Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 16, 2018 | 讝壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Menachot 67

Study Guide Menachot 67. What is the act that determines the obligation for tithes and for challa? If at the moment of that act, the item was owned by the temple or by a non Jew, is the item exempt from tithes or challa?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诇讙讜诇 讛拽讚砖 驻讜讟专 讚转谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖讛 注讬住转讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 讜驻讚讗转讛 讞讬讬讘转 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 讜驻讚讗转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 讜讙诇讙诇讛 讛讙讝讘专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讚讗转讛 驻讟讜专讛 砖讘砖注转 讞讜讘转讛 讛讬转讛 驻讟讜专讛

Rava adds: The kneading of consecrated dough exempts it from the obligation of 岣lla, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 3:3): If a woman consecrated her dough before she kneaded it and she subsequently redeemed it, she is obligated to separate 岣lla. Likewise, if she consecrated it after she kneaded it and then she redeemed it, she is obligated to separate 岣lla. But if she consecrated the dough before she kneaded it and the Temple treasurer kneaded it and then she subsequently redeemed it, she is exempt. The reason is that at the time that its obligation in 岣lla would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, it was exempt, because it was Temple property.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讙诇讙讜诇 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诪讬转谞讗 转谞谉 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬住讛 谞注砖讛 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 诪砖谞转讙讬讬专 讞讬讬讘 住驻拽 讞讬讬讘

Rava raises a dilemma: If dough was kneaded while in the possession of a gentile, what is its status? Is one who acquires it after it has been kneaded obligated to separate 岣lla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 3:6): With regard to a convert who converted and had dough in his possession, if it was prepared before he converted, he is exempt from the obligation of 岣lla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.

讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽诪讞讬讬讘讬 讛转诐 驻讟专讬 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: Of the Sages who disagreed with regard to the obligation to tithe grain that is smoothed by a gentile, who taught this mishna with regard to 岣lla? Perhaps it is a ruling upon which everyone agrees, and even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who obligate there, in the case of tithes, exempt here in the case of 岣lla.

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讙谞讱 讚讙谞讱 讬转讬专讗

The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term 鈥測our grain.鈥 They are: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17); 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God鈥he tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17); and 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain鈥ou shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). It can therefore be claimed that only there Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that one is obligated to separate tithes from grain that was owned by a gentile, as in addition to the first reference to 鈥測our grain,鈥 which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple鈥檚 possession, it is written an additional 鈥測our grain,鈥 and then another reference to 鈥測our grain.鈥

讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to include additional cases. In this case, the verses teach that even grain that belonged to gentiles is obligated in the separation of tithes.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 注专住转讬讻诐 讻转讬讘 讞讚 注专住转讬讻诐 讻讚讬 注讬住转讻诐 讜讞讚 注专住转讬讻诐 讜诇讗 注讬住转 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 注讬住转 讛拽讚砖

But here, with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla, the term 鈥測our dough鈥 is written only twice: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart. Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations鈥 (Numbers 15:20鈥21). One reference to 鈥測our dough鈥 teaches that one is obligated to separate 岣lla only from an amount equal to your dough in the wilderness, where the mitzva was commanded, i.e., the volume of one omer. And one reference to 鈥測our dough鈥 teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 驻讟专讬 讗讘诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专讬 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪讛转诐

The Gemara continues: Or perhaps it is Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon who taught that mishna, as they maintain that grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, and likewise dough kneaded by a gentile owner is likewise exempt from the obligation to separate 岣lla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to 岣lla, concerning which it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough,鈥 from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain.鈥 Just as in the case of tithes they hold that one is obligated to separate the tithes from a pile of grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner, so too they hold that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讗讞讝讬讛 讘讞讬诇诪讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

Rava said: May it be God鈥檚 will that I see the answer to my question in a dream. Rava then said: The one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from any obligation to separate 岣lla. So too the one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate 岣lla.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讙讜讬 砖讛驻专讬砖 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讞诇讛 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讞诇转讜 谞讗讻诇转 诇讝专讬诐 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讙讜讝讝 讜注讜讘讚 讘讜

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 4:13): With regard to a gentile who separated a lamb in order to redeem a firstborn donkey, or if he separated 岣lla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his 岣lla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.

讛讗 转专讜诪转讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讜讙诇讙讜诇 讙讜讬 驻讜讟专

One can infer: But if a gentile separated teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, from a grain pile that he smoothed, his teruma is prohibited to a non-priest. And this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, as the same halakhot apply to tithes as to teruma, and yet he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate 岣lla. This refutes Rava鈥檚 conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to 岣lla.

讜注讜讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讞诇转 讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讜转专讜诪转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讞诇转讜 谞讗讻诇转 诇讝专讬诐 讜转专讜诪转讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讚诪注转 讛讗 转专讜诪转讜 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讚诪注转

And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to 岣lla of a gentile that he separated after kneading his dough in Eretz Yisrael, or his teruma that he separated after smoothing his pile of grain outside Eretz Yisrael, in both cases one informs him that he is exempt from those obligations and his 岣lla may be eaten by non-priests and his teruma does not render a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce. One can infer: But his teruma from his grain in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited to non-priests and renders a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce.

讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专

The Gemara explains the objection: And again this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, and nevertheless he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate 岣lla.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇讬 讻讬住讬诐

The Gemara answers: This ruling that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does not exempt it from the obligations of teruma and tithes applies only by rabbinic law. By Torah law, the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does exempt it from the obligation to separate teruma and tithes. The Sages enacted a decree due to the schemes of people of means. There was a fear that conniving merchants might temporarily transfer ownership of their produce to gentiles while the piles were smoothed, after which the gentiles would return them to their possession, thereby circumventing the obligation to separate teruma and tithes.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讗驻讬 诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚

The Gemara asks: If so, then 岣lla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate 岣lla by temporarily selling their dough to a gentile who will knead it and return it to them. Why then does the baraita teach that dough kneaded by a gentile owner is exempt? The Gemara answers: There is no need for a decree in this case, since if one wanted to circumvent his obligation to separate 岣lla from his dough, an easier method is available: It is possible for him to bake using less than five-fourths of a kav of flour and a bit more, the minimum amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚注讬讬诇 诇讛 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转

The Gemara asks: If so, why is there a need for a rabbinic decree with regard to teruma and tithes? The obligation to separate teruma and tithes can also be easily circumvented by acting in accordance with that which Rabbi Oshaya suggested, as Rabbi Oshaya says: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and exempt himself by bringing it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from teruma and tithes. Although the obligation to separate teruma from and to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. Alternatively, another option of avoiding the obligation of teruma and tithes is to bring in the produce to his house by way of roofs or by way of enclosures [karpeifot]. The obligation of teruma and tithes applies only to produce that passes through the entrance of the house.

讛转诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 诇讗 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of teruma and tithes, the two options of bringing in the grain in its chaff or by way of roofs are performed in public [befarhesya], and it is degrading for one to be seen circumventing his obligation. Consequently, one who wishes to avoid the obligation would prefer the option of transferring ownership to a gentile, which the Sages prevent with their decree. Here, in the case of 岣lla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate 岣lla from the dough is performed in private, and it is not degrading for him, and he would sooner take advantage of that option than go through the process of transferring the dough to a gentile. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree in this case.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 诇注砖专讜谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讜 砖诪谞讜 讜诇讘讜谞转讜 讬爪拽 讜讘诇诇 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐

MISHNA: After daybreak, the priest sacrificing the omer came to the sifted tenth of an ephah, placed in the vessel in his hand some of its log of oil, and placed its frankincense on the side of the vessel. He then poured some more oil from the log onto the high-quality flour and mixed them together, waved and brought the meal offering to the corner of the altar, and removed the handful and burned it on the altar. And the rest of the meal offering is eaten by the priests.

诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讜爪讗讬谉 砖讜拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 拽诪讞 拽诇讬 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉

Once the omer was sacrificed people would emerge and find the marketplace of Jerusalem full of the flour from the parched grain of the new crop that was permitted by the waving and the sacrifice of the omer offering. That filling of the marketplace with the new crop was performed not with the approval of the Sages; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do so with the approval of the Sages.

讙诪壮 讜诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the marketplaces of Jerusalem would be filled with flour of parched grain even before the sacrificing of the omer offering, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sages approved of this practice. The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued a decree against filling of the marketplaces with grain that is prohibited in consumption at the time? Wasn鈥檛 he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讜讘砖注转 讛讘讬注讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 讻讜壮

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesa岣m 10b): Rabbi Yehuda says that one searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the eradication of leaven. And the Rabbis say: That is not the halakha; rather, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day, and if he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. Since Rabbi Yehuda does not allow a search on Passover itself, he is evidently concerned that one who finds prohibited food might come to eat it. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the new crop.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讞讚砖

Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Menachot 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 67

讙诇讙讜诇 讛拽讚砖 驻讜讟专 讚转谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖讛 注讬住转讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 讜驻讚讗转讛 讞讬讬讘转 诪砖讙诇讙诇讛 讜驻讚讗转讛 讞讬讬讘转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诇讙诇讛 讜讙诇讙诇讛 讛讙讝讘专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻讚讗转讛 驻讟讜专讛 砖讘砖注转 讞讜讘转讛 讛讬转讛 驻讟讜专讛

Rava adds: The kneading of consecrated dough exempts it from the obligation of 岣lla, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 3:3): If a woman consecrated her dough before she kneaded it and she subsequently redeemed it, she is obligated to separate 岣lla. Likewise, if she consecrated it after she kneaded it and then she redeemed it, she is obligated to separate 岣lla. But if she consecrated the dough before she kneaded it and the Temple treasurer kneaded it and then she subsequently redeemed it, she is exempt. The reason is that at the time that its obligation in 岣lla would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, it was exempt, because it was Temple property.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讙诇讙讜诇 讙讜讬 诪讗讬 诪讬转谞讗 转谞谉 讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 注讬住讛 谞注砖讛 注讚 砖诇讗 谞转讙讬讬专 驻讟讜专 诪砖谞转讙讬讬专 讞讬讬讘 住驻拽 讞讬讬讘

Rava raises a dilemma: If dough was kneaded while in the possession of a gentile, what is its status? Is one who acquires it after it has been kneaded obligated to separate 岣lla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (岣lla 3:6): With regard to a convert who converted and had dough in his possession, if it was prepared before he converted, he is exempt from the obligation of 岣lla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.

讛讗 诪讗谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讛讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚拽诪讞讬讬讘讬 讛转诐 驻讟专讬 讛讻讗

The Gemara asks: Of the Sages who disagreed with regard to the obligation to tithe grain that is smoothed by a gentile, who taught this mishna with regard to 岣lla? Perhaps it is a ruling upon which everyone agrees, and even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who obligate there, in the case of tithes, exempt here in the case of 岣lla.

讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讙谞讱 讚讙谞讱 讬转讬专讗

The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term 鈥測our grain.鈥 They are: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17); 鈥淎nd you shall eat before the Lord your God鈥he tithe of your grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17); and 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain鈥ou shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). It can therefore be claimed that only there Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that one is obligated to separate tithes from grain that was owned by a gentile, as in addition to the first reference to 鈥測our grain,鈥 which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple鈥檚 possession, it is written an additional 鈥測our grain,鈥 and then another reference to 鈥測our grain.鈥

讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara elaborates: This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression. And there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to include additional cases. In this case, the verses teach that even grain that belonged to gentiles is obligated in the separation of tithes.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 注专住转讬讻诐 讻转讬讘 讞讚 注专住转讬讻诐 讻讚讬 注讬住转讻诐 讜讞讚 注专住转讬讻诐 讜诇讗 注讬住转 讙讜讬诐 讜诇讗 注讬住转 讛拽讚砖

But here, with regard to the obligation to separate 岣lla, the term 鈥測our dough鈥 is written only twice: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart. Of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations鈥 (Numbers 15:20鈥21). One reference to 鈥測our dough鈥 teaches that one is obligated to separate 岣lla only from an amount equal to your dough in the wilderness, where the mitzva was commanded, i.e., the volume of one omer. And one reference to 鈥測our dough鈥 teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚拽讗 驻讟专讬 讗讘诇 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讙诪专讬 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪讛转诐

The Gemara continues: Or perhaps it is Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon who taught that mishna, as they maintain that grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, and likewise dough kneaded by a gentile owner is likewise exempt from the obligation to separate 岣lla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to 岣lla, concerning which it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough,鈥 from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain.鈥 Just as in the case of tithes they hold that one is obligated to separate the tithes from a pile of grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner, so too they hold that one is obligated to separate 岣lla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讬讛讗 专注讜讗 讚讗讞讝讬讛 讘讞讬诇诪讗 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专

Rava said: May it be God鈥檚 will that I see the answer to my question in a dream. Rava then said: The one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by its gentile owner exempts a future Jewish owner from any obligation to separate 岣lla. So too the one who says that the smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner does not exempt a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate 岣lla.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讙讜讬 砖讛驻专讬砖 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讞诇讛 诪讜讚讬注讬诐 讗讜转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讜讞诇转讜 谞讗讻诇转 诇讝专讬诐 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讙讜讝讝 讜注讜讘讚 讘讜

Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava from a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 4:13): With regard to a gentile who separated a lamb in order to redeem a firstborn donkey, or if he separated 岣lla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his 岣lla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.

讛讗 转专讜诪转讜 讗住讜专讛 讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讜讙诇讙讜诇 讙讜讬 驻讜讟专

One can infer: But if a gentile separated teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, from a grain pile that he smoothed, his teruma is prohibited to a non-priest. And this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, as the same halakhot apply to tithes as to teruma, and yet he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate 岣lla. This refutes Rava鈥檚 conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to 岣lla.

讜注讜讚 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讞诇转 讙讜讬 讘讗专抓 讜转专讜诪转讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诪讜讚讬注讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 讞诇转讜 谞讗讻诇转 诇讝专讬诐 讜转专讜诪转讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讚诪注转 讛讗 转专讜诪转讜 讘讗专抓 讗住讜专讛 讜诪讚诪注转

And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to 岣lla of a gentile that he separated after kneading his dough in Eretz Yisrael, or his teruma that he separated after smoothing his pile of grain outside Eretz Yisrael, in both cases one informs him that he is exempt from those obligations and his 岣lla may be eaten by non-priests and his teruma does not render a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce. One can infer: But his teruma from his grain in Eretz Yisrael is prohibited to non-priests and renders a mixture prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce.

讜讛讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 诪讬专讜讞 讛讙讜讬 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讟专 讙诇讙讜诇 讛讙讜讬 驻讜讟专

The Gemara explains the objection: And again this is an example of a tanna who says: The smoothing of a grain pile by a gentile owner does not exempt it from tithes, and nevertheless he maintains that the kneading of dough by a gentile owner exempts it from the obligation to separate 岣lla.

诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 诪砖讜诐 讘注诇讬 讻讬住讬诐

The Gemara answers: This ruling that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does not exempt it from the obligations of teruma and tithes applies only by rabbinic law. By Torah law, the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does exempt it from the obligation to separate teruma and tithes. The Sages enacted a decree due to the schemes of people of means. There was a fear that conniving merchants might temporarily transfer ownership of their produce to gentiles while the piles were smoothed, after which the gentiles would return them to their possession, thereby circumventing the obligation to separate teruma and tithes.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚讗驻讬 诇讛 驻讞讜转 诪讞诪砖转 专讘注讬诐 拽诪讞 讜注讜讚

The Gemara asks: If so, then 岣lla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate 岣lla by temporarily selling their dough to a gentile who will knead it and return it to them. Why then does the baraita teach that dough kneaded by a gentile owner is exempt? The Gemara answers: There is no need for a decree in this case, since if one wanted to circumvent his obligation to separate 岣lla from his dough, an easier method is available: It is possible for him to bake using less than five-fourths of a kav of flour and a bit more, the minimum amount necessitating the separation of 岣lla.

转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讗驻砖专 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 讻讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪注专讬诐 讗讚诐 注诇 转讘讜讗转讜 讜诪讻谞讬住讛 讘诪讜抓 砖诇讛 讻讚讬 砖转讛讗 讘讛诪转讜 讗讜讻诇转 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚注讬讬诇 诇讛 讚专讱 讙讙讜转 讜讚专讱 拽专驻讬驻讜转

The Gemara asks: If so, why is there a need for a rabbinic decree with regard to teruma and tithes? The obligation to separate teruma and tithes can also be easily circumvented by acting in accordance with that which Rabbi Oshaya suggested, as Rabbi Oshaya says: A person can employ artifice to circumvent obligations incumbent upon him in dealing with his grain, and exempt himself by bringing it into his courtyard in its chaff so that his animal may eat from it. And this grain is exempt from teruma and tithes. Although the obligation to separate teruma from and to tithe produce that has been fully processed applies even to animal fodder, it is permitted to feed one鈥檚 animal untithed produce that has not been fully processed. Alternatively, another option of avoiding the obligation of teruma and tithes is to bring in the produce to his house by way of roofs or by way of enclosures [karpeifot]. The obligation of teruma and tithes applies only to produce that passes through the entrance of the house.

讛转诐 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讛讻讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 诇讗 讝讬诇讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗

The Gemara answers: There, in the case of teruma and tithes, the two options of bringing in the grain in its chaff or by way of roofs are performed in public [befarhesya], and it is degrading for one to be seen circumventing his obligation. Consequently, one who wishes to avoid the obligation would prefer the option of transferring ownership to a gentile, which the Sages prevent with their decree. Here, in the case of 岣lla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate 岣lla from the dough is performed in private, and it is not degrading for him, and he would sooner take advantage of that option than go through the process of transferring the dough to a gentile. Therefore, the Sages did not apply their decree in this case.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讗 诇讜 诇注砖专讜谉 谞转谉 注诇讬讜 砖诪谞讜 讜诇讘讜谞转讜 讬爪拽 讜讘诇诇 讛谞讬祝 讜讛讙讬砖 拽诪抓 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐

MISHNA: After daybreak, the priest sacrificing the omer came to the sifted tenth of an ephah, placed in the vessel in his hand some of its log of oil, and placed its frankincense on the side of the vessel. He then poured some more oil from the log onto the high-quality flour and mixed them together, waved and brought the meal offering to the corner of the altar, and removed the handful and burned it on the altar. And the rest of the meal offering is eaten by the priests.

诪砖拽专讘 讛注讜诪专 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讜诪讜爪讗讬谉 砖讜拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪诇讗 拽诪讞 拽诇讬 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉

Once the omer was sacrificed people would emerge and find the marketplace of Jerusalem full of the flour from the parched grain of the new crop that was permitted by the waving and the sacrifice of the omer offering. That filling of the marketplace with the new crop was performed not with the approval of the Sages; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They would do so with the approval of the Sages.

讙诪壮 讜诇讗 讙讝专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讬 诇诪讬讻诇 诪讬谞讬讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the marketplaces of Jerusalem would be filled with flour of parched grain even before the sacrificing of the omer offering, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Sages approved of this practice. The Gemara asks: And doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued a decree against filling of the marketplaces with grain that is prohibited in consumption at the time? Wasn鈥檛 he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?

讜专诪讬谞讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜专 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讜讘砖注转 讛讘讬注讜专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讚拽 讻讜壮

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesa岣m 10b): Rabbi Yehuda says that one searches for leaven on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, and on the fourteenth in the morning, and at the time of the eradication of leaven. And the Rabbis say: That is not the halakha; rather, if one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he should search on the fourteenth during the day, and if he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival of Passover. Since Rabbi Yehuda does not allow a search on Passover itself, he is evidently concerned that one who finds prohibited food might come to eat it. The same reasoning should apply in the case of the new crop.

讗诪专 专讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讞讚砖

Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:

Scroll To Top