מנחות 66 — Soncino English Talmud

¹for Scripture says, Thou shalt number unto thee, that is, the numbering depends upon [the decision of] the Beth-din; accordingly the Sabbath of the Creation cannot be intended as the numbering would then be in the hands of all men. R. Jose says. On the morrow after the Sabbath means on the morrow after the Festival. You say that it means on the morrow after the Festival, but perhaps it is not so, but rather on the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation! I will prove it to you. Does Scripture say, ‘On the morrow after the Sabbath that is in the Passover week’? It merely says, ‘On the morrow after the Sabbath’; and as the year is full of Sabbaths, then go and find out which Sabbath is meant. Moreover, ‘Sabbath’ is written below, and ‘Sabbath’ is written above; just as in the former case it refers to the Festival, and indeed to the beginning of the Festival, so in the latter case, too, it refers to the Festival, and indeed to the beginning of the Festival. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, One verse says. Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, whereas another verse says, Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread. How are they to be reconciled?’ [In this way:] you may not eat unleavened bread of the new produce the seven days. but you may eat unleavened bread of the new produce six days. From the day that ye brought [the ‘Omer of the waving]...shall ye number: now I might think that the ‘Omer must be reaped and offered [on the day stated], but the counting may begin whenever one wishes, the text therefore also states, From the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number. But from [this verse], ‘From the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number’, I might think that the ‘Omer must be reaped and then one begins to count, but it is to be offered whenever one wishes, the text therefore states, From the day that ye brought [the ‘Omer...shall ye number]. But from [this verse], ‘From the day that ye brought’, I might think that it must be reaped and offered and the counting begun all by day, the text therefore states ‘Seven weeks shall there be complete; and when do you find seven weeks complete? Only when you begin to count from the [previous] evening. I might think, then, that it must be reaped and offered and the counting begun all by night, the text therefore, states, ‘From the day that ye brought’. How is it to be then? The reaping and the counting must be on the [previous] night, but the bringing on the [following] day. Said Raba: All the above interpretations can be refuted, excepting those of the last two Tannaim of the first Baraitha and of the last two Tannaim of the second Baraitha, which cannot be refuted, If [it were to be derived from] R. Johanan b. Zakkai's interpretation it can be refuted thus: Perhaps [the explanation of the conflicting verses is] as given by Abaye; for Abaye said, It is the precept to count the days and also the weeks. If from R. Eliezer's and R. Joshua's interpretations it can be refuted thus: How do they know that it refers to the first day of the Festival? It may refer to the last day of the Festival! R. Ishmael's and R. Judah b. Bathyra's interpretations cannot be refuted. If from R. Jose son of R. Judah's interpretation it can be refuted thus: Perhaps the fifty days excludes those six days! If from R. Judah b. Bathyra's interpretation it can be refuted thus: How does he know that it means’ the first day of the Festival? Perhaps it means the last day of the Festival! R. Jose also realized this same difficulty, and he therefore added the second interpretation ‘Moreover. The [above] text [stated]: Abaye said, It is the precept to count the days and also to count the weeks. The Rabbis of the school of R. Ashi used to count the days as well as the weeks. Amemar used to count the days but not the weeks, saying, It is only in commemoration of Temple times. MISHNAH. THEY REAPED IT, PUT IT INTO THE BASKETS, AND BROUGHT IT TO THE TEMPLE COURT; THEN THEY PARCHED IT WITH FIRE IN ORDER TO FULFIL THE PRECEPT THAT IT SHOULD BE PARCHED [WITH FIRE]. SO R. MEIR. BUT THE SAGES SAY, THEY FIRST BEAT IT WITH REEDS OR STEMS OF PLANTS THAT THE GRAINS SHOULD NOT BE CRUSHED, AND THEN THEY PUT IT INTO A PIPE THAT WAS PERFORATED SO THAT THE FIRE MIGHT TAKE HOLD OF ALL OF IT. THEY SPREAD IT OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT SO THAT THE WIND MIGHT BLOW OVER IT. THEN THEY PUT IT INTO A GRISTMILL AND TOOK OUT OF IT A TENTH [OF AN EPHAH OF FLOUR] WHICH WAS SIFTED THROUGH THIRTEEN SIEVES. WHAT WAS LEFT OVER WAS REDEEMED AND MIGHT BE EATEN BY ANY ONE; IT WAS LIABLE TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING BUT EXEMPT FROM TITHES. R. AKIBA DECLARES IT LIABLE BOTH TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING AND TO TITHES. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Abib’: this signifies fresh ears of corn; ‘parched with fire’: this teaches us that Israel used to parch it with fire in order to fulfil the precept ‘parched’. So R. Meir. But the Sages say,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XVI,9.
^ᵇnote:V. supra p. 386. n. 8.
^ᶜnote:Obviously then ‘the Sabbath’ means the Festival.
^ᵈnote:V. supra p. 387 nn. 2,3 and 4.
^ᵉnote:Ibid. 8.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XII, 15.
^ᵍnote:For after the offering of the ‘Omer, on the second day of the Festival, there are left six days of the Festival on which one may eat unleavened bread of the new produce; thus the verses are reconciled. If, however, the ‘Omer was always to be offered on a Sunday, then it would frequently happen that there would be less than six days from the offering of the ‘Omer to the end of the Festival.
^ʰnote:Lev. XXIII, 15, 16.
^ⁱnote:On any day after the bringing of the ‘Omer.
^ʲnote:Deut. XVI, 9. From this verse it appears that the counting must begin immediately after the reaping and apparently even before the offering of the ‘Omer.
^ᵏnote:We thus learn that the reaping and the offering of the ‘Omer and the commencement of the counting must all take place on the same day.
^ˡnote:Lev. XXIII, 15.
^ᵐnote:Since the complete day consists of the day and the preceding night.
^ⁿnote:And it is arrived at in this way: the reaping must clearly be before the counting, since it is written, ‘From the time that the sickle is put to the standing corn thou shalt begin to number’; and the counting must be at night because of the verse which says, ‘Seven weeks shall there be complete’. The counting. however, precedes the bringing of the ‘Omer, the verse ‘From the day that ye brought the ‘Omer shall ye number’ notwithstanding, as this verse does necessarily indicate precedence but rather that both shall take place on the same day.
^ᵒnote:I.e., R. Jose in his second interpretation and R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
^ᵖnote:Cf. P.B. p. 270ff. This is established by Abaye from the fact that one verse speaks of counting the days and the other of counting the weeks.
^ᵠnote:The expression ‘Sabbath’. Granted that it cannot mean the ordinary Sabbath of the week, it may mean nevertheless the last day, and not necessarily the first day, of the Festival.
^ʳnote:For it might be said that the counting of the fifty days is to commence from the first Sunday in the Passover festival, exclusive of the six (or less) intervening days between the second day of the Festival and the Sunday.
^ˢnote:In the second Baraitha.
^ᵗnote:He maintains that after the destruction of the Temple, when the ‘Omer is no longer offered, the counting is no absolute obligation; hence it is sufficient if only the days are counted.
^ᵘnote:The whole ears of corn.
^ᵛnote:Lev. II, 14.
^ʷnote:It was not threshed in the usual manner with flails as these would bruise the fresh and tender corn.
^ˣnote:In order to dry it.
^ʸnote:Which grinds very coarsely so that only the husk is separated from the grain.
^ᶻnote:Cf. Num. XV, 18ff. Since at the time when dough becomes liable to the dough-offering, i.e. at the rolling out of the dough, it is no longer consecrated, it is therefore liable to the dough-offering.
^ᵃᵃnote:Since the obligation of tithes falls due at the last work in connection with the corn (i.e. the smoothing of the pile), and at that time the corn was still consecrated, it is therefore exempt from tithes.
^ᵃᵇnote:‘Corn in the ear’. Lev. II, 14.

²By koli we do not mean [what is parched] over the fire but [what is parched] with something [intervening between the fire and the grain]. (Another version reads: By koli we understand what is parched in a vessel.) How was it done then? There was there [in the Temple] a pipe for parching corn which was perforated like a sieve so that the fire might take hold of it on all sides. Corn in the ear, parched...crushed: now I know not whether the fresh ears of corn must be parched or the crushed grain must be parched; but when the verse says ‘[parched] with fire’, it thus interrupts the subject. Karmel [fresh corn] means, rak [tender] and mal [easily crushed]. In like manner [we interpret the word in the following] verse: And there came a man from Baal-shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh corn beziklono. And he said, Give unto the people that they may eat. [Beziklono means]: He came and poured out for us, and we ate, and it was fine. And so, too, [when it says, Let us solace ourselves [nith'alsah] with loves, [nith'alsah means:] Let us talk together and then let us go up [on the couch] and rejoice and revel in caresses. And so, too, [when] it says, The wing of the ostrich [ne'elasah] beateth joyously, [ne'elasah means:] It carries [the egg], flies upwards [with it] and deposits it [in the nest]. And so, too, [when] it says, Because thy way is contrary [yarat] unto me, [yarat means:] She [the ass] feared when she saw [the angel] and she turned aside. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Karmel means, kar [rounded, and male [full]. R. AKIBA DECLARES IT LIABLE BOTH TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING AND TO TITHES. R. Kahana said, R. Akiba used to say that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple does not exempt it [from tithes]. R. Shesheth raised the following objection: What did they do with what remained of those three se'ahs? It was redeemed and could be eaten by any one; it was liable to the dough-offering but exempt from tithes. R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and to tithes. But [the Sages] said to him, Let what is redeemed from the hand of the Temple treasurer prove the case, for that is liable to the dough-offering yet is exempt from tithes. Now if it is right to say, [R. Akiba holds the view that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple does not exempt [from tithes], then what was the point of their argument, it is just the same case? Furthermore, R. Kahana b. Tahlifa raised an objection against R. Kahana's statement [from the following Baraitha]: R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and tithes, for Temple money was only used for what was necessary! — Rather, said R. Johanan,it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of R. Akiba that Temple money was only used for what was necessary. Raba said, I am quite certain that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple exempts it [from tithes], for even R. Akiba only declares it liable [to tithes] in that case alone, since Temple money was only used for what was necessary, but elsewhere [all agree that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple exempts from tithes. With regard to the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] a gentile there is a difference of opinion between Tannaim. For it was taught: One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce also bought from a gentile, and from produce bought from a Cuthean for other produce also bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from any one of these for other produce also bought from any one of these. So R. Meir and R. Judah. But R. Jose and R. Simeon say, One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from a Cuthean for other produce bought from a gentile, but one may not give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean, nor from produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean for other produce bought from an Israelite.21^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵃᶜnote:Heb. hke. The reference is to the word huke in Lev. ibid. The text is in a very bad state here; v. the parallel passage in Sifra (ed.’ Friedmann, p. 121-2) and notes thereon where all the parallel texts are collected and examined. V. also Dik. Sof. n. 9. The translation is based on the text as emended by Sh. Mek
^ᵃᵈnote:Heb. khke: a receptacle of burnished bronze (Rashi).
^ᵃᵉnote:The term hke ‘parched’ appears in the verse between two substantives, so that it is uncertain whether it refers to the preceding expression ‘corn in the ear’, in which case the fresh ears of corn must first be parched and then crushed, or to the subsequent expression ‘crushed’, in which case the corn must first be crushed and then parched.
^ᵃᶠnote:Hence it cannot refer to the subsequent expression but only to the one preceding, so that the fresh ears of corn must be parched.
^ᵃᵍnote:The Heb. knrf is interpreted as two words: lr (by transposing the first two letters of the word) ‘soft’, ‘tender’, and kn ‘brittle’, ‘easily crushed’.
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘and thus it says’. Here follow some examples of interpretation of words by the method known as iuehryub (stenographic or abbreviated), whereby any particular word is regarded as a combination of the initial or characteristic letters of the words in a sentence.
^ᵃⁱnote:II Kings IV, 42. The Heb. word ubukemc (translated in the versions ‘in his sack’) is here expanded into the following sentence: vubuubkftu ubk emhu tc
^ᵃʲnote:Prov. VII, 18. The word vxkg,b is expanded into: tyj,bu jnabu vkgbu i,bu tab It must be noted that the letter ‘sin’ is often substituted for ‘samech’; similarly the ‘heth’ for ‘he’.
^ᵃᵏnote:Job XXXIX, 13. The word vxkgb is expanded into: tyj,bu vkug taub V. Rashi. Jastrow, Dict. p. 449. translates ‘He raises his wings and rises and enjoys himself’.
^ᵃˡnote:Num. XXII, 32. Heb. yrh expanded into:vy,b v,tr vtrh
^ᵃᵐnote:Heb. rf and tkn; the ears of corn must be quite ripe, each grain filling the husk. According to R. Gershom, Aruch and Rashi: Each ear must be full (tkn) of grain as a cushion ( rf) is stuffed with feathers.
^ᵃⁿnote:When later the corn is acquired by an Israelite.
^ᵃᵒnote:That were reaped for the purposes of the ‘Omer; v. Mishnah supra 63b.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., corn produced and grown by the Temple authorities. Such produce apparently even R. Akiba would agree is exempt from tithes when it is acquired by an Israelite.
^ᵃᵠnote:For just as R. Akiba declares the remainder of the ‘Omer-offering liable to tithes he also declares any corn redeemed from the Temple treasurer liable, so that the proof adduced by the Sages in their argument fails in its purpose.
^ᵃʳnote:I,e., the tenth for the ‘Omer-offering. The remainder, however, was not covered by Temple money and was not regarded as consecrated hence it is subject to tithes. It follows, however, that if the corn was produced by the Temple authorities and the pile was smoothed whilst it still belonged to the Temple, it is exempt from tithes.
^ᵃˢnote:R. Kahana's statement thus stands refuted.
^ᵃᵗnote:For R. Meir and R. Judah are of the opinion that a gentile cannot own property in the Land of Israel so fully as to release it from the obligation of tithe; so that produce bought from a gentile is liable to tithe even though at the time that the pile of corn was smoothed it belonged to the gentile.
^ᵃᵘnote:A member of one of the tribes that settled in the Northern Kingdom after the deportation of the Ten Tribes of Israel by the Assyrian king. Some of the peoples came from Cutha and so gave their name to the new settlers as a whole. They are also known as Samaritans. They accepted a form of semi-Judaism, and their status as Jews varied at different times.
^ᵃᵛnote:So that it is permitted to give terumah from produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean for produce bought from an Israelite, or vice versa, for the smoothing of the pile belonging at the time to a gentile does not exempt it from tithes.
^ᵃʷnote:For R. Jose and R. Simeon hold the view that produce which was finished and stacked into a pile and smoothed off whilst in the possession of a gentile or a Cuthean is exempt henceforth from tithes; and clearly what is exempt from tithe may not be given as tithe for other produce that is liable.