Menachot 67
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “To my extraordinary teacher and chevruta: She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey. All of my learning is dedicated to her.”
Menachot 67
גִּלְגּוּל הֶקְדֵּשׁ פּוֹטֵר, דִּתְנַן: הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עִיסָּתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, מִשֶּׁגִּלְגְּלָה וּפְדָאַתָּה – חַיֶּיבֶת, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא גִּלְגְּלָה, וְגִלְגְּלָהּ הַגִּזְבָּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּדָאַתָּה – פְּטוּרָה, שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת חוֹבָתָהּ הָיְתָה פְּטוּרָה.
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.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: גִּלְגּוּל גּוֹי מַאי? מִיתְנָא תְּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה, נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.
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.
הָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָמְחַיְּיבִי הָתָם – פָּטְרִי הָכָא.
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.
הָתָם הוּא, דִכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״, ״דְּגָנְךָ״ יַתִּירָא.
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.”
הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.
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.
אֲבָל הָכָא, תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּתִיב, חַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּדֵי עִיסַּתְכֶם, וְחַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ וְלֹא עִיסַּת גּוֹיִם וְלֹא עִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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.
אוֹ דִלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּקָא פָּטְרִי, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה גָּמְרִי ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵהָתָם.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: יְהֵא רַעֲוָא דְּאֶחְזְיֵהּ בְּחֶילְמָא. הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר, מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר – גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְחַלָּה, מוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, וְחַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד בּוֹ.
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.
הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְגִלְגּוּל גּוֹי פּוֹטֵר.
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.
וְעוֹד אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרָבָא: חַלַּת גּוֹי בָּאָרֶץ, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, חַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּתְרוּמָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְדַמַּעַת. הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ בָּאָרֶץ – אֲסוּרָה וּמְדַמַּעַת.
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.
וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר!
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.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי כִיסִים.
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.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי? אֶפְשָׁר דְּאָפֵי לָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח, וְעוֹד.
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.
תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּעָבֵיד לַהּ כִּדְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַעֲרִים אָדָם עַל תְּבוּאָתוֹ וּמַכְנִיסָהּ בַּמּוֹץ שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא בְּהֶמְתּוֹ אוֹכֶלֶת וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אִי נָמֵי, דְּעַיֵּיל לַהּ דֶּרֶךְ גַּגּוֹת וְדֶרֶךְ קַרְפֵּיפוֹת?
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.
הָתָם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא; הָכָא בְּצִינְעָא, לָא זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ לָעִשָּׂרוֹן, נָתַן עָלָיו שַׁמְנוֹ וּלְבוֹנָתוֹ, יָצַק וּבָלַל, הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
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.
מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא קֶמַח קָלִי, שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ?
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?
וּרְמִינְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בָּדַק כּוּ׳.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי חָדָשׁ,
Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Philadelphia, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Palo Alto, CA, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Menachot 67
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Rava adds: The kneading of consecrated dough exempts it from the obligation of αΈ₯alla, as we learned in a mishna (αΈ€alla 3:3): If a woman consecrated her dough before she kneaded it and she subsequently redeemed it, she is obligated to separate αΈ₯alla. Likewise, if she consecrated it after she kneaded it and then she redeemed it, she is obligated to separate αΈ₯alla. 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 αΈ₯alla would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, it was exempt, because it was Temple property.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ, Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ§ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ.
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 αΈ₯alla from it or not? The Gemara answers that this is taught explicitly, as we learned in a mishna (αΈ€alla 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 αΈ₯alla. If it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated. If he is uncertain, he is obligated.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
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 αΈ₯alla? 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 αΈ₯alla.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ΄ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to teruma that contain the term βyour grain.β They are: βYou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grainβ (Deuteronomy 12:17); βAnd you shall eat before the Lord your Godβ¦the tithe of your grainβ (Deuteronomy 12:17); and βThe first fruits of your grainβ¦you shall give himβ (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 βyour grain,β which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Templeβs possession, it is written an additional βyour grain,β and then another reference to βyour grain.β
ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ΄Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄Χ‘ΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ Χ΄Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄Χ‘ΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ΄Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄Χ‘ΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΆΧ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ.
But here, with regard to the obligation to separate αΈ₯alla, the term βyour doughβ is written only twice: βOf 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 generationsβ (Numbers 15:20β21). One reference to βyour doughβ teaches that one is obligated to separate αΈ₯alla 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 βyour doughβ teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated property.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧͺΧ΄ Χ΄Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ.
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 αΈ₯alla. But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive by way of verbal analogy the halakha with regard to αΈ₯alla, concerning which it is written: βOf the first of your dough,β from the same expression that appears there, with regard to tithes: βThe first fruits of your grain.β 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 αΈ₯alla from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨.
Rava said: May it be Godβs 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 αΈ₯alla. 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 αΈ₯alla.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ.
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 αΈ₯alla from dough that he kneaded, one informs him that he is exempt from these obligations and his αΈ₯alla may be eaten by non-priests and the lamb designated to redeem his firstborn donkey may be sheared and worked.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨.
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 αΈ₯alla. This refutes Ravaβs conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to αΈ₯alla.
ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ.
And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: With regard to αΈ₯alla 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 αΈ₯alla 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨!
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 αΈ₯alla.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΦΆΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ.
The Gemara asks: If so, then αΈ₯alla should be subject to the same rabbinic decree as well, to prevent someone from circumventing their obligation to separate αΈ₯alla 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 αΈ₯alla 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 αΈ₯alla.
ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ·ΧΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ·ΧΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ₯ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° Χ§Φ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ€ΧΦΉΧͺ?
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 oneβs 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.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΆΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
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 αΈ₯alla, the option of baking with less than the minimum quantity of flour to avoid being obligated to separate αΈ₯alla 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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©Χ, Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΆΧΦ·Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ?
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 doesnβt Rabbi Yehuda agree that the Sages issued a decree against filling of the marketplaces with grain that is prohibited in consumption at the time? Wasnβt he concerned that perhaps someone might come to eat from it?
ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (PesaαΈ₯im 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Χ,
Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:
