Menachot 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

That is

gulba; rye:

That is

dishra; oats:

That is

fox-tail grain.

Here the Gemara returns to explain our Mishna:

It is implied that only

these [

five species]

do not—indeed, they are obligated in ḥalla, whereas

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

rice and millet—

are not.

From where are these words

that they are not obligated in ḥalla?

Said

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It is derived through the verbal analogy of

“bread, bread”

from matza: It is written here

with regard to ḥalla [Numbers 15:19]:

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

you shall offer a gift to the Lord. The first portion of your kneading shall you offer as a gift”—

and it is written there

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

bread of affliction”—

And we derive: Just as matza is valid only when made from the five species of grain, so too, ḥalla need be separated only from the five species of grain.

The Gemara discusses:

And with regard to that verse itself

concerning matza,

from where do we know

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

Said

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish,

and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, and likewise the tanna of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov:

The verse states [there]:

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

The verse teaches that only

items that can become leavened

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

may a person fulfill his obligation with them on Passover,

and with which I fulfill “For seven days you shall eat matzot with it”—

excluding these,

rice and millet,

which do not become leavened, but only spoiled

and therefore I do not fulfill with them “You shall not eat leavened bread with it,” and consequently I also do not fulfill with them “For seven days you shall eat matzot with it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And they combine with one another:

The tanna

states in a beraita:

The grain

[grain kernels before grinding]

grain kernels before grinding and the flours and the doughs combine with one another.

the flours, and the doughs combine with one another.

The Gemara discusses:

For what halakhic purpose?

For what matter and law do these three items combine?

Rav Kahana said: With regard to the new grain—

meaning that if one ate an olive-bulk of all of them together before the offering of the omer, he is flogged on account of: “And you shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain, until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God.”

Rav Yosef said: With regard to leaven on Passover

they combine. For example, if one soaked wheat in water and it became leavened, and combined it with doughs and flours to make an olive-bulk, he is liable to lashes and karet if he ate it intentionally, and to a sin-offering if he ate it unintentionally.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to second tithe

they combine,

for if he ate it

an olive-bulk of all these items when they were second tithe

outside the wall

of Jerusalem,

he is flogged

for violating: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, or your oil.”

A. Nothing can contract impurity except a person, a vessel, or food.

B. The measure of impure food sufficient to render others impure is an egg-bulk; but the measure sufficient for it to contract impurity is any amount [according to Rashi’s method in several places].

Rava said: With regard

to rendering

food susceptible to impurity,

for if he combined an egg-bulk from all of these items, they render others impure.

And this is what the beraita teaches us

when it states that they combine with regard to impurity:

The grain

[barley grain, as it explains and proceeds]

the grain of barley, as it will explain and the flours

combine for the measure only when they are

similar to doughs.

Just as there

in the case of

with regard to dough the food is present as it is

the food itself is entirely food, without a shell or the like attached to it

,

so too here

also,

they combine to complete the measure only when they are

food in its natural state,

when there is no shell on the barley and no bran mixed into the flour. But unhulled barley does not combine, and even the food within it does not combine, because the inedible shell intervenes, and there is no contact between the food inside the barley and the other food combined with it, so that they might combine to form the measure required to render others impure. Similarly, the bran in the flour does not combine to complete the measure.

But was it not taught that, as we learned in a beraita: Only

wheat

is impure,

whether

it is

hulled

or

whether it is unhulled,

it

combines

[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.

it and its shell combine with other food to complete an egg-bulk and render others impure, because the shell of wheat is soft and fit for eating . But

barley,

only when it is

hulled

does it

combine; but barley

that is unhulled does not

combine

at all, because the shell intervenes.

combine

at all, because the husk separates it.

And the grain mentioned in the beraita needed to be stated only with regard to barley; but with regard to wheat, it combines in every case.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

But the law is not so, for since the shell of barley is not food, it does not combine to complete an egg-bulk, as—

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael

states: It is written with regard to impurity of food [Leviticus 11:37]: “And if any part of their carcass falls

upon any sowable seed that is to be sown”

[and it has not yet come into contact with water, which would prepare it to become susceptible to impurity], “it remains pure. But if water is put on any seed and part of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you” [since water prepares food to become susceptible to impurity]—

and it has not yet come into contact with water to render it susceptible to impurity —it is pure. But when water is put on any seed and any part of their carcass falls upon it, it is impure for you,” as water renders food susceptible to contracting impurity — And therefore the verse says “that is to be sown,” to teach: Even seeds that

people ordinarily

do not refrain from

taking

them as they are

for sowing

—that is:

wheat in its shell, barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells—

even in this state they do not contract impurity when a carcass touches the shell, solely because they have not yet been rendered susceptible to impurity. But once they are rendered susceptible to impurity, they become impure even when the carcass touched only the shell. The verse comes to teach that even something that is not food in itself, since it serves as a “protective covering” for the fruit inside, has the status of the fruit.

The verse did not need to teach us that the protective covering “brings” impurity into the food when impurity touches it, since this was already known from another source, as explained in Hullin 118a. The essential purpose of the verse is to teach us that the protective covering has the status of the fruit even with regard to combining with the food to complete an egg-bulk and render others impure. We have therefore learned from all this that the shell of barley does combine to complete an egg-bulk, contrary to what is explained in the beraita, that the shell of barley does not combine to complete the measure!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult:

This—

when the shell of barley is considered a “protective covering”—

concerns

fresh

barley, whose shell indeed protects the fruit.

for its husk indeed protects the fruit.

That—

where we learned that unhulled barley does not combine—

concerns

dry

barley, whose shell is not considered a “protective covering,” because it crumbles and falls away.

whose husk is not considered a “protective covering,” because it crumbles and falls away.

We learned in the Mishna:

And they are prohibited as new grain before the omer:

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words,

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

Said

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish:

It is derived from the word

“bread” [“And you shall eat neither bread, nor roasted grain, nor fresh grain… until you have brought the offering of your God”] and the word

[“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 valid only when made from the five species of grain and not from rice or millet, as explained above, so too, the prohibition of new grain applies only to the five species of grain and not to rice or 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 mentioned in the Mishna are the ones prohibited to reap before the reaping of the omer?

Said

Rabbi Yohanan:

It is derived from the word

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

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

“first” [

the first portion of your kneading shall you offer as a gift]

from ḥalla, and ḥalla itself is derived through “bread, bread” from matza, which is valid when made 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 new grain before the omer”:

Earlier, on 68a, Rav and Shmuel disagreed with Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, according to the view of the Sages who maintain that when the Temple is not standing, the morning light permits the new grain, concerning the law when the Temple is standing. According to Rav and Shmuel, it is the bringing of the omer that permits it. According to Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, even when the Temple is standing, the morning light permits it; nevertheless, as a mitzva, one must wait until the omer is offered.

What does

“before the omer” mean?

That is, when the Temple is standing, must one refrain from eating new grain until the omer is actually brought, or is it sufficient to wait until the morning light?

Rabbi Yona said:

It is only before the reaping of the omer

that new grain is prohibited for consumption; that is, the “morning light” after the reaping of the omer permits the new grain even when the Temple is standing.

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

it is actually prohibited to eat it, for the morning light does not permit it when the Temple is standing; rather, it is the bringing of the omer that permits it. And we challenge the view that the “morning light” permits it, from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

They are prohibited as new grain before the omer, and it is prohibited to reap before Passover:

It works well according to the one who says

that the statement we learned, “And they are prohibited as new grain before the omer,” means “before the bringing of the omer”;

this is why he did not combine them and teach them together,

and the Mishna distinguishes the prohibition of reaping from the prohibition of consumption, because their times are not the same: The prohibition of reaping lasts only until the reaping of the omer, whereas the new grain becomes permitted for consumption when the omer is offered.

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

and once the morning light appears the new grain is already permitted even for consumption, then

let him combine them and teach them together

[let the tanna combine and include the time when the new grain becomes permitted for eating with the time when the new grain becomes permitted for cutting], and teach as follows:

let the tanna combine and include the time when new grain becomes permitted for consumption with the time when new grain becomes permitted for reaping , and teach as follows: They are prohibited as new grain and for reaping before Passover,

since they have the same time!?

Rather, if it was stated, –

the dispute between Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda and Rabbi Yona was stated –

with regard to the latter clause

of our Mishna:

it was stated:

as we learned in the latter clause:

“If they took root before the Omer, the Omer permits them”;

but if not, they are prohibited until the next Omer arrives. And it is with regard to 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 to be eaten, 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—if 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 to be eaten.