Menachot 70a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

What are the circumstances? For example: ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

D

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

estimated them and tithed them [ [ [A0008]]he tithed them by estimation]

he tithed them by estimation]

V

again

planted them

in the ground

and they increased for him,

and in this matter there are two uncertainties: A. Is the increase considered after the permitted principal, and there is no need to tithe it, or not?

B.

If you should say

we do not follow the principal

to say that the increase is exempt from tithe, because the Sages said that the increase follows the principal only stringently, and this is one side of the Gemara’s uncertainty concerning chadash,

and

if so

the increase requires tithing [ [A0059]]it requires tithing]—there is an uncertainty:

there is still an uncertainty:

That

principal

which he planted in the ground,

what

is its law? Does it too become obligated in tithe again, or not?!

Said

he objected

to him, Abaye,

to Rava, who was uncertain, suggesting that the increase follows the principal to exempt it from tithe:

But

what is different about it from all ordinary wheat and barley [ [A0093]]what is the difference between this and other sowings of wheat and barley], which, even though the seeds have already been tithed, nevertheless the growths are obligated in tithe!?

which are subject to tithes in their growth even though the seeds had already had tithes separated from them?!

He said

he answered

him,

Rava to Abaye:

Something whose seed perishes,

such as ordinary wheat and barley, whose seed perishes in the ground and is digested, in this case

it is not a question for me

that the growths coming from them are forbidden, as you proved—

Rather, when it is a question for me is something whose seed does not perish,

such as an ear that one planted, whose principal is not digested, but the ear itself continues and increases,

what

is the law of the increase and what is the law of the principal itself?

And we object:

Resolve it for him from that which Rabbi Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A litra of onion that one repaired,

and removed it from the status of untithed produce, and

then planted it

and it increased, this onion

is tithed according to all of it [ [A0117]]he takes tithe corresponding to the principal and the increase together], for everything is obligated in tithe—

because all of it is subject to tithes—

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

And we answer:

There

concerning the onion,

that is its manner of planting,

that is, it is customary to plant it; but

here

concerning an ear,

that is not its manner of planting, that is, it is not customary to plant an ear before threshing and winnowing.

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

That which is sown in a pot that is not perforated is exempt from terumot and tithes by Torah law and is obligated by rabbinic law.

Since that which is sown in a pot that is not perforated is not obligated in terumot and tithes by Torah law, it is impossible to separate teruma from that which is sown in a pot that is not perforated for that which is sown in a field or for that which is sown in a perforated pot, since with respect to Torah law this is separating from that which is exempt from tithe for that which is obligated in tithe, and this is not teruma.

Rabbi Hanina bar Minyomi said to Abaye:

A pot that is not perforated, from

a pot

that is not perforated, what is the law [ [A0147]]he explains it and proceeds]?

[he proceeds to explain it]?

Abaye understood the intention of the question: whether it is possible to separate from that which is sown in a pot that is not perforated for that which is sown in a pot that is not perforated; and therefore Abaye was astonished at Rabbi Hanina bar Minyomi’s question:

If it is not perforated,

if he is separating from a pot that is not perforated for that which is sown in a pot that is not perforated—

it is not perforated,

that is, it is obvious that there is no deficiency in this, for by rabbinic law he separates from that which is obligated for that which is obligated, and by Torah law from that which is exempt for that which is exempt, so what deficiency is there in this?!

Abaye added and said to him:

Perhaps you said: it was perforated again,

that is, perhaps this is the meaning of your words: a pot that is not perforated and then became perforated, what is the law of separating for it from the non-perforated one; that is:

If, after the wheat grew in the pot, he perforated the pot again, and the wheat increased after the perforation, this is what you are uncertain about: whether he may separate teruma for this wheat from itself, since what he separates also contains some of the principal that grew before the perforation; and the foundation of your question is: if you should say that the increase, whose basis is obligated in teruma by Torah law, does not follow the principal, and it is certainly obligated in teruma; if so, you are uncertain:

Perhaps we follow the increase so as to obligate even the principal in teruma by Torah law, and the entire wheat is obligated; or perhaps what grew before the perforation does not follow the increase that grew after the perforation, and it remains in its exemption [by Torah law] as it was. If so, he cannot separate from what already grew before the perforation for the increase, for with respect to Torah law this is one who separates from that which is exempt for that which is obligated, and consequently he cannot separate from itself, since what he separates contains that which is exempt for that which is obligated.

Nevertheless, there is no place for your question. Although we were uncertain about something exactly similar above concerning wheat that he tithed and then replanted—“What is the law of the principal?”—the cases are not comparable. In the manner that you asked, there is no uncertainty that the principal too became obligated through the perforation, because

here

concerning a pot that became perforated,

it is one sowing,

for

it is merely becoming attached, and it continues to rise—

That is, from the time of sowing [when the pot was still not perforated] until the time of perforation, everything is considered one sowing, for the roots of the wheat become attached to the ground through the perforation. Thus even what had already grown at first is as though it had been sown in a perforated pot, and it became obligated in teruma by Torah law.

According to the other version, but

there—

in the uncertainty raised above—

there are two sowings,

for he harvested and then planted again.

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

Rabbi Abahu asked:

An ear that underwent miruach in a heap

and through this became obligated in terumot and tithes,

and he planted it, and designated it by name

as teruma

while attached

to the ground,

what is the law

that this designation should take effect upon it?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Perhaps it should be said:

Since it was smoothed

it is

rendered tevel for him [it has already become tevel, making it liable for teruma], and if so,

when

he designated it

as teruma, even while attached,

it became sanctified for him.

Or perhaps: Since he planted it, its tevel status lapsed from it [its tevel designation lapsed from it].

They said to him

the Sages

questioned

Abaye:

If so—as you proposed, that teruma takes effect upon it while it is still attached—

we find teruma

in what is attached to the ground, and

it is written:

we learned

“We do not find teruma in what is attached to the ground.”

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

He said

to them

Abaye:

It should always be said that in the manner we stated, there is teruma in what is attached to the ground, but

when that was taught, it was with regard to becoming liable for death and an added fifth [for a non-koen who eats teruma: death when he ate intentionally, and an added fifth when he ate unwittingly]—

That is, the intention of the Mishna is that we do not find anyone who becomes liable for death and an added fifth for eating teruma while attached, because even in this manner, in which teruma takes effect upon it, it is impossible for him to become liable for death on account of it, because:

If he detaches it

for him

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

detached,

and this is not eating teruma while attached—

And if he bends down and eats [and if he bends down and eats from the teruma while it is still attached],

his opinion is nullified in relation to all people,

and he is not liable for it for death and an added fifth; and this is what we learned: “We do not find—eating—teruma while attached to the ground.” But as for the teruma itself, it should always be said that it can be found attached, in the manner explained.

And we raise an objection to it:

And what is different—bending down and eating teruma while attached, for which one is not liable because his opinion is nullified in relation to all people—

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

A carcass of a kosher bird does not impart impurity through contact or carrying, like other carcasses, but only in the throat, that is: if one ate the carcass of a kosher bird, he becomes impure and requires the laundering of garments; the wording of the Gemara everywhere is “it imparts impurity to garments in the throat.”

The eggs of the carcass of the kosher bird,

which died while laying them, and

some of them

of the eggs were

outside [outside the body of the carcass]

and some of them

were still

inside,

with their laying not yet completed, this is their law with regard to impurity:

If he put 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 impart impurity to garments in the throat.

But if he ate them

from outside,

they do not impart impurity to garments in the throat.

they impart impurity to garments in the throat.

But if he ate them

from outside,

they do not impart impurity to garments in the throat.

We have therefore learned that even when a person puts his mouth into the bird’s intestines and eats, his eating is considered eating, and we do not say, “His behavior is disregarded as aberrant in relation to all people.” Why, then, is it different when one bends down and eats teruma while it is attached to the ground, where you say, “His behavior is disregarded as aberrant in relation to all people,” and his eating is not considered significant enough to make him liable to death and an added fifth? And we answer: Detached from the ground, even though it is inside the bird’s intestines,

We have thus learned that even when one puts his mouth into the bird’s intestines and eats, his eating is considered eating, and we do not say, “His opinion is nullified in relation to all people.” And what is different about one who bends down and eats teruma while attached to the ground, concerning whom you say, “His opinion is nullified in relation to all people,” and whose eating is not considered significant to make him liable for death and an added fifth?

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?

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 he is not liable for death and an added fifth for this eating.

Rabbi Tovi bar Kisna said in the name of Samuel:

One who sows mixed seeds in an unperforated flowerpot is forbidden,

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

He said,

he wondered,

Abaye:

It is understandable if Samuel had informed us

that he

is flogged with a rebellious flogging by rabbinic law,

for

properly

there would be a novelty in his words.

But “

is forbidden”—

what does it teach us!?

That sowing is [forbidden] by rabbinic law,

and we already

learned:

If he separated teruma from

what was sown in an

unperforated flowerpot

for

what was sown in a

perforated flowerpot, it is

teruma,

and because with regard to the rabbinic law, by which they obligated one to separate teruma even from an unperforated flowerpot, this is one obligation upon another obligation; nevertheless,

he must separate teruma again,

for with regard to Torah law, according to which what is sown in a perforated flowerpot is liable, this is like separating from what is exempt for what is liable—

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

Mishna:

The five species of grain, which are:

wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye, are liable for hallah

if he kneaded dough from them,

and they combine with one another

when he kneaded them together to complete the measure that makes one liable for hallah [“five quarter-kav measures of flour, and more”], and this will be explained further in the Gemara.

And they are forbidden—these five species of grain—

with regard to the new crop,

from eating them

before the Omer—

and they combine with one another

when he kneads them together, in order to complete the measure that creates the obligation of ḥalla [“five kav-measures and a quarter of flour, and more”]. This will be explained further in the Gemara.

And they are forbidden—

these five species of grain—

as new grain

from being eaten

And to reap

them

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:

If they took root before the Omer,

then

the Omer permits them.

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

forbidden until the next Omer comes and permits them.

then

the Omer permits them.

But if not—

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

forbidden until the next Omer offering arrives

and permits them. 2. It was already explained above, in note 69b, that this law can be understood in two ways. The first is: “It is a biblical decree that growths which grew from a permitted root are permitted, since once the root is permitted, all the growths are permitted,” in the wording of Minḥat Ḥinukh [mitzva 303, s.v. “And mainly

; see there, where he wrote that this applies not only when the taking of root occurred before the Omer, but likewise when the taking of root occurred permissibly for another reason—for example, when the root took hold in the possession of a non-Jew and the grain later grew while in the possession of a Jew, the growths would be permitted. For regarding new grain, the Torah revealed that the growths follow the permitted taking of root. He challenged HaMikneh, who wrote otherwise; see there at length. The second explanation is that all grain belonging to the period before the Omer is permitted by the Omer of that year, and the Torah established that the time when the grain took root determines whether all of it belongs to the year before the Omer and is permitted by it, or to the year after it ; This is similar to what we find regarding several laws in which a particular stage of the grain’s growth determines whether all the grain belongs to this year or to the following year ; We also find elsewhere that the taking of root is determinative. See Rosh Hashana 13b: “We learned there—in Shevi’it 2:7: Rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame seeds that took root before Rosh Hashana are tithed according to the previous year [with regard to the second tithe or the tithe for the poor] and are permitted during the Sabbatical Year. If not, they are forbidden during the Sabbatical Year and are tithed according to the following year.” Rabba said: “The Sages said: A tree follows the stage of budding; grain and olives follow the stage of one-third growth; vegetables follow the time they are picked. [Rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame seeds], since they are processed in separate stages, the Sages made them follow the time they take root

.” This is precisely the same definition with regard to the Omer. It is possible that this is what was intended in the glosses of Har Tzvi, whose words were cited in the notes to the new edition of Minḥat Ḥinukh

. This will be explained further in the notes on the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye are liable for hallah, and they combine with one another:

We learned in the Mishna in Hallah 4:1:

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

And the early authorities disagreed in explaining this Mishna:

The view of most of the early authorities—and it is according to the Jerusalem Talmud—is that what is explained in our Mishna concerning all the species, “and they combine with one another,” and the law of the Mishna in Hallah, are two matters:

Our Mishna [and likewise the Mishna in Hallah 1:1, which is like our Mishna] deals with combining flours into one dough, and concerning this, indeed all the species combine with one another, in accordance with the plain meaning of the Mishna’s wording. But the Mishna in Hallah, chapter 4, deals with combining doughs that bite into one another, and concerning this not all the species combine, but only in the manner explained there.

But Rashi’s view is: It is all one matter, and what we learned in our Mishna, “and they combine with one another,” means specifically in the manner explained in the Mishna in Hallah.

A tanna

in a beraita, to explain the Mishna in Hallah, chapter 4:

Spelt

is also a species of wheat

besides its being a species of barley; 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: