Menachot 70b — the Talmud in English

That is

gulba; rye:

that is

dishra; oats:

that is

shibulei taala.

Here the Gemara returns to explain our Mishna:

It is implied, then, that only

these

these five species]

do not, indeed they are obligated in ḥalla, but

indeed incur the obligation of ḥalla, the portion separated from dough, but

rice and millet—

not.

From where are these words

that they are not obligated in ḥalla?

Said

Rish Lakish explained:

it is derived by means of the expression

“bread, bread”

from matza: it is written here

with regard to ḥalla [Numbers 15:19]:

“And it shall be, when you eat from the bread of the land

you shall raise a gift-offering to the Lord. The first of your kneading-troughs you shall raise as a gift-offering,”—

and it is written there

with regard to matza [Deuteronomy 16:3], “Seven days you shall eat matzot upon it,

bread of affliction,”—

And we derive: just as matza is fit only from the five species of grain, so too ḥalla need be separated only from the five species of grain.

And the Gemara discusses:

and there itself,

with matza itself,

from where do we know

that it is fit only from the five species of grain, and not from rice and millet?

Said

Rish Lakish explained,

and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

The verse says [there]:

“You shall not eat leavened upon it; seven days you shall eat matzot upon it, bread of affliction.”

The verse teaches that only

things that come to leavening,

from the five species of grain, with which I fulfill “You shall not eat leavened upon it,”

does a person fulfill through them his obligation on Passover,

and with which I fulfill “Seven days you shall eat matzot upon it,”—

these are excluded,

rice and millet,

which do not come to leavening, but only to putrefaction,

and I do not fulfill through them “You shall not eat leavened upon it”; therefore, I likewise do not fulfill through them “Seven days you shall eat matzot upon it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And they combine with one another:

The tanna taught

in a beraita:

The grain

[grain kernels before grinding]

and the flours and the doughs combine with one another.

the flours, and the doughs combine with one another.

And the Gemara discusses:

For what halakhic matter?

For what matter and law do these three things combine?

Rav Kahana said: For the matter of ḥadash, to say that if he ate an olive-bulk of all of them together before the omer, he is flogged on account of “And bread and parched grain and fresh grain you shall not eat until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God.”

that is, if one ate an olive-bulk of all of them together before the Omer offering, he is flogged because of the prohibition: “You shall not eat bread, roasted grain, or fresh grain until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God.”

Rav Yosef said: For the matter of leavened food on Passover,

they combine, as, for example, if he soaked the wheat in water and it became leavened, and combined it with doughs and flours to the measure of an olive-bulk, he is liable to lashes and karet if deliberate, and a sin-offering if inadvertent.

Rav Pappa said: For the matter of second tithe,

they combine,

for if he ate it

[if he ate an olive-bulk of all these when they were second tithe]

outside the wall

of Jerusalem,

he is flogged

on their account, because of [Deuteronomy 12:17], “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine and your oil.”

A. There is nothing that contracts impurity except a person, a vessel, or food.

B. The measure of impure food in order to render [another] impure is an egg-bulk; and its measure in order to contract impurity is any amount [according to Rashi’s method in several places].

Rava said: For the matter of

rendering impure

food impurity, for if he combined from all of these the measure of an egg-bulk, they render impure.

If he combined an egg-bulk from all of these, they impart impurity.

And this it teaches us,

the beraita, by saying that they combine with regard to impurity:

that grain

[barley grain, as it explains and proceeds]

and flours

do not combine to complete the measure except when they are

similar to doughs.

Just as there

[with dough]

the food is itself

[the food is in its own form, that is, it is entirely food, without a husk or something similar that joins to it],

so here

[grain and flours]

also, they do not combine to complete the measure except when they are

they combine to complete the measure only when

the food itself,

when there is no husk with the barley and no bran mixed into the flour. But barley that is not hulled does not combine, and even the food within it does not combine, because the inedible husk interrupts, and there is no contact between the food inside the barley and the other food joined to it, so that they should combine with one another to the measure for rendering impure. Likewise, the bran in the flour does not combine to complete the measure.

But it was taught—and so we learned in a beraita: only

wheat

is impure,

whether

it is

hulled

or

whether it is not hulled,

it

combines [it and its husk] with other food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk to render others impure, because the husk of wheat is soft and fit for eating.

[with its husk] with other food to complete an egg-bulk sufficient to impart impurity to others, because the husk of wheat is soft and fit to be eaten.

But

barley, only when it is

only when it is

hulled

does it

combine; but barley

But barley

that is not hulled does not

at all, because the shell intervenes.

combine

at all, because the husk interrupts.

And also the grain that we learned in the beraita was necessary to teach us only with regard to barley; but with wheat, they combine in every case.

And we object:

Is that so? Surely the law is not so, for since the barley husk is not food, it does not combine to complete the measure of an egg-bulk, for:

But the law is not so: Since the barley husk is not food, it does not combine to complete an egg-bulk, as is evident from the following:

But the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: with regard to food impurity it is written [Leviticus 11:37], “And if any of their carcass falls

It is written concerning food impurity [Leviticus 11:37]: “If any part of their carcass falls

upon any sowable seed that is sown”

[and water has not yet come upon it to prepare it to contract impurity], “it is pure. But when water is put upon any seed and some of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you,” [for water prepares foods to contract impurity]—

And therefore the verse said “that is sown,” to teach: even seeds

in the manner that human beings

do not refrain from

take them out

in this manner

for sowing,

that is:

wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, and lentils in their husk—

even in this manner they do not become impure through the carcass’s touching the husk, only because they have not yet been prepared to contract impurity. But when they become prepared to contract impurity, then they become impure even though the carcass touched only the husk; and the verse comes to teach the novelty that even that which is not food in itself, since it is a “protector” for the fruit inside it, is like the fruit.

And the verse did not need to teach us that the “protector” “brings” impurity into the food when impurity touched it, for this we already knew from another place, as explained in Hullin 118a. And the principal purpose of the verse is to teach us that the “protector” is like the fruit also to join with the food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk for rendering impure. We have thus learned from all this that the barley husk combines to complete the measure of an egg-bulk, and not as explained in the beraita, that the barley husk does not combine to complete the measure!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This

[that the barley husk is important as a “protector”]—

with

barley

that is moist,

for indeed its husk protects the fruit.

That

[that we learned: barley that is not hulled does not combine]—

with

barley

that is dry,

for its husk is not important as a “protector,” because it crumbles and falls away.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they are prohibited as ḥadash from before the omer:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words

that these five species of grain alone are prohibited on account of ḥadash, whereas rice and millet are not prohibited?

Said

Rish Lakish explained:

it is derived

“bread” [“And bread and parched grain and fresh grain you shall not eat … until you bring the offering of your God”]

[“You shall not eat bread, roasted grain, or fresh grain… until you bring the offering of your God”] and

“bread”

from matza [“bread of affliction”]—

[“the bread of affliction”]—

Just as matza is fit only from the five species of grain and not from rice and millet, as explained above, so too the prohibition of ḥadash applies only to the five species of grain and not to rice and millet.

We learned in the Mishna:

And to reap before Passover:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words

that these five species of grain in the Mishna are the ones whose reaping is prohibited before the reaping of the omer?

Said

Rabbi Yohanan explained:

it is derived

“first” [“the first of your harvest,” from which the law of the prohibition of reaping is learned]

[“the first of your harvest,” from which the prohibition of cutting is derived] and

“first”

[“The first of your kneading-troughs you shall raise as a gift-offering”]

from ḥalla, and ḥalla itself is learned—“bread, bread” from matza, which is fit from the five species of grain.

The law of ḥalla itself is derived through “bread, bread” from matza, which is valid when made from the five species of grain.

Here the Gemara returns to discuss what we learned in the Mishna: “And they are prohibited as ḥadash before the omer.”

Above, on 68a, Rav and Shmuel disagreed with Rabbi Yohanan and Rish Lakish, according to the view of the Sages who hold that when the Temple is not standing, the dawn permits, concerning what the law is when the Temple is standing. According to Rav and Shmuel, the bringing of the omer is what permits. But according to Rabbi Yohanan and Rish Lakish, even when the Temple is standing, the dawn permits; nevertheless, as a mitzva, one must wait until the omer is brought.

What is

“before the omer”?

That is, when the Temple is standing, must one wait before eating from the ḥadash until the omer is actually brought, or is it sufficient to wait until the dawn?

Rabbi Yona said:

Before the reaping of the omer

alone is the ḥadash prohibited for eating; that is, “the dawn” after the reaping of the omer is what permits the ḥadash, even when the Temple is standing.

Rabbi Yose bar Zavda said: Before the bringing of the omer

it is actually prohibited to eat, for the dawn does not permit during the time that the Temple is standing; rather, the bringing of the omer is what permits it. And we object to the view that says that “the dawn” permits, from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

They are prohibited as ḥadash before the omer, and to reap before Passover:

It is well according to the one who says

to explain what we learned, “And they are prohibited as ḥadash—for eating—before the omer,” as meaning

before the bringing of the omer; this is why he does not combine them and teach them together,

for this reason the Mishna separates the prohibition of reaping from the prohibition of eating, because their times are not the same: with reaping, the prohibition lasts only until the reaping of the omer, whereas the permission of ḥadash for eating is with the offering of the omer.

But according to the one who says: Before the reaping of the omer,

and once the dawn has come the ḥadash is already permitted even for eating, then

let him combine them and teach them together

[let the tanna combine and include the time of permission for eating ḥadash with the time of permission for reaping ḥadash], and let him teach as follows:

They are prohibited as ḥadash and for reaping before Passover,

for their time is one and the same time!?

Rather, if it was stated -

the dispute of Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda with Rabbi Yona

was stated concerning the latter clause

of our Mishna

;

as we learned in the latter clause

: If they took root before the Omer, the Omer permits them;

but if not, they are forbidden until the next Omer comes; and it is concerning this that it was stated:

What is meant by

“before the Omer”?

Rabbi Yona said:

If they took root

before the bringing of the Omer,

the Omer permits them for eating, even if they took root after the eastern horizon had brightened.

Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda said:

If they took root

before the reaping of the Omer -

that is, before the eastern horizon brightened after the reaping of the Omer - the Omer permits them; but if not—that they took root after the eastern horizon brightened—even though they took root before the bringing of the Omer, the Omer does not permit them for eating.