Menachot 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What are the circumstances? For example:

d

he harvested many ears of grain but did not thresh them, and

he estimated their amount and tithed them [

he tithed them by estimation]

and

then

planted them

in the ground,

and they increased, and in this case there are two uncertainties:

whether the increase follows the permitted original and does not require tithing, or not:

b.

If you say

that we do not follow the original

so as to say that the increase is exempt from tithe, because the Sages said that the increase follows the original only as a stringency, and this is the side of the Gemara’s uncertainty concerning hadash,

and

therefore

the increase requires tithing [

it must be tithed]—there remains the following uncertainty:

That

original

that he planted in the ground—

what

is its status? Did it too become obligated in tithe again, or not?!

Said

to

Abaye

to Rava, who had raised the uncertainty whether the increase follows the original and is thereby exempt from tithe:

But

what difference is there between this and all ordinary wheat and barley

[what difference is there between this and other plantings of wheat and barley], which, even though the seeds have already been tithed, nevertheless their growths are obligated in tithe!?

He said

in reply

to him

—Rava to Abaye:

In a case where the seed perishes,

such as ordinary wheat and barley, whose seed perishes in the ground and is absorbed,

I have no question

that the growths that emerge from them are forbidden, as you have demonstrated—

Rather, my question concerns something whose seed does not perish,

such as an ear that one planted, whose original is not absorbed; rather, the ear itself continues to increase.

What

is the law concerning the increase, and what is the law concerning the original itself?

And we raise an objection:

Resolve it from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A litra of onion that one prepared,

thereby removing it from the status of tevel, and then

planted it

and it increased, this onion

is tithed according to its entirety

[one takes tithe corresponding to both the original and the increase], for all of it is obligated in tithe—

We have therefore learned that both the original and the increase are obligated in tithe, and Rava’s uncertainty has been resolved!?

And we answer:

There,

regarding the onion,

that is its manner of planting,

meaning that this is the normal way to plant it. But

here,

regarding the ear,

that is not its manner of planting,

meaning that it is not customary to plant an ear before threshing and winnowing.

Produce planted in a flowerpot that has no hole is exempt from terumot and tithes by Torah law, but obligated by rabbinic law.

Since produce planted in a flowerpot that has no hole is not obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law, one cannot separate teruma from produce planted in a flowerpot without a hole for produce planted in a field or in a flowerpot with a hole. For with regard to Torah law, this is separating from that which is exempt from tithe on behalf of that which is obligated in tithe, and such a separation is not valid.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyomi said to Abaye:

A flowerpot that has no hole from

a

flowerpot with no hole—what is the law

[he proceeds to explain it]?

Abaye understood the intent of the question to be whether one may separate from produce planted in a flowerpot without a hole on behalf of produce planted in another flowerpot without a hole. Abaye therefore wondered at Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyomi’s question:

If it has no hole,

if he is separating from a flowerpot without a hole on behalf of produce planted in a flowerpot without a hole—

it has no hole

; that is, obviously there is no deficiency here, since by rabbinic law he is separating from that which is obligated on behalf of that which is obligated, and by Torah law from that which is exempt on behalf of that which is exempt. What deficiency could there be here!?

Abaye continued and said to him:

Perhaps you meant that it was subsequently pierced,

that is, perhaps your question means as follows: A flowerpot without a hole that was subsequently pierced—what is the law concerning separating from produce in it on behalf of produce in the unpierced flowerpot? Namely:

If, after the wheat grew in the flowerpot, he subsequently pierced the flowerpot, and the wheat increased after it was pierced, this is what you are uncertain about: Can he separate from these wheat plants themselves, since what he separates includes some of the original that grew before the piercing? The basis of your question is: If you say that the increase, which is intrinsically obligated in teruma by Torah law, does not follow the original, then it is certainly obligated in teruma; if so, your uncertainty is:

Perhaps we follow the increase and thereby render the original obligated in teruma by Torah law, so that the entire wheat is obligated; or perhaps what grew before the piercing does not follow the increase that grew after the piercing, and remains exempt [by Torah law] as it was. If so, he cannot separate from what grew before the piercing on behalf of the increase, since with regard to Torah law this is separating from that which is exempt on behalf of that which is obligated. Consequently, he cannot separate from it itself, since what he separates includes that which is exempt on behalf of that which is obligated.

In any event, there is no room for your question. Although we raised precisely such an uncertainty above concerning wheat that one tithed and then planted—“What is the status of the original?”—that case does not provide a proof, and in the case you asked about there is no doubt that the original too became obligated through the piercing. This is because

here,

regarding a flowerpot that was pierced,

it is one planting,

since

it is merely becoming attached and growing—

That is, from the time of planting, when the flowerpot was still unpierced, until the time of piercing, everything is considered one planting, since the roots of the wheat become attached to the ground through the piercing. Thus, even what had already grown initially is considered as though it had been planted in a pierced flowerpot and became obligated in teruma by Torah law.

But there—

in the uncertainty raised above—

there were

two plantings,

since he harvested and then planted again.

We learned in the Mishna in Terumot 1:5: “One may not separate … from detached produce on behalf of attached produce, nor from attached produce on behalf of detached produce [and not even from attached produce on behalf of attached produce] … and if they separated, their teruma is not valid.”

Rabbi Abbahu raised a question:

An ear that he smoothed within the pile

and through this became obligated in terumot and tithes,

and he planted it and designated it

as

teruma

while it was attached

to the ground—what is the law? Does this designation take effect?

Does this designation take effect?

The sides of the doubt are:

Is it to be said:

Once it was smoothed

it was

rendered tevel for him [it had already become tevel, making it liable for teruma], and therefore,

if so,

once he assigned it a name

of teruma, even while it was attached to the ground,

it became sanctified for him?

Or perhaps: Once he planted it, its status as tevel lapsed from it

[the status of tevel lapsed from it].

They said to him

They expressed their astonishment

the Sages to Abaye:

If so—according to your contention that teruma takes effect upon it while it is still attached to the ground—

If so—according to the position you suggested, that teruma can take effect on it while it is attached—

we find teruma

in attached produce, and

it is

taught “

We do not find teruma in produce attached to the ground.”

He said to

them

Abaye:

It should always be said that in the manner we described, teruma does exist in produce attached to the ground, and

when that teaching was stated, it concerned liability for death and an additional fifth

[which a non-kohen who eats teruma incurs: death when he eats intentionally, and an additional fifth when he eats unintentionally]—

That is, the intention of the Mishna is that we do not find anyone who becomes liable for death and an additional fifth for eating teruma that is attached to the ground. This is because even in a case where the status of teruma takes effect upon it, it is impossible for him to become liable for it, because:

If he detached

it

and ate it

[if he first detaches it and then eats it], it is

detached produce,

and this is not eating teruma that is attached to the ground—

And if he bends down and eats

[if he bends down and eats the teruma while it is still attached to the ground], then

his conduct is disregarded as abnormal in the eyes of everyone,

and he is not liable for death and an additional fifth on its account. This is the meaning of what we learned: “We do not find—eating—teruma in produce attached to the ground.” Nevertheless, it may always be said that teruma itself can be found in attached produce in the manner described.

And we challenge this

And what is the difference

between bending down and eating teruma while it is attached, for which one is not liable because his conduct is disregarded as abnormal in the eyes of everyone,

and what was written in Ilfa’s notebook

[the halakha that was written in Ilfa’s notebook]:

The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart ritual impurity through contact or carrying, like other carcasses; rather, it imparts impurity only in the esophagus. That is, if one eats the carcass of a kosher bird, he becomes impure and must launder his garments. The wording of the Gemara everywhere is: “It renders garments impure in the esophagus.”

The eggs of the carcass of a kosher bird,

which died while laying them, and

some of them

of the eggs were

outside

[outside the body of the carcass], while

some of them

were still

inside,

their law with regard to impurity is as follows:

If one inserted his mouth into the bird’s intestines and ate the eggs

from inside,

their status is like that of the bird’s carcass itself, and

they render garments impure in the esophagus.

But if he ate them

from outside,

they do not render garments impure in the esophagus.

And we answer: Detached from the ground, even though it is in the bird’s intestines, people do eat it in this manner [there are people who eat it in this manner]— But with what is attached

We have thus learned that even when one inserts his mouth into the bird’s intestines and eats, his eating is considered eating, and we do not say, “His conduct is disregarded as abnormal in the eyes of everyone.” What, then, is the difference with one who bends down and eats teruma attached to the ground, concerning whom you say, “His conduct is disregarded as abnormal in the eyes of everyone,” and whose eating is not considered significant enough to make him liable for death and an additional fifth?

And we answer:

Detached

from the ground, even though it is inside the bird’s intestines,

people do eat it in this manner

[there are people who eat it in this manner]—

But

attached

to the ground,

people do not eat it in this manner

[it is not the way of people to eat it in this manner], and therefore one is not liable for death and an additional fifth for this eating.

Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said:

One who sows diverse kinds in an unperforated flowerpot is prohibited

by rabbinic decree, as they imposed the stringency upon an unperforated flowerpot as they did upon a perforated flowerpot, in which one who sows is liable by Torah law.

Abaye

objected

and said:

It would have been understandable if Shmuel had taught us

that he

receives lashes for rebellious conduct by rabbinic decree;

then there would be

a proper

novelty in his statement.

But “

is prohibited”—

what does this teach us!?

That sowing is effective by rabbinic decree?

But we already

learned:

If he separated teruma from

produce sown in an unperforated flowerpot

for

produce sown in a

perforated flowerpot, it is

flowerpot,

teruma. This is because with regard to the rabbinic law that requires one to separate teruma even from an unperforated flowerpot, this is one who separates from produce that is liable for produce that is liable. Nevertheless,

teruma, because with regard to the rabbinic law requiring one to separate teruma even from an unperforated flowerpot, this is one obligation being used for another obligation. Nevertheless,

he must separate again, since with regard to Torah law, according to which produce sown in a perforated flowerpot is liable while produce sown in an unperforated flowerpot is not, this is like one who separates from exempt produce for liable produce—

In any event, we have learned that produce sown in an unperforated flowerpot is subject to teruma by rabbinic law. If this were not so, then if one separated teruma from an unperforated flowerpot for a perforated one, he would have accomplished nothing and it would not be teruma. Therefore, the same applies here: by rabbinic law, it is forbidden to sow in an unperforated flowerpot.

In any event, we have learned that produce sown in an unperforated flowerpot is subject to teruma by rabbinic law. For if this were not so, one who separated from an unperforated flowerpot for a perforated one would have accomplished nothing, and it would not be teruma. Therefore, the same applies here: by rabbinic law it is prohibited to sow in an unperforated flowerpot.

Mishna:

The five species of grain, which are

wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye, are subject to the mitzva of challa

when one kneads dough from them,

and they combine with one another

when he kneads them together to complete the measure that makes the dough subject to challa [“five kav-quarters of flour and more”]. This will be explained more fully in the Gemara.

And they are prohibited—

these five species of grain—

on account of the new crop

from eating them

before the omer—

before Passover, for thus the Torah said: “You shall bring the Omer, the first of your harvest, to the koen”; this shows that the Omer is the first of the harvest. However, once he reaped the Omer on the night of the second day of Passover, reaping became permitted. And this is what we learned: “And to reap before Passover,” for on the first festival day of Passover reaping is forbidden because of the festival day, and afterward reaping is permitted, for they would reap immediately at nightfall. And the Mishna explains at which stage of the growth of the produce the Omer permits even its growths that will come after the Omer:

And from being harvested

them

before Passover, since the Torah says: “You shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest, to the kohen”; thus, the omer is the first of the harvest. However, once they harvested the omer on the night of the second day of Passover, harvesting became permitted. This is the meaning of what we learned: “And from being harvested before Passover,” since harvesting is prohibited on the first festival day of Passover because it is a Festival day, but after it, harvesting is permitted, as they would harvest immediately at nightfall.

The Mishna explains at what stage of the grain’s growth the Omer also permits growth that will emerge after the Omer:

The Mishna explains at which stage of the crop’s growth the omer also permits growth that will emerge after the omer:

If they took root before the omer,

then

the omer permits them.

But if not—

if they did not take root before the omer—then the growths are

prohibited until the next omer arrives

and permits them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye are subject to challa, and they combine with one another:

We learned in a Mishna in Challa 4:1:

Two women who made two kavs [two doughs, each made from one kav of flour, so that each dough in itself is exempt from challa, since it does not contain the measure that creates liability, which is five kav-quarters of flour and more] and [the doughs] touched one another—even if they are of the same species—they are exempt [because ultimately they will be divided]. But when they belong to one woman, if they are of the same species, they are liable [for challa], and if they are not of the same species, they are exempt. What is considered the same species? Wheat does not combine with anything [with the other species of grain], except with spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. [The remaining species do not combine with one another.] Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri [who disagrees with the first tanna concerning the combination of the remaining species] says: The remaining species combine with one another.

The early authorities disagreed in their explanation of this Mishna:

The view of most of the early authorities—and this is based on the Jerusalem Talmud—is that the statement in our Mishna concerning all the species, “and they combine with one another,” and the law of the Mishna in Challa are two separate matters:

Our Mishna [and likewise the Mishna in Challa 1:1, which is identical to our Mishna] deals with combining flours into a single dough. With regard to this, all the species combine with one another, as the plain meaning of the Mishna indicates. The Mishna in Challa, chapter 4, however, deals with combining doughs that bite into one another, and with regard to this, not all the species combine; rather, they combine only in the manner explained there.

Rashi, however, holds that it is all one matter, and that what we learned in our Mishna, “and they combine with one another,” applies specifically in the manner explained in the Mishna in Challa.

A tanna

taught a beraita to explain the Mishna in Challa, chapter 4:

Spelt

is also

a species of wheat

[in addition to being a species of barley], and therefore it combines both with barley and with wheat ;

oats and rye are a species of barley

alone, and therefore they combine only with barley.

And furthermore, the beraita explains:

spelt: