruits—parts that are themselves permitted and capable of nullifying the orlah mixed with them—nevertheless it is

prohibited,

because the additional growth follows the original, and since the original is orlah, the additional growth is also prohibited.

And if so, this should also resolve the case of an ear of grain that the Omer rendered permitted and that was planted: the addition should be permitted like it.

And

this should also resolve the law of an ear of grain rendered permitted by the Omer and then planted, based on what

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said

with regard to mixed planting in a vineyard:

An onion that was planted in a vineyard

and is therefore forbidden on account of mixed planting in a vineyard,

and the vineyard was uprooted,

and the addition should then, in its own right, be permitted, since it did not grow in the vineyard,

even if it increased two hundredfold,

even if, after the vineyard was uprooted, two hundred times the original amount of the onion was added to it—it remains

forbidden,

because the addition too is forbidden, as it follows the forbidden principal.

If so, likewise in the case of an ear of new grain that was rendered permitted and then planted, the addition should follow the permitted principal and be permitted!?

And we answer:

That itself is what is in question [

the foundation of the uncertainty is indeed these statements]:

Is it the case that

the Sages were certain that we follow the principal—

and

it makes no difference whether this is to be lenient

as in an ear of grain that was planted with regard to the prohibition of new grain, where the principal is permitted and the addition is forbidden],

or whether this is to be stringent

as in these two statements, where the principal is forbidden and the addition follows it and is thereby forbidden.

Or perhaps: They were uncertain

whether, according to the Sages, the addition follows the principal,

and only in a stringent case

is it that

we say

that the addition follows the principal; but

in a lenient case,

that it should follow the principal and thereby be permitted—

we do not say so.

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

Rava raised a dilemma:

With regard to tithe, what

is the law of the addition? And he proceeds to explain it.