Menachot 67

גלגול הקדש פוטר דתנן הקדישה עיסתה עד שלא גלגלה ופדאתה חייבת משגלגלה ופדאתה חייבת הקדישה עד שלא גלגלה וגלגלה הגזבר ואחר כך פדאתה פטורה שבשעת חובתה היתה פטורה

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

בעי רבא גלגול גוי מאי מיתנא תנן גר שנתגייר והיתה לו עיסה נעשה עד שלא נתגייר פטור משנתגייר חייב ספק חייב

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 ḥalla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 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 ḥalla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.

הא מאן קתני לה דברי הכל היא ואפילו רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה דקמחייבי התם פטרי הכא

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 ḥalla? 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 ḥalla.

התם הוא דכתיב דגנך דגנך יתירא

The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term “your grain.” They are: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); “And you shall eat before the Lord your God…the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); and “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (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 “your grain,” which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple’s possession, it is written an additional “your grain,” and then another reference to “your grain.”

הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות אפילו גוים

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.

אבל הכא תרי זימני ערסתיכם כתיב חד ערסתיכם כדי עיסתכם וחד ערסתיכם ולא עיסת גוים ולא עיסת הקדש

But here, with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla, the term “your dough” is written only twice: “Of 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” (Numbers 15:20–21). One reference to “your dough” teaches that one is obligated to separate ḥalla 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 “your dough” teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.

או דלמא רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון קתני לה דקא פטרי אבל רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה גמרי ראשית ראשית מהתם

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 ḥalla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to ḥalla, concerning which it is written: “Of the first of your dough,” from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: “The first fruits of your grain.” 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 ḥalla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.

אמר רבא יהא רעוא דאחזיה בחילמא הדר אמר רבא מאן דאמר מירוח הגוי פוטר גלגול הגוי פוטר מאן דאמר מירוח הגוי אינו פוטר גלגול הגוי אינו פוטר

Rava said: May it be God’s 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 ḥalla. 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 ḥalla.

איתיביה רב פפא לרבא גוי שהפריש פטר חמור וחלה מודיעים אותו שהוא פטור וחלתו נאכלת לזרים ופטר חמור גוזז ועובד בו

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 ḥalla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his ḥalla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.

הא תרומתו אסורה והא האי תנא דאמר מירוח הגוי אינו פוטר וגלגול גוי פוטר

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 ḥalla. This refutes Rava’s conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to ḥalla.

ועוד איתיביה רבינא לרבא חלת גוי בארץ ותרומתו בחוצה לארץ מודיעין אותו שהוא פטור חלתו נאכלת לזרים ותרומתו אינה מדמעת הא תרומתו בארץ אסורה ומדמעת

And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to ḥalla 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 ḥalla 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.

והא האי תנא דאמר מירוח הגוי אינו פוטר גלגול הגוי פוטר

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 ḥalla.

מדרבנן גזירה משום בעלי כיסים

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.

אי הכי אפילו חלה נמי אפשר דאפי לה פחות מחמשת רבעים קמח ועוד

The Gemara asks: If so, then ḥalla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate ḥalla 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 ḥalla 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 ḥalla.

תרומה נמי אפשר דעביד לה כדרבי אושעיא דאמר רבי אושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר אי נמי דעייל לה דרך גגות ודרך קרפיפות

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’s 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.

התם בפרהסיא זילא ביה מילתא הכא בצינעא לא זילא ביה מילתא

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 ḥalla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate ḥalla 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.

מתני׳ בא לו לעשרון נתן עליו שמנו ולבונתו יצק ובלל הניף והגיש קמץ והקטיר והשאר נאכל לכהנים

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.

משקרב העומר יוצאין ומוצאין שוק ירושלים שהוא מלא קמח קלי שלא ברצון חכמים דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר ברצון חכמים היו עושין

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.

גמ׳ ולא גזר רבי יהודה דלמא אתי למיכל מיניה

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’t 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’t he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?

ורמינהו רבי יהודה אומר בודקין אור ארבעה עשר ובארבעה עשר שחרית ובשעת הביעור וחכמים אומרים לא בדק כו׳

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesaḥim 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.

אמר רבה שאני חדש

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