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