Menachot 69bמנחות ס״ט ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Menachot 69b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
69bס״ט ב

ככלי גללים ככלי אדמה ואין מקבלין טומאה דאמר מר כלי אבנים וכלי גללים וכלי אדמה אין מקבלין טומאה לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים או דלמא לא הוי עיכול

like dung vessels and like earth vessels, and these are not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the Master said: Stone vessels and dung vessels and earth vessels are not susceptible to ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Or perhaps this is not considered digestion, as these palm leaves remained intact, and therefore the vessel prepared from them is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other wooden vessel.

תפשוט ליה מהא דאמר עולא משום ר"ש בר יהוצדק מעשה ובלעו זאבים שני תינוקות בעבר הירדן ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטהרו את הבשר

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Ulla says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: An incident occurred in which wolves swallowed two children and excreted them on the east bank of the Jordan, and the incident came before the Sages for a ruling. They were asked whether the remains of the children were ritually impure even after they had passed through the animal’s digestive tract, and they deemed the flesh ritually pure, as it is no longer considered human flesh but wolf excrement. Similarly, the swallowed palm leaves should be considered like elephant dung and therefore the basket made from them should not be susceptible to ritual impurity.

שאני בשר דרכיך ולפשוט מסיפא וטמאו את העצמות שאני עצמות דאקושי טפי

The Gemara rejects this resolution: That case of flesh is different, as flesh is soft and digestible. Palm leaves, by contrast, are hard and not easily digested. The Gemara suggests: But in that case, let us resolve the dilemma from the last clause of the account of that incident: The Sages ruled that flesh was ritually pure, but they deemed the intact bones ritually impure. The bones, which are a harder substance than the flesh, are not considered digested. Likewise, the hard palm leaves should also not be considered digested, and the wicker basket fashioned from them should be susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: The case of bones is different, as they are harder. Therefore, one cannot cite a proof from here with regard to palm leaves, which are a comparatively softer substance.

בעי ר' זירא חיטין שירדו בעבים מהו למאי אי למנחות אמאי לא אלא לשתי הלחם מאי

§ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to wheat that fell from the clouds, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? If it is referring to using this wheat for meal offerings, why not? There should be no problem with using the wheat, since wheat for meal offerings does not have to come from Eretz Yisrael. Rather, the dilemma is whether this wheat can be used for the offering of the two loaves on Shavuot. What is the halakha?

ממושבותיכם אמר רחמנא לאפוקי דחוצה לארץ דלא אבל דעבים שפיר דמי או דלמא ממושבותיכם דווקא ואפילו דעבים נמי לא

The Gemara explains the two possibilities. The verse states: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:17). When the Merciful One states: “Out of your dwellings,” does this serve to exclude wheat that came from outside Eretz Yisrael, teaching that it may not be used for the two loaves; but wheat that fell from the clouds is permitted? Or perhaps the verse means specifically: “Out of your dwellings,” i.e., only from Eretz Yisrael; and if so, even wheat that fell from the clouds is also not acceptable.

ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין כדעדי טייעא נחיתא ליה רום כיזבא חיטי בתלתא פרסי

With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara asks: But is there a case like this? Is it possible for wheat to fall from the clouds? The Gemara answers: Yes, as in an incident involving Adi the Arab [taya’a], about whom it is related that it rained down on him wheat of a height of one handbreadth spread over an area of three parasangs.

בעי ר"ש בן פזי שיבולת שהביאה שליש קודם לעומר ועקרה ושתלה לאחר העומר והוסיפה מהו בתר עיקר אזלינן ושרייה עומר או דלמא בתר תוספת אזלינן ועד שיבא עומר הבא

§ Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a dilemma: In a case where one had an ear of grain that reached one-third of its growth prior to the bringing of the omer offering, and then he uprooted it and planted it again after the omer, and then it added to its growth, what is the halakha? Do we follow the original growth, which was permitted by the omer offering, and therefore the additional growth is also permitted? Or perhaps we follow the additional growth, which was not permitted by the omer, as it grew afterward. And if so, it will remain prohibited until the next omer offering is brought.

תפשוט ליה מהא דאמר ר' אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן ילדה שסבכה בזקנה ובה פירות אפילו הוסיף במאתים אסור

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a young vine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are prohibited as orla, that one grafted onto an old, permitted vine, and there were fruits on the younger vine, even if the older vine added two hundred parts of growth to the existing fruit, it is still prohibited. The two hundred permitted parts, which are generally sufficient to nullify one part of orla, are ineffective in this case, because the subsequent additional growth is considered subordinate to the original prohibited growth. This proves that we follow the original growth, and therefore in Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi’s case the original growth that was permitted by the omer should render the entire plant, including the subsequent growth, permitted in consumption.

ואמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן בצל ששתלו בכרם ונעקר הכרם אפילו הוסיף במאתים אסור

The Gemara cites another proof from a similar case. And likewise Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: With regard to an onion that one planted in a vineyard, creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, and the vineyard was subsequently uprooted, so that most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, even if the onion added two hundred parts of growth, the onion is prohibited. The reason the entire onion is prohibited is apparently because we follow the original growth, which is forbidden.

היא גופה קא מיבעיא ליה מפשט פשיטא להו לרבנן דבתר עיקר אזלינן לא שנא לקולא ולא שנא לחומרא או דלמא ספוקי מספקא להו ולחומרא אמרינן לקולא לא אמרינן תיקו

The Gemara states that these proofs are inconclusive, as that itself is what Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises as a dilemma: Is it entirely obvious to the Sages that we follow the main growth, and there is no difference whether this leads to a leniency or whether it leads to a stringency? Or perhaps they are uncertain about the matter, and therefore they rule that when it leads to a stringency, e.g., prohibiting the additional growth of orla fruit or the additional growth of an onion that had grown in a vineyard, we say that we follow the original growth, but when it leads to a leniency, such as allowing the consumption of grain after the omer, we do not say that we follow the original growth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בעי רבה לענין מעשר מאי היכי דמי כגון

§ In connection to the previous discussion with regard to an ear of grain that had grown one-third prior to the omer and was subsequently uprooted and replanted, Rabba raises a dilemma: With regard to the obligation to tithe, what is the halakha of such grain? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The circumstances involve a case where