Parallel
מנחות 69
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
that we require [the Two Loaves] to be the first-fruits of any particular fruit? [No.] we require them to be the first-fruits of the altar, and in this case the altar has consumed of this year's produce. Rami b. Hama raised the question. Do [the Two Loaves] permit what is in bud or only what is in distinct formation? What is meant by ‘in bud’ and what by ‘distinct formation’? Shall I say [that it means] the budding of the fruit and the distinct formation of the fruit? But surely if they permit [corn] which has only taken root, they will certainly permit fruits which are in bud or are distinctly formed! — Rather [we must say that it means] the budding of the leaves and the distinct formation of the leaves; and the question is: which of these stages corresponds to the taking root [of corn]?-This remains unanswered. before the Two Loaves; and a second time, after the Two Loaves. Now the wheat of the first sowing could be used for the next ‘Omer, and thereafter all the wheat of that sowing would be permitted, for it is now held that grain over which there have passed the two periods, even though not in the usual sequence (for here the Two Loaves passed by it first), is permitted; and the wheat of the second sowing would be used for the Two Loaves, which would truly be first-fruits, as this crop of wheat has not been used before. The fact the Tanna does not accept this position proves that the grain is not permitted unless the various periods pass by it in the proper sequence; so that, in the above case, the grain of the first sowing would not be permitted until after the Two Loaves had been offered; and as the wheat of this sowing was offered for the ‘Omer the offering of the Two Loaves would not be firstfruits. Raba son of R. Hanan raised the question, Does the ‘Omer permit the wheat that is sown in the soil or not?- But what are the circumstances? If it took root, we have learnt it; and if not, we have also learnt it. For we learnt: If they had taken root before the ‘Omer, the ‘Omer permits them; and if not, they are forbidden until the next [year's] ‘Omer. — The case must be that one reaped [the wheat] and resowed [the grains] before the ‘Omer, and then the ‘Omer came and went by; and the question is: may one take them out and eat them, for they are regarded as though they were lying in a pitcher, and the Omer has rendered them permitted; or perhaps they have become assimilated to the soil? Does the law of overreaching apply to it or not? — But what are the circumstances? Shall we say that he said, ‘I cast therein six [measures of grain]’, and witnesses came forward and testified that he cast therein but five? But Raba has said, On account of any fraud in measure, weight or number, even though it is less than the standard of overreaching, one can retract! -The case must be that he said, ‘I cast therein as much as was necessary’, but witnesses came forward and testified that he did not cast therein as much as was necessary. Now the question is this: does the law of overreaching apply to it, for it is as though it were lying in a pitcher; or perhaps it has become assimilated to the soil? Is an oath taken concerning it or not? Is it as though it were lying in a pitcher, so that it is regarded as movables and an oath must be taken on account of it; or perhaps it has become assimilated to the soil, so that it is regarded as land and no oath may be taken on account of it? — These questions remain unanswered. Rami b. Hama raised the question. What is the position with regard to the grains of wheat found in cattle dung or the grains of barley found in animal dung? — In what connection does this question arise? If you say in connection with their suffering food uncleanness, but we have learnt it: Grains of wheat found in cattle dung or grains of barley found in animal dung, even though one intended them as food, do not suffer food uncleanness; if one intended them as food for a child, they do suffer food uncleanness. And if you say in connection with meal-offerings, but it is obvious [that they may not be used for this purpose]; Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? — The case can only arise where one gathered [these grains] and sowed them, and one now wishes to bring [out of the new growth] a meal-offering. Is it on account of repulsiveness [that they must not be used for meal-offerings], but when they have been sown their repulsiveness is gone; or is it on account of their leanness, and now, too, they are lean?-The question remains undecided. Rami b. Hama raised the question. What is the law if an elephant swallowed an osier basket and passed it out with its excrement? In what connection does the question arise? If you say with regard to the annulment of its uncleanness, but we have learnt it: All articles are rendered susceptible to uncleanness through intention. and divest themselves of their uncleanness only by an act which changes them! -The case must be that it swallowed twigs and [the twigs when passed out] were made into an osier basket, and the question is: are [the twigs] regarded as ‘digested’ so that now [what is made from them is accounted]
—
as a vessel made from cattle dung or from earth, which does not contract uncleanness, for the Master has stated, Vessels made from stone, from cattle dung or from earth do not contract uncleanness, either by Biblical or by Rabbinical law; or perhaps they are not regarded as ‘digested’? — But surely the question can be solved from the following statement of ‘Ulla which he reported in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: It once happened that wolves devoured two children beyond the Jordan and they discharged them through the excretory canal; and when the fact came before the Sages they declared the [excreted] flesh as clean! Flesh is different for it is tender. Then let it be solved from the next line: And they declared the [excreted] bones as unclean! — Bones are different for they are exceptionally hard. R. Zera raised the question. What is the law with regard to wheat which fell from the clouds?-In what connection is the question raised? If [the question is raised as to its use] for meal-offerings, but why should it not be used? — It is raised in connection with the Two Loaves: [shall we say that] the Divine Law stated, Out of your dwellings. to exclude what comes from outside the land [of Israel], but what comes from the clouds would be permitted; or perhaps Scripture restricted it exclusively [to what comes] out of your dwellings, so that what comes from the clouds would also not [be permitted]? But can it ever happen so? Indeed yes, for there once came down [from the clouds] to Bar ‘Adi, the Arab, [a layer of wheat] the height of a handsbreadth over an area of three parasangs. R. Simeon b. Pazzi raised the question, What is the law if an ear of corn, which had reached a third of its growth before the ‘Omer, had been plucked out [before the ‘Omer] and was replanted after the ‘Omer when it increased its growth? Do we have regard to the stock [of the corn], and that was rendered permitted by the ‘Omer; or do we have regard to the increase, and that [will be permitted] only after next year's ‘Omer? — But surely the question can be solved from the following statement of R. Abbahu which he said in the name of R. Johanan: If a young shoot laden with fruit was grafted on to an old tree, even if [the fruit had as a result] increased two hundredfold. it is still forbidden. Furthermore. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan, If an onion was planted in a vineyard. and the vineyard was later uprooted, even though [the onion had thereafter] increased two hundredfold, it is still forbidden? -It was [those very rulings] which caused him to raise the question. Were those Rabbis certain of the ruling that we have regard to the stock, and they would apply it to all cases whether it would lead to leniency or stringency; or perhaps they were in doubt about it, so that they applied it only to those cases which lead to stringency but not to those which lead to leniency? — This remains undecided. Raba raised the question. What is the position with regard to tithing? In what circumstances? Where, for example,
—