Menachot — Daf 69a

בכורים לפירא קא אמרינן למזבח קא אמרינן והא אכיל לה מזבח מפירי דהא שתא

בעי רמי בר חמא שתי הלחם הנצה שריא או חנטה שרייה מאי הנצה ומאי חנטה אילימא הנצה דפירא וחנטה דפירא השתא השרשה שריא הנצה וחנטה מיבעיא

אלא הנצה דעלה וחנטה דעלה מי הוי כי השרשה או לא תיקו

בעי רבא בר רב חנן חטין שזרען בקרקע עומר מתירן או אין עומר מתירן היכי דמי אי דאשרוש תנינא אי דלא אשרוש תנינא

דתנן אם השרישו קודם לעומר עומר מתירן ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבא עומר הבא

לא צריכא דחצדינהו וזרעינהו קודם לעומר ואתא עומר וחליף עלייהו וקא מיבעיא ליה מהו לנקוטי ומיכל מינייהו כמאן דשדייא בכדא דמיא ושרינהו עומר או דלמא בטיל להו לגבי ארעא

יש להן אונאה או אין להן אונאה

היכי דמי אילימא דאמר ליה שדאי בה שיתא ואתו סהדי ואמרי דלא שדא בה אלא חמשה והאמר רבא כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה חוזר

אלא דאמר ליה שדאי בה כדבעי לה ואתו סהדי ואמרי דלא שדא בה כדבעי לה יש להן אונאה דכמאן דשדייא בכדא דמיא ויש להן אונאה או דלמא בטיל להו לגבי ארעא

נשבעין עליהן או אין נשבעין עליהן כדשדייא בכדא דמיא וכמטלטלי דמו ונשבעין עליהן או דלמא בטיל להו אגב ארעא וכמקרקעי דמו ואין נשבעין עליהן תיקו

בעי רמי בר חמא חטין שבגללי בקר ושעורין שבגללי בהמה מהו למאי אילימא לטמויי טומאת אוכלין תנינא חטין שברעי בקר ושעורין שבגללי בהמה חישב עליהן לאכילה אין מטמא טומאת אוכלין לקטן לאכילה מטמא טומאת אוכלין

אלא למנחות פשיטא דלא (מלאכי א, ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך

לא צריכא דנקטינהו וזרעינהו וקא בעי לאיתויי מנחות מינייהו מאי משום דמאיסותא הוא וכיון דזרעינהו אזדא למאיסותייהו או דלמא משום כחישותא הוא והשתא נמי כחושה תיקו

בעי רמי בר חמא פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית והקיאה דרך בית הרעי מהו למאי

אילימא למבטל טומאתה תנינא כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה

לא צריכא דבלע הוצין ועבדינהו כפיפה מצרית מי הוה עיכול הוה ליה

that we require [the Two Loaves] to be the first-fruits of any particular fruit?1 [No.] we require them to be the first-fruits of the altar,2 and in this case the altar has consumed of this year's produce.3 Rami b. Hama raised the question. Do [the Two Loaves] permit what is in bud4 or only what is in distinct formation?5 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 root6 [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,7 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.8 — The case must be that one reaped [the wheat] and resowed [the grains] before the ‘Omer, and then the ‘Omer came and went by;9 and the question is: may one take them10 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?11 Does the law of overreaching apply to it12 or not?13 — But what are the circumstances? Shall we say that he14 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!15 -The case must be that he14 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;16 or perhaps it has become assimilated to the soil?17 Is an oath taken concerning it or not?18 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.19 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?20 — 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;21 or is it on account of their leanness,22 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,23 but we have learnt it: All articles are rendered susceptible to uncleanness through intention.24 and divest themselves of their uncleanness only by an act which changes them!25 -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] Loaves as first-fruits. individual as first-fruits, but not those which were not in bud at that time. first-fruits, but not those which were only in bud then. the leaves that corresponds to it? short while before the ‘Omer and it had not taken root at the time of the ‘Omer. the goods, the transaction must stand; if it is more than a sixth it is void; if exactly a sixth it is valid but the amount of error must be returned. V.B.M. 50b. It is, however, established (B.M. 56a) that the law of overreaching does not apply to land. The case under consideration is this: where a man undertakes to sow another's field with wheat, he having to supply the wheat, is the transaction one of land or of movables? a sixth; v. B.M. 56b; Kid. 42b. transactions of land; the question therefore is whether any claim concerning the wheat sown is regarded as one affecting land or not. having lost all their sap; so that when sown they could only produce a meagre and lean crop, unsuitable for offerings. having divested itself of its uncleanness. serves another purpose and for that purpose the article is not yet complete) makes it susceptible to contract uncleanness. E.g.. a hide is normally used for the making of shoes, so that before it is made into shoes it will not contract uncleanness. If, however, a man intended to use the hide, as it is now, for a mattress or a table cover, it thereby becomes susceptible to contract uncleanness. XXV, 9. Shab. 52b; Suk. 13b; Kid. 59a). In the case in question, since the basket is unchanged it still retains its uncleanness.