Menachot

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;1 or perhaps they are not regarded as ‘digested’?2 — 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!3 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.4 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.5 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?6 Indeed yes, for there once came down [from the clouds] to Bar ‘Adi, the Arab, [a layer of wheat] the height of a handsbreadth7 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 shoot8 laden with fruit was grafted on to an old tree, even if [the fruit had as a result] increased two hundredfold.9 it is still forbidden.10 Furthermore. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan, If an onion was planted in a vineyard.11 and the vineyard was later uprooted, even though [the onion had thereafter] increased two hundredfold, it is still forbidden?10 -It was [those very rulings]12 which caused him to raise the question. Were those Rabbis13 certain of the ruling that we have regard to the stock, and they would apply it to all cases whether it would lead to leniency14 or stringency;15 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, they are to be regarded as digested or not. it. V. Ned. 57b. Hence it is seen that we have regard mainly to the stock. vineyard’; cf Lev. XIX, 19; Deut. XXII, 9. the corn is permitted by this year's ‘Omer.