Parallel
מנחות 70
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the ears of corn were tithed by conjectural estimate and the rest was resown and had increased in growth. And should you say that [in this case] we have no regard to the stock, so that the increase must be tithed, the question will remain, What about the stock itself? -Said to him Abaye, Wherein does this differ from ordinary wheat and barley? — He replied. In those cases where the seed decays I have no doubt at all; my question only refers to the case where what was sown does not decay. What is then the position with regard to this? — But surely this can be solved from the following statement of R. Isaac which he said in the name of R. Johanan: If a litra of onions was tithed and then replanted, the tithe must again be taken from the whole [of the growth]! — In this case it is the usual manner of planting. but in the former case that is not the usual manner of sowing. R. Hanina b. Manyomi put the following to Abaye. What is the law with regard to the growth in a plant-pot that was not perforated? — But surely if it is not perforated, it is not perforated! Perhaps you refer to an unperforated pot which was later perforated! -Here there is but one sowing and it has now become joined [to the earth] and is growing up, whereas in the other case there were two sowings! R. Abbahu raised this question. What is the law if an ear of corn, which had been in the pile when it was smoothed off, had been replanted and designated [as terumah] when attached [to the soil]? Do we say that since it was in the pile when it was smoothed off it then became tebel, and therefore when it is later designated [as terumah, even though attached to the soil], it is consecrated [as terumah]; or perhaps since it was replanted its tebel state has passed? — The Rabbis thereupon said to Abaye, If [we say] so, then we find produce that is attached to the soil consecrated as terumah, and we have learnt: We do not find produce that is attached to the soil consecrated as terumah! — He replied. That was taught only in connection with the liability of death [at the hands of Heaven] and the payment of the added fifth. For if one plucked it out and ate it, one has then eaten what was detached from soil; and if one bent down and ate it, that act runs counter to the acts of men. Wherein is this case different from that which is stated in Ilfa's note-book, viz., As regards the eggs that were partly out-, side the carcass of a clean bird and partly inside, the inside part renders unclean whilst it is in the gullet the clothes [of him that eats it]; but the outside part does not render unclean whilst it is in the gullet the clothes [of him that eats it]!-What is not attached [to the soil] people sometimes eat in this [unusual] manner, but what is attached to the soil people do not eat in that manner. R. Tabyomi b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel, If a man sowed diverse seeds in an unperforated plant-pot, it is forbidden. Said Abaye, It is well if he were to teach us that the man suffers the Rabbinic penalty of chastisement; but what does he teach us by saying ‘It is forbidden’? That Rabbinically it is regarded as a sowing? Surely this we have already learnt: If a man set aside as terumah that which grew in an unperforated pot for that which grew in a perforated pot, [what has been set aside is accounted as] terumah, yet he must give the terumah afresh. MISHNAH. WHEAT, BARLEY, SPELT, OATS AND RYE ARE SUBJECT TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING; AND THEY CAN BE RECKONED TOGETHER. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO BE EATEN] AS NEW PRODUCE BEFORE THE ‘OMER, AND THEY MAY NOT BE REAPED BEFORE THE PASSOVER. IF THEY HAD TAKEN ROOT BEFORE THE ‘OMER, THE ‘OMER RENDERS THEM PERMITTED; OTHERWISE THEY ARE FORBIDDEN UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR'S ‘OMER. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: Kusmin [spelt] is a species of wheat; shibboleth shu'al [oats] and shipon [rye] are species of barley. Kusmin
—
is gulba; shipon is dishra; shibboleth shu'al is foxtail. Only these [are liable to the dough-offering]. but not rice or millet. Whence do we know it? — Said R. Simeon b. Lakish. It is deduced from the occurrence of the word ‘bread’ both here and in the law concerning unleavened bread; for it is written here, It shall be when ye eat of the bread of the land, and it is written there, The bread of affliction. And whence do we know it there? — Said Rash Lakish, and so it was taught in the School of R. Ishmael and also in the School of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: Scripture says, Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; with such grain as can come to the state of leaven a man fulfils his obligation on the Passover; thus these are excluded, since they cannot come to the state of leaven but only to the state of decay. AND THEY CAN BE RECKONED TOGETHER. A Tanna taught: Grain, flour and dough can be reckoned together. In what connection was this taught?R. Kahana said, In connection with the new produce. R. Joseph said, In connection with leaven on the Passover. R. Papa said, In connection with the Second Tithe, thus if one were to eat it outside the wall [of Jerusalem] one would incur stripes. Raba said, In connection with food uncleanness, and it teaches us that grain and flour [in order to contract uncleanness] must be like dough: as the latter is every bit a foodstuff so the former must be every bit a foodstuff. And indeed it has been so taught: The grain of wheat, whether it is peeled or not, is reckoned together with other foodstuffs, but the grain of barley is reckoned together with other foodstuffs only when peeled but not when not peeled. But surely this is not so. For a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael taught: It is written, Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown; that is, seed such as men take out for sowing, namely wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, and lentils in their husks! — This is no difficulty; for the one speaks of fresh [seeds] whilst the other of dry [seeds]. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO BE EATEN] AS NEW PRODUCE BEFORE THE OMER. Whence do we know it -Said Resh Lakish, It is deduced from the occurrence of the word ‘bread’ both here and in the law concerning unleavened bread. AND THEY MAY NOT BE REAPED BEFORE THE PASSOVER. Whence do we know it? -Said R. Johanan. It is deduced from the occurrence of the word ‘first’ both here and in the law concerning the dough-offering. What is meant by ‘[THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO BE EATEN AS NEW PRODUCE] BEFORE THE ‘OMER’?-R. Jonah said, Before the reaping of the ‘Omer. R. Jose b. Zabda said, Before the offering of the Omer. We have learnt: THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO BE EATEN] AS NEW PRODUCE BEFORE THE OMER, AND THEY MAY NOT BE REAPED BEFORE THE PASSOVER. Now according to him who says ‘Before the offering of the ‘Omer’ it is evident why the two prohibitions are not stated together and taught as one; but according to him who says ‘Before the reaping of the ‘Omer’, surely the two prohibitions should have been stated together and taught as one thus: They are forbidden [to be eaten] as new produce and they may not be reaped before the ‘Omer! — The fact is that if this dispute was reported it must have been reported in connection with the final clause [of Our Mishnah] which states, IF THEY HAD TAKEN ROOT BEFORE THE OMER, THE ‘OMER RENDERS THEM PERMITTED. What is meant by ‘BEFORE THE OMER’? R. Jonah said, Before the reaping of the ‘Omer. R. Jose b. Zabda said, Before the offering of the ‘Omer. R. Eleazar said
—