מנחות 66:2 — Soncino English Talmud

By 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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote: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
^ᵇnote:Heb. khke: a receptacle of burnished bronze (Rashi).
^ᶜnote: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.
^ᵈnote:Hence it cannot refer to the subsequent expression but only to the one preceding, so that the fresh ears of corn must be parched.
^ᵉnote: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’.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote: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
^ʰnote: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’.
^ⁱnote: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’.
^ʲnote:Num. XXII, 32. Heb. yrh expanded into:vy,b v,tr vtrh
^ᵏnote: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.
^ˡnote:When later the corn is acquired by an Israelite.
^ᵐnote:That were reaped for the purposes of the ‘Omer; v. Mishnah supra 63b.
^ⁿnote: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.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote: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.
^ᵠnote:R. Kahana's statement thus stands refuted.
^ʳnote: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.
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote: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.