Several questions are asked regarding items that have mixed status. What grains are obligated in challa? What grains are permitted by the bringing of the omer?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Menachot 70
דאמדינהו ועשרינהו ושתלינהו והוסיפה להו
one estimated the amount of tithe necessary, and then he separated those tithes, and then he planted the grain again and it added to its growth. The question is whether we follow the initial growth, and therefore the subsequent growth is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, or do we follow the additional growth and deem it obligated in tithes?
אם תמצא לומר לא אזלינן בתר עיקר ותוספת בעי עשורי עיקר מאי אמר ליה אביי מאי שנא מכל חיטי ושערי דעלמא
Rabba adds: If you say that we do not follow the main growth and therefore the additional growth requires the separation of tithes, what is the halakha with regard to the main, initial growth? Does it require an additional separation of tithes, or does it not, as tithes were already set aside for it? Abaye said to Rabba: In what way is this case different from any general case of wheat or barley? When grain is tithed and replanted, the obligation of tithes always applies to what then grows.
אמר ליה דבר שזרעו כלה לא מיבעיא לי אלא כי קמיבעיא לי דבר שאין זרעו כלה מאי
Rabba said to Abaye: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to a substance whose seed disintegrates in the ground. In such a case it is clear that the new growth requires a new tithe to be separated, as the original seed is no longer extant. Rather, when I raise the dilemma it is with regard to a substance whose original seed does not disintegrate. What is the halakha? Do we follow the original growth, for which tithes have already been separated, or do we follow the additional growth that is still being generated by that original seed?
תפשוט ליה מהא דאמר רבי יצחק אמר ר’ יוחנן ליטרא בצל שתיקנו וזרעו מתעשר לפי כולו
The Gemara asks: Let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then he sowed a field with the entire litra of onions, when the field yields a crop it is tithed according to the entire crop. Although some of the onions he sowed were already tithed, he is obligated to tithe them again because the growths exceed the original onions and therefore the entire crop has untithed status.
התם היינו זריעתו הכא לאו היינו זריעתו
The Gemara rejects that resolution: There, in the case of the field sowed with the tithed onions, the entire field must be tithed because that is the normal way in which a field is sowed. One generally replants a full onion, and therefore the focus is not on the original onion but on the yield, which must be fully tithed. Here, in the case of grain, this is not the normal way in which a field is sowed. Generally one plants individual kernels, not fully grown ears of grain. Consequently, any subsequent growth from that fully grown ear is considered part of the original growth.
אמר ליה ר’ חנינא בר מניומי לאביי עציץ שאינו נקוב מהו אי לא נקוב הא לא נקוב
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyumi said to Abaye: In a case of a flowerpot [atzitz] that is not perforated, what is the halakha with regard to separating teruma and tithes? Abaye replied: What is the difficulty here? If it is not perforated, this halakha is the same as that of any non-perforated flowerpot, i.e., the separation of teruma and tithes is required by rabbinic law.
דלמא חזר ונקבו קא אמרת
Abaye continues: Perhaps what you meant to say is that he subsequently went and perforated it. In such a case the question is whether one may separate teruma and tithes from the initial growth of the plant. Is the initial growth considered a separate entity, in which case one part of the growth requires the separation of teruma and tithes by rabbinic law and the rest by Torah law, and therefore one may not separate from the initial growth? Alternatively, perhaps the initial growth is nullified by the subsequent growth, which would mean that the obligation of teruma and tithes applies to the entire plant by Torah law. Consequently, this obligation can be fulfilled by separating teruma and tithes from the initial growth of the plant. This would be similar to Rabba’s dilemma with regard to an ear of grain that is replanted.
הכא חדא זריעה היא איחבורי הוא דקא מיחברא ועולה התם שתי זריעות נינהו
Abaye explains that the two cases are not comparable. Here, in the case of the non-perforated flowerpot which was subsequently perforated, it is one single sowing. Therefore, although the original growth occurred while the pot was not perforated, since it is now perforated, the plant is considered attached to the ground and it rises and grows from there. Consequently, the obligation of teruma and tithes applies to the entire plant by Torah law. There, in Rabba’s dilemma involving the replanting of an ear of grain, there are two distinct sowings. Therefore, there is room to debate whether or not the additional, second sowing is part of the original, first sowing.
בעי ר’ אבהו שבולת שמרחה בכרי ושתלה וקרא עליה שם במחובר מהו כיון דמרחה טבלא לה כי קרא עליה שם קדשה לה או דלמא כיון דשתלה פקע ליה טבלא מינה
§ Rabbi Abbahu raises a dilemma: With regard to an ear of grain that one smoothed into a pile and then sowed it again and subsequently designated it as teruma or tithes while it was attached to the ground, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he smoothed it, which is the act that renders produce subject to the obligation of teruma and tithes, he has given it the status of untithed produce, and therefore when he subsequently designated it he thereby sanctified it? Or perhaps, since he had sowed it again after he had smoothed it, its status as untithed produce lapsed from it.
אמרי ליה רבנן לאביי אם כן מצינו תרומה במחובר לקרקע ותנן לא מצינו תרומה במחובר לקרקע
The Sages said to Abaye: If so, that the grain is sanctified in this situation, we have found a case of teruma that is sanctified while it is still attached to the ground. But we learn in a baraita: We do not find a case of teruma attached to the ground. Therefore, one must conclude that its status as untithed produce has been removed, and his designation does not render it teruma.
אמר ליה כי תניא ההיא לענין איחיובי מיתה וחומש דאי תליש ואכיל תלוש הוא ואי גחין ואכיל בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם
Abaye said to one of those Sages: When that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to teruma, which renders a non-priest liable to death at the hand of Heaven or payment of a fifth. If a non-priest ate teruma intentionally he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven; if he ate it unintentionally, he must restore the amount he ate with the addition of one-fifth (see Leviticus 22:9, 14). The reason there is no penalty for eating teruma that is attached to the ground is that if one detaches it and eats it, it is considered detached. And if he stooped down and ate it while it was attached to the ground he is not liable, as his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. In other words, this is an abnormal manner of eating, for which one is not liable.
ומאי שנא מדכתב אפינקסא דאילפא ביצי נבלת העוף הטהור מקצתן בחוץ ומקצתן בפנים מבפנים מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה מבחוץ אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה
The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the halakha that is written on the tablet [appinkesa] of Ilfa: With regard to eggs found with the carcass of a kosher bird, some of them outside the bird and some of them inside the bird, if one ate from those inner eggs directly from inside the bird, they render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat. If he removed those same eggs and ate from them when they were outside the bird, they do not render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat. Apparently, even the abnormal method of eating eggs while they are inside the bird is still considered eating. If so, the same should apply to consuming teruma abnormally by stooping down and eating it while it is still attached to the ground.
תלוש עבידי אינשי דאכלי הכי במחובר לא עבידי אינשי דאכלי
The Gemara answers: With regard to an item that is detached, i.e., the eggs inside the bird, it is relatively common for people to eat even in this manner. But with regard to an item that is attached to the ground, it is not common for people to eat such produce at all.
אמר רב טביומי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל הזורע כלאים בעציץ שאינו נקוב אסור אמר אביי בשלמא אי אשמעינן לוקה מכת מרדות מדרבנן שפיר אלא אסור מאי קמ”ל
§ Rav Tavyumei bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: With regard to one who plants diverse kinds of plants in a non-perforated flowerpot, this is prohibited. Abaye said: What is novel about this halakha? Granted if Shmuel had taught us that one who plants in this manner is flogged with lashes for rebelliousness by rabbinic law, it is well and understandable. But with this basic ruling he stated, that it is prohibited, what is he teaching us?
דמדרבנן הויא זריעה תנינא תרם משאינו נקוב על הנקוב תרומה ויחזור ויתרום:
Is he teaching that planting in a non-perforated flowerpot is considered sowing by rabbinic law? We already learn this in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a non-perforated pot for produce of a perforated pot, it is teruma by rabbinic law, and he must again separate teruma from the produce obligated in teruma by Torah law to render the produce grown in the perforated pot permitted in consumption. Since this separation has the status of teruma by rabbinic law, evidently sowing in a non-perforated pot is considered sowing.
מתני׳ החיטין והשעורין והכוסמין והשיבולת שועל והשיפון הרי אלו חייבין בחלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואסורים בחדש מלפני הפסח ומלקצור מלפני העומר אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתירן ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבא העומר הבא:
MISHNA: Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye; these are obligated in the separation of ḥalla, and each one of them joins together with the othersto constitute the measure that obligates one to separate ḥalla. And they are prohibited due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover Festival, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the omer offering. If these grains took root prior the omer offering, the omer permits their consumption; and if not, they are prohibited until the next omer is brought and sacrificed the following year.
גמ׳ תנא כוסמין מין חיטים שיבולת שועל ושיפון מין שעורין כוסמין
GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the identity of the species mentioned in the mishna. A Sage taught in a baraita: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats and rye are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called
גולבא שיפון דישרא שיבולת שועל שבולי תעלא הני אין אורז ודוחן לא
gulva, rye is dishra, and oats are shibbolei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: With regard to these species, yes, the obligation of ḥalla applies to them, but concerning rice and millet, no, the obligation of ḥalla does not apply to them.
מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש אתיא לחם לחם ממצה כתיב הכא (במדבר טו, יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ וכתיב התם (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that only these five grains are obligated in the separations of ḥalla, derived? Reish Lakish said: This principle is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” and “bread” from the case of matza. It is written here, with regard to ḥalla: “And it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set apart a portion for a gift to the Lord” (Numbers 15:19), and it is written there, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of those five grains, so too the obligation of ḥalla applies only to bread from one of those five grains.
והתם גופה מנלן אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל וכן תנא דבי ר’ אליעזר בן יעקב אמר קרא (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות לחם עוני דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח יצאו אלו שאין באין לידי חימוץ אלא לידי סירחון:
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to matza itself, from where do we derive that it must be from one of those five grains? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught, that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with regard to substances that will come to a state of leavening does a person fulfill his obligation to eat matza by eating them on Passover, provided that he prevents them from becoming leavened. This serves to exclude these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sirḥon].
ומצטרפין זה עם זה: תנא התבואה והקמחים והבציקות מצטרפין זה עם זה למאי הלכתא
§ The mishna teaches that each one of the five types of grain joins together with the others to constitute the measure that obligates one to separate ḥalla. It was taught in a baraita: With regard to grain from produce and flours and pieces of dough, each one of these joins together with the others. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this taught?
אמר רב כהנא לענין חדש רב יוסף אמר לענין חמץ בפסח רב פפא אמר לענין מעשר שני דאי אכיל ליה חוץ לחומה לקי
Rav Kahana says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating of the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan. If one ate grain, flour, and dough of the new crop that combined to equal the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable to receive lashes for transgressing a prohibition. Rav Yosef says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating leavened bread on Passover. Rav Pappa says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating second tithe outside the walls of Jerusalem. As, if one ate a combined olive-bulk’s worth of grain, flour and dough of the second tithe outside the wall of Jerusalem, he is flogged.
רבא אמר לענין טומאת אוכלין והא קמ”ל דתבואה וקמחין דומיא דבצקות מה התם אוכלא בעיניה אף הכא נמי אוכלא בעיניה
Rava says: The baraita is referring to the matter of the ritual impurity of food; and this is what it teaches us: That grains of barley produce and flours are similar to pieces of dough. Just as there, concerning pieces of dough, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only if the combination of food is as is, without other additives, so too here also, concerning grain and flour, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only when the mixture is food as is, without any shell or other additives.
והתניא חטה בין קלופה בין שאינה קלופה מצטרפת שעורה קלופה מצטרפת שאינה קלופה אין מצטרפת
The Gemara cites support for this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: Wheat, whether shelled or unshelled, combines to form the minimal measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity. But as for barley, it combines only when it is shelled. When it is not shelled, it does not combine together, as the inedible shell interposes between the different grains. This support Rava’s interpretation of the baraita, that it addresses barley in the form of grain, flour, and dough.
איני והא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע כדרך שבני אדם מוציאין לזריעה חטה בקליפתה ושעורה בקליפתה ועדשים בקליפתן
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the shell of barley is not considered part of the grain with regard to combining for ritual impurity? But didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach in a baraita: Before a food item comes in contact with liquid it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the verse states: “And if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any of the carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). The baraita teaches that the term “that is sown” indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing. This applies to wheat in its shell, barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells are considered part of the grain with regard to ritual impurity.
לא קשיא הא בלחות הא ביבשות:
The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. The ruling of this baraita, which teaches that the shells of kernels are considered part of it with regard to ritual impurity, is stated with regard to moist kernels, whereas the ruling of that baraita, which teaches that the shells are not part of the seed, is stated with regard to dry kernels, in which the shells crumble and fall away.
ואסורין בחדש מלפני הפסח: מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש אתיא לחם לחם ממצה:
§ The mishna teaches with regard to the five grains: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover festival. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” written in connection with the prohibition of the new crop (see Leviticus 23:14), and “bread” written with regard to matza (see Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of the five grains, so too the prohibition against eating of the new crop applies only to the five grains.
ולקצור לפני העומר: מנא הני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן אתיא ראשית ראשית מחלה
§ The mishna further teaches with regard to the five grains: And it is prohibited to reap them prior to the omer offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “the first” written in conjunction with the new crop: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10), and “the first” written with regard to ḥalla: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). Just as the obligation to separate ḥalla applies only to bread prepared from the five grains, so too the prohibition against reaping the new crop prior to the omer offering applies only to crops of the five grains.
מאי קודם לעומר ר’ יונה אמר קודם קצירת העומר רבי יוסי בר זבדא אמר קודם הבאת העומר
The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Does it mean prior to the reaping of the omer grain or prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering? Rabbi Yona says: It means prior to the reaping of the omer grain, i.e., the new crop is permitted at daybreak on the sixteenth of Nisan. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the bringing of the omer offering later that day.
תנן אסורין בחדש לפני פסח ולקצור לפני העומר בשלמא למאן דאמר קודם הבאת העומר היינו דלא קא עריב להו ותני להו
The Gemara cites a proof from that which we learned in the mishna: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover Festival, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering. Granted, according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the bringing of the omer offering, this is the reason that the mishna did not combine the clauses together and teach them as one, since the time frame for each prohibition is different. The prohibition of harvesting the new crop is lifted at daybreak after the omer crop was harvested at night, whereas the prohibition against consuming the new crop ends only with the sacrifice of the omer offering later that day.
אלא למ”ד קודם קצירת העומר ליערבינהו וליתנינהו אסורין בחדש ולקצור לפני הפסח
But according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the reaping of the omer grain, then both the consuming and the harvesting of the new crop are permitted at daybreak of the sixteenth of Nisan. If so, let the mishna combine them and teach them together, as follows: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the Passover Festival.
אלא אי איתמר אסיפא איתמר אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתירן מאי קודם לעומר רבי יונה אמר קודם הבאת העומר רבי יוסי בר זבדא אומר קודם קצירת העומר
The Gemara answers: Rather, if a dispute was stated in this matter, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If these grains took root prior to the omer offering, the omer permits their consumption. What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Rabbi Yona says: Prior to the bringing of the omer sacrifice. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the harvesting of the omer grain.
אמר ליה רבי אלעזר
Rabbi Elazar said to
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
What Is the First Mitzvah in the Torah? – Gefet
Rabbanit Yael Shimoni
09.09.2025 | ט״ז באלול תשפ״ה
A Daf Of Their Own – Ruler or Leader: King vs. President
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.07.2025 | י״ד באלול תשפ״ה
נשיא מול מלך- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
09.06.2025 | י״ג באלול תשפ״ה
כיצד בני, סמ”ר איתן דישון ז”ל, זיכה אותי בלימוד דף יומי – שירה דישון
09.05.2025 | י״ב באלול תשפ״ה
Ethics in Psychology and Lifnei Iver with Khaya Eisenberg
09.05.2025 | י״ב באלול תשפ״ה
Din & Daf: A Decree that the Majority Cannot Fulfill
Dr. Elana Stein Hain
09.04.2025 | י״א באלול תשפ״ה
Avodah Zarah Daf 71-76 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Dr. Tamara Spitz
09.03.2025 | י׳ באלול תשפ״ה
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.
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.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, 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.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Menachot 70
דאמדינהו ועשרינהו ושתלינהו והוסיפה להו
one estimated the amount of tithe necessary, and then he separated those tithes, and then he planted the grain again and it added to its growth. The question is whether we follow the initial growth, and therefore the subsequent growth is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, or do we follow the additional growth and deem it obligated in tithes?
אם תמצא לומר לא אזלינן בתר עיקר ותוספת בעי עשורי עיקר מאי אמר ליה אביי מאי שנא מכל חיטי ושערי דעלמא
Rabba adds: If you say that we do not follow the main growth and therefore the additional growth requires the separation of tithes, what is the halakha with regard to the main, initial growth? Does it require an additional separation of tithes, or does it not, as tithes were already set aside for it? Abaye said to Rabba: In what way is this case different from any general case of wheat or barley? When grain is tithed and replanted, the obligation of tithes always applies to what then grows.
אמר ליה דבר שזרעו כלה לא מיבעיא לי אלא כי קמיבעיא לי דבר שאין זרעו כלה מאי
Rabba said to Abaye: I do not raise the dilemma with regard to a substance whose seed disintegrates in the ground. In such a case it is clear that the new growth requires a new tithe to be separated, as the original seed is no longer extant. Rather, when I raise the dilemma it is with regard to a substance whose original seed does not disintegrate. What is the halakha? Do we follow the original growth, for which tithes have already been separated, or do we follow the additional growth that is still being generated by that original seed?
תפשוט ליה מהא דאמר רבי יצחק אמר ר’ יוחנן ליטרא בצל שתיקנו וזרעו מתעשר לפי כולו
The Gemara asks: Let him resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to a litra of onions that one tithed, and then he sowed a field with the entire litra of onions, when the field yields a crop it is tithed according to the entire crop. Although some of the onions he sowed were already tithed, he is obligated to tithe them again because the growths exceed the original onions and therefore the entire crop has untithed status.
התם היינו זריעתו הכא לאו היינו זריעתו
The Gemara rejects that resolution: There, in the case of the field sowed with the tithed onions, the entire field must be tithed because that is the normal way in which a field is sowed. One generally replants a full onion, and therefore the focus is not on the original onion but on the yield, which must be fully tithed. Here, in the case of grain, this is not the normal way in which a field is sowed. Generally one plants individual kernels, not fully grown ears of grain. Consequently, any subsequent growth from that fully grown ear is considered part of the original growth.
אמר ליה ר’ חנינא בר מניומי לאביי עציץ שאינו נקוב מהו אי לא נקוב הא לא נקוב
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyumi said to Abaye: In a case of a flowerpot [atzitz] that is not perforated, what is the halakha with regard to separating teruma and tithes? Abaye replied: What is the difficulty here? If it is not perforated, this halakha is the same as that of any non-perforated flowerpot, i.e., the separation of teruma and tithes is required by rabbinic law.
דלמא חזר ונקבו קא אמרת
Abaye continues: Perhaps what you meant to say is that he subsequently went and perforated it. In such a case the question is whether one may separate teruma and tithes from the initial growth of the plant. Is the initial growth considered a separate entity, in which case one part of the growth requires the separation of teruma and tithes by rabbinic law and the rest by Torah law, and therefore one may not separate from the initial growth? Alternatively, perhaps the initial growth is nullified by the subsequent growth, which would mean that the obligation of teruma and tithes applies to the entire plant by Torah law. Consequently, this obligation can be fulfilled by separating teruma and tithes from the initial growth of the plant. This would be similar to Rabba’s dilemma with regard to an ear of grain that is replanted.
הכא חדא זריעה היא איחבורי הוא דקא מיחברא ועולה התם שתי זריעות נינהו
Abaye explains that the two cases are not comparable. Here, in the case of the non-perforated flowerpot which was subsequently perforated, it is one single sowing. Therefore, although the original growth occurred while the pot was not perforated, since it is now perforated, the plant is considered attached to the ground and it rises and grows from there. Consequently, the obligation of teruma and tithes applies to the entire plant by Torah law. There, in Rabba’s dilemma involving the replanting of an ear of grain, there are two distinct sowings. Therefore, there is room to debate whether or not the additional, second sowing is part of the original, first sowing.
בעי ר’ אבהו שבולת שמרחה בכרי ושתלה וקרא עליה שם במחובר מהו כיון דמרחה טבלא לה כי קרא עליה שם קדשה לה או דלמא כיון דשתלה פקע ליה טבלא מינה
§ Rabbi Abbahu raises a dilemma: With regard to an ear of grain that one smoothed into a pile and then sowed it again and subsequently designated it as teruma or tithes while it was attached to the ground, what is the halakha? Does one say that since he smoothed it, which is the act that renders produce subject to the obligation of teruma and tithes, he has given it the status of untithed produce, and therefore when he subsequently designated it he thereby sanctified it? Or perhaps, since he had sowed it again after he had smoothed it, its status as untithed produce lapsed from it.
אמרי ליה רבנן לאביי אם כן מצינו תרומה במחובר לקרקע ותנן לא מצינו תרומה במחובר לקרקע
The Sages said to Abaye: If so, that the grain is sanctified in this situation, we have found a case of teruma that is sanctified while it is still attached to the ground. But we learn in a baraita: We do not find a case of teruma attached to the ground. Therefore, one must conclude that its status as untithed produce has been removed, and his designation does not render it teruma.
אמר ליה כי תניא ההיא לענין איחיובי מיתה וחומש דאי תליש ואכיל תלוש הוא ואי גחין ואכיל בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם
Abaye said to one of those Sages: When that baraita is taught, it is taught with regard to teruma, which renders a non-priest liable to death at the hand of Heaven or payment of a fifth. If a non-priest ate teruma intentionally he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven; if he ate it unintentionally, he must restore the amount he ate with the addition of one-fifth (see Leviticus 22:9, 14). The reason there is no penalty for eating teruma that is attached to the ground is that if one detaches it and eats it, it is considered detached. And if he stooped down and ate it while it was attached to the ground he is not liable, as his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people. In other words, this is an abnormal manner of eating, for which one is not liable.
ומאי שנא מדכתב אפינקסא דאילפא ביצי נבלת העוף הטהור מקצתן בחוץ ומקצתן בפנים מבפנים מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה מבחוץ אין מטמאין בגדים אבית הבליעה
The Gemara asks: In what way is this case different from the halakha that is written on the tablet [appinkesa] of Ilfa: With regard to eggs found with the carcass of a kosher bird, some of them outside the bird and some of them inside the bird, if one ate from those inner eggs directly from inside the bird, they render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat. If he removed those same eggs and ate from them when they were outside the bird, they do not render the garments of one who swallows them ritually impure when they are in the throat. Apparently, even the abnormal method of eating eggs while they are inside the bird is still considered eating. If so, the same should apply to consuming teruma abnormally by stooping down and eating it while it is still attached to the ground.
תלוש עבידי אינשי דאכלי הכי במחובר לא עבידי אינשי דאכלי
The Gemara answers: With regard to an item that is detached, i.e., the eggs inside the bird, it is relatively common for people to eat even in this manner. But with regard to an item that is attached to the ground, it is not common for people to eat such produce at all.
אמר רב טביומי בר קיסנא אמר שמואל הזורע כלאים בעציץ שאינו נקוב אסור אמר אביי בשלמא אי אשמעינן לוקה מכת מרדות מדרבנן שפיר אלא אסור מאי קמ”ל
§ Rav Tavyumei bar Kisna says that Shmuel says: With regard to one who plants diverse kinds of plants in a non-perforated flowerpot, this is prohibited. Abaye said: What is novel about this halakha? Granted if Shmuel had taught us that one who plants in this manner is flogged with lashes for rebelliousness by rabbinic law, it is well and understandable. But with this basic ruling he stated, that it is prohibited, what is he teaching us?
דמדרבנן הויא זריעה תנינא תרם משאינו נקוב על הנקוב תרומה ויחזור ויתרום:
Is he teaching that planting in a non-perforated flowerpot is considered sowing by rabbinic law? We already learn this in a mishna (Demai 5:10): If one separated teruma from produce grown in a non-perforated pot for produce of a perforated pot, it is teruma by rabbinic law, and he must again separate teruma from the produce obligated in teruma by Torah law to render the produce grown in the perforated pot permitted in consumption. Since this separation has the status of teruma by rabbinic law, evidently sowing in a non-perforated pot is considered sowing.
מתני׳ החיטין והשעורין והכוסמין והשיבולת שועל והשיפון הרי אלו חייבין בחלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואסורים בחדש מלפני הפסח ומלקצור מלפני העומר אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתירן ואם לאו אסורין עד שיבא העומר הבא:
MISHNA: Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye; these are obligated in the separation of ḥalla, and each one of them joins together with the othersto constitute the measure that obligates one to separate ḥalla. And they are prohibited due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover Festival, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the omer offering. If these grains took root prior the omer offering, the omer permits their consumption; and if not, they are prohibited until the next omer is brought and sacrificed the following year.
גמ׳ תנא כוסמין מין חיטים שיבולת שועל ושיפון מין שעורין כוסמין
GEMARA: The Gemara discusses the identity of the species mentioned in the mishna. A Sage taught in a baraita: Spelt is a type of wheat, while oats and rye are a type of barley. The Gemara translates the lesser-known species into the vernacular Aramaic: Spelt is called
גולבא שיפון דישרא שיבולת שועל שבולי תעלא הני אין אורז ודוחן לא
gulva, rye is dishra, and oats are shibbolei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: With regard to these species, yes, the obligation of ḥalla applies to them, but concerning rice and millet, no, the obligation of ḥalla does not apply to them.
מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש אתיא לחם לחם ממצה כתיב הכא (במדבר טו, יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ וכתיב התם (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that only these five grains are obligated in the separations of ḥalla, derived? Reish Lakish said: This principle is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” and “bread” from the case of matza. It is written here, with regard to ḥalla: “And it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set apart a portion for a gift to the Lord” (Numbers 15:19), and it is written there, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of those five grains, so too the obligation of ḥalla applies only to bread from one of those five grains.
והתם גופה מנלן אמר ריש לקיש וכן תנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל וכן תנא דבי ר’ אליעזר בן יעקב אמר קרא (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ שבעת ימים תאכל עליו מצות לחם עוני דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו בפסח יצאו אלו שאין באין לידי חימוץ אלא לידי סירחון:
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to matza itself, from where do we derive that it must be from one of those five grains? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught, that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with regard to substances that will come to a state of leavening does a person fulfill his obligation to eat matza by eating them on Passover, provided that he prevents them from becoming leavened. This serves to exclude these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sirḥon].
ומצטרפין זה עם זה: תנא התבואה והקמחים והבציקות מצטרפין זה עם זה למאי הלכתא
§ The mishna teaches that each one of the five types of grain joins together with the others to constitute the measure that obligates one to separate ḥalla. It was taught in a baraita: With regard to grain from produce and flours and pieces of dough, each one of these joins together with the others. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this taught?
אמר רב כהנא לענין חדש רב יוסף אמר לענין חמץ בפסח רב פפא אמר לענין מעשר שני דאי אכיל ליה חוץ לחומה לקי
Rav Kahana says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating of the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan. If one ate grain, flour, and dough of the new crop that combined to equal the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable to receive lashes for transgressing a prohibition. Rav Yosef says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating leavened bread on Passover. Rav Pappa says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating second tithe outside the walls of Jerusalem. As, if one ate a combined olive-bulk’s worth of grain, flour and dough of the second tithe outside the wall of Jerusalem, he is flogged.
רבא אמר לענין טומאת אוכלין והא קמ”ל דתבואה וקמחין דומיא דבצקות מה התם אוכלא בעיניה אף הכא נמי אוכלא בעיניה
Rava says: The baraita is referring to the matter of the ritual impurity of food; and this is what it teaches us: That grains of barley produce and flours are similar to pieces of dough. Just as there, concerning pieces of dough, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only if the combination of food is as is, without other additives, so too here also, concerning grain and flour, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only when the mixture is food as is, without any shell or other additives.
והתניא חטה בין קלופה בין שאינה קלופה מצטרפת שעורה קלופה מצטרפת שאינה קלופה אין מצטרפת
The Gemara cites support for this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: Wheat, whether shelled or unshelled, combines to form the minimal measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity. But as for barley, it combines only when it is shelled. When it is not shelled, it does not combine together, as the inedible shell interposes between the different grains. This support Rava’s interpretation of the baraita, that it addresses barley in the form of grain, flour, and dough.
איני והא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע זרוע אשר יזרע כדרך שבני אדם מוציאין לזריעה חטה בקליפתה ושעורה בקליפתה ועדשים בקליפתן
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the shell of barley is not considered part of the grain with regard to combining for ritual impurity? But didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach in a baraita: Before a food item comes in contact with liquid it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the verse states: “And if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any of the carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). The baraita teaches that the term “that is sown” indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing. This applies to wheat in its shell, barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells are considered part of the grain with regard to ritual impurity.
לא קשיא הא בלחות הא ביבשות:
The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. The ruling of this baraita, which teaches that the shells of kernels are considered part of it with regard to ritual impurity, is stated with regard to moist kernels, whereas the ruling of that baraita, which teaches that the shells are not part of the seed, is stated with regard to dry kernels, in which the shells crumble and fall away.
ואסורין בחדש מלפני הפסח: מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש אתיא לחם לחם ממצה:
§ The mishna teaches with regard to the five grains: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover festival. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” written in connection with the prohibition of the new crop (see Leviticus 23:14), and “bread” written with regard to matza (see Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of the five grains, so too the prohibition against eating of the new crop applies only to the five grains.
ולקצור לפני העומר: מנא הני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן אתיא ראשית ראשית מחלה
§ The mishna further teaches with regard to the five grains: And it is prohibited to reap them prior to the omer offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “the first” written in conjunction with the new crop: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10), and “the first” written with regard to ḥalla: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). Just as the obligation to separate ḥalla applies only to bread prepared from the five grains, so too the prohibition against reaping the new crop prior to the omer offering applies only to crops of the five grains.
מאי קודם לעומר ר’ יונה אמר קודם קצירת העומר רבי יוסי בר זבדא אמר קודם הבאת העומר
The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Does it mean prior to the reaping of the omer grain or prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering? Rabbi Yona says: It means prior to the reaping of the omer grain, i.e., the new crop is permitted at daybreak on the sixteenth of Nisan. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the bringing of the omer offering later that day.
תנן אסורין בחדש לפני פסח ולקצור לפני העומר בשלמא למאן דאמר קודם הבאת העומר היינו דלא קא עריב להו ותני להו
The Gemara cites a proof from that which we learned in the mishna: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover Festival, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering. Granted, according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the bringing of the omer offering, this is the reason that the mishna did not combine the clauses together and teach them as one, since the time frame for each prohibition is different. The prohibition of harvesting the new crop is lifted at daybreak after the omer crop was harvested at night, whereas the prohibition against consuming the new crop ends only with the sacrifice of the omer offering later that day.
אלא למ”ד קודם קצירת העומר ליערבינהו וליתנינהו אסורין בחדש ולקצור לפני הפסח
But according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the reaping of the omer grain, then both the consuming and the harvesting of the new crop are permitted at daybreak of the sixteenth of Nisan. If so, let the mishna combine them and teach them together, as follows: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the Passover Festival.
אלא אי איתמר אסיפא איתמר אם השרישו קודם לעומר העומר מתירן מאי קודם לעומר רבי יונה אמר קודם הבאת העומר רבי יוסי בר זבדא אומר קודם קצירת העומר
The Gemara answers: Rather, if a dispute was stated in this matter, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If these grains took root prior to the omer offering, the omer permits their consumption. What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Rabbi Yona says: Prior to the bringing of the omer sacrifice. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the harvesting of the omer grain.
אמר ליה רבי אלעזר
Rabbi Elazar said to
Follow
