Menachot 69b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

it would be

exact page location")

like a vessel

made of

dung, and like a vessel

made of

earth,

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

made of

stone, and a vessel of dung, and a vessel of earth, do not contract impurity, neither by words of Torah nor by words of the Sages -

Or perhaps: it is not digestion,

and they are splinters as they were, and once they were made into a vessel they entered into a state of susceptibility to impurity like a wooden vessel, which contracts impurity by Torah law.

And we raise an objection:

resolve it

for this question

from that which Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak:

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

and expelled them dead through the anus,

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

from corpse impurity, because this is not the flesh of the dead but rather wolf dung; thus, it is digestion?

And we reject this:

flesh is different, for it is soft [

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

And we raise an objection:

And let us resolve it from the latter clause

that it is not digestion: for we learned in the latter clause:

and they declared the bones impure

with corpse impurity!? And we reject this:

bones are different, for they are especially hard [

they are extremely hard, and this is not digestion.

Rabbi Zeira asked:

Wheat that descended in the clouds [

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

what is its status?

And he explains it as he proceeds.

And we raise an objection:

If

the doubt was whether to render them fit

for meal-offerings,

there is no room to doubt this, for

why would they not

be fit for them!?

Rather,

the doubt is whether to render them fit

for the two loaves!

What

is the meaning?

“From your dwelling places

you shall bring a wave-loaf”

the Merciful One said, to exclude

wheat

that is outside

the Land, which one may not

bring from it for the two loaves [as we derive below, 83b],

but

wheat

of the clouds is properly suitable

to bring from it for the two loaves?

Or perhaps:

“From your dwelling places”

specifically, and even

wheat

of the clouds as well may not

be brought from it for the two loaves.

And we are astonished:

Is there such a case [

is it possible that wheat descended in the clouds]!?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, such a thing had already happened, for

Bar Adda the Arab [

an Arab whose name was Bar Adda]

wheat descended for him to a height of a handbreadth over three parasangs [

wheat descended for him to a height of a handbreadth over his field, which was three parasangs in length].

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi asked:

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

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

planted

that stalk

after the Omer, and it increased

the stalk by any amount,

what is

the law of the addition?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Whether

we follow the principal, and the Omer permitted it,

whether the addition follows the principal, which the Omer permitted, and it too is permitted like it

or perhaps: we follow the addition,

that is, the addition follows only itself,

and

the entire stalk is not permitted

until the next Omer comes,

for an addition that is prohibited because of hadash is mixed into it.

And we raise an objection:

resolve this

for this doubt

from that which Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

Orla and diverse kinds of the vineyard are not nullified by a majority of permitted matter like other prohibitions, but only when, corresponding to one part of prohibition, there were two hundred parts of permitted matter.

A young planting [one that is within three years of its planting, whose fruits are orla] that was intertwined with an old one [grafted onto an old planting, upon which the years of orla had passed], and there are no fruits on the young planting, is nullified within the old one, and the fruits that grow are not prohibited because of orla; but:

A young planting that was intertwined with an old one, and in it -

in the young planting -

there are fruits

of orla:

Even if it increased by two hundred,

even if two hundred parts were added to those fruits, which are themselves permitted and have the power to nullify the orla mixed into them, nevertheless this is

prohibited,

for the addition follows the principal, and since the principal is orla, the addition too is prohibited.

And if so, it follows that one can resolve also regarding an ear of grain that the Omer permitted and that was planted, that the addition is permitted like it.

And

resolve also — regarding the law of an ear of grain that was permitted by the Omer and was planted — from that which

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said

with regard to mixed species in a vineyard:

An onion that they planted in a vineyard

and it is forbidden on account of mixed species in a vineyard,

and the vineyard was uprooted,

and the law of the addition in itself would then be that it is permitted, since it did not grow in the vineyard,

even if it increased two hundredfold,

even if, after the uprooting of the vineyard, two hundred times the initial amount of the onion was added to it — it is

forbidden,

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

And if so, also regarding an ear of new grain that was permitted and was planted, the addition should follow the permitted principal!?

And we answer:

it itself is what is in question for him [

the foundation of the doubt is indeed these statements]:

Is it

obvious to the Rabbis that we follow the principal,

and

it makes no difference whether leniently

as, for example, 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 stringently

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

Or perhaps: it is doubtful to them

the Rabbis whether the addition follows the principal,

and stringently

it is that we

say

that the addition follows the principal, but

leniently,

that it should follow it in order to permit it —

we do not say.

And we conclude:

it is unresolved.

Rava asked:

With regard to tithe, what is the law

of the addition? And he proceeds to explain it.