מנחות 67 — parallel

67:1

The rolling out of dough belonging [at the time] to the Temple exempts it [from the dough-offering]. For we learnt: If a woman dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before she had rolled it out, and redeemed it, it is still liable to the dough-offering. If [she dedicated it] after she had rolled it out and then redeemed it, it is still liable. If she dedicated it before she had rolled it out and the Temple treasurer rolled it out, and afterwards she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time when dough becomes liable [to the dough-offering] it was exempt. Raba, however, raised the question. What is the law if the dough when it was rolled out belonged to a gentile? We have indeed learnt: If a man became a proselyte and he had dough that was already rolled out before he became a proselyte he is exempt [from the dough-offering]. If [the dough was rolled out] after he became a proselyte, he is liable. If it is in doubt, he is liable. Now whose opinion is represented in this Mishnah? [Is it] the opinion of all? For even R. Meir and R. Judah who in that other case declare it liable [to the tithe], in this case declare it exempt; [their argument being that] in the other cases Scripture stated ‘thy corn’ several times, [each expression serving to exclude the corn of a gentile,] we thus have a limitation followed by a limitation, and wherever a limitation is followed by a limitation its purpose is nothing else but to include, so that even [the corn] of a gentile is liable [to tithe]; whereas in this case, since the expression ‘your dough’ is stated twice only, the one expression ‘your dough’ excludes the dough of a gentile, and the other expression ‘your dough’ excludes the dough that belongs to the Temple. Or perhaps this Mishnah represents the opinions of R. Jose and R. Simeon only who in that other case declare it exempt, but according to R. Meir and R. Judah [the dough of a gentile would be liable to the dough-offering, for they] infer this case from the other case by reason of the common expression ‘the first’? — May it be the will [of God], prayed Raba, that I behold [the answer to my question] in a dream! Afterwards Raba came to the conclusion that he who holds that the smoothing of the pile of corn belonging to a gentile exempts it [from tithes], also holds that the rolling out of dough belonging to a gentile exempts it [from the dough-offering]; and he who holds that the smoothing of the pile of corn belonging to a gentile does not exempt it, also holds that the rolling out of dough belonging to a gentile does not exempt it. R. Papa raised the following objection against Raba: If a gentile [now a proselyte] set apart the firstling of his ass, or the dough-offering, he must be informed that he is exempt therefrom; his dough-offering may therefore be eaten by non-priests, and the firstling may be shorn and put to work. It follows, however, that the terumah [that he had set apart from his corn] is forbidden. Accordingly this Tanna is of the opinion that the smoothing of the pile of corn belonging to a gentile does not exempt it [from tithes], and [yet he holds] that the rolling out of the dough belonging to a gentile exempts it [from the dough-offering]! Furthermore, Rabina raised the following objection against Raba: As to the dough-offering set apart by a gentile [now a proselyte] in the lands [of Israel], or his terumah outside the land [of Israel]. he must be informed that he is exempt therefrom; his dough-offering may therefore be eaten by non-priests, and his terumah would not render [the other produce into which it may fall] subject to the laws of terumah. It follows, however, that the terumah he set apart in the land [of Israel] is forbidden [to non-priests] and also renders [the other produce into which it may fall] subject to the laws of terumah. Accordingly this Tanna holds that the smoothing of the pile of corn belonging to a gentile does not exempt it [from tithes], and yet [he holds] that the rolling out of the dough belonging to a gentile exempts it [from the dough-offering]! — It is only so Rabbinically, as a precautionary measure against men of wealth.16

—

67:2

Then the same should be said of the dough-offering, should it not? — It is always possible [to avoid the dough-offering] by baking [quantities of dough each] less than five quarters of a kab and a little more of flour. Then with the terumah, too, it is always possible [to avoid the terumah] by acting according to R. Oshaia's ruling; for R. Oshaia said, A man can resort to a device with his produce and bring it in [to his house] together with the chaff, so that his cattle may eat of it and it is exempt from the tithe; or he can bring it in by way of the roof or by way of a back enclosure! — In the latter case, since it is done openly, he would be ashamed of it; but in the former case it is done in private and he would not be ashamed of it. MISHNAH. HE THEN CAME TO THE TENTH, PUT IN OIL AND ITS FRANKINCENSE, POURED IN THE OIL, MINGLED IT, WAVED IT, BROUGHT IT NEAR [TO THE ALTAR], TOOK FROM IT THE HANDFUL AND BURNT IT; AND THE REMAINDER WAS EATEN BY THE PRIESTS. AFTER THE OMER WAS OFFERED THEY USED TO GO OUT AND FIND THE MARKET OF JERUSALEM ALREADY FULL OF MEAL AND PARCHED CORN [OF THE NEW PRODUCE]; THIS, HOWEVER, DID NOT MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SAGES. SO R. MEIR. R. JUDAH SAYS, THEY DID SO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SAGES. GEMARA. And does not R. Judah apprehend lest one might eat of it? But I can point out a contradiction to this, for we have learnt: Judah says, One searches on the night [preceding] the fourteenth day [of Nisan], or on the morning of the fourteenth, or at the time for its removal. But the Sages say, If a man has not searched etc. — Rabbah answered, It is different with the new produce,

—