Menachot Daf 67 (מנחות דף ס״ז)
Daf: 67 | Amudim: 67a – 67b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (67a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Kneading of consecrated dough exempts from challah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava continues from the previous daf’s discussion about when ownership status at a critical processing moment can permanently affect an item’s obligation status. The key principle here is that the obligation to separate challah attaches at the moment of kneading (gilgul). If at that precise moment the dough belongs to the Temple (hekdesh), which is exempt from challah, the exemption persists even after the dough is redeemed and returns to private ownership. This mirrors the broader pattern of meiruach (smoothing a grain pile) for tithes — the status at the decisive moment of processing governs.
Key Terms:
- גִּלְגּוּל (gilgul) = Kneading or rolling of dough, the moment challah obligation takes effect
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ (hekdesh) = Consecrated property belonging to the Temple
- גִּזְבָּר (gizbar) = Temple treasurer who manages consecrated property
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
Rava’s dilemma: Does kneading by a gentile exempt from challah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא: גִּלְגּוּל גּוֹי מַאי? מִיתְנָא תְּנַן: גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִיסָּה, נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the principle with hekdesh, Rava now extends the inquiry to gentile ownership. The question is structurally parallel: just as hekdesh is exempt from challah and its kneading exempts, does a gentile’s kneading likewise create a permanent exemption? The Gemara initially suggests this is already resolved by a mishna about a convert — if the dough was kneaded before conversion, it is exempt. However, the Gemara will soon complicate this by asking whether this mishna reflects a unanimous view or only certain Tannaim.
Key Terms:
- גִּלְגּוּל גּוֹי (gilgul goy) = Kneading performed while the dough belongs to a gentile
- גֵּר (ger) = A convert to Judaism
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Who authored the mishna exempting a convert’s pre-conversion dough?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא, וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּקָמְחַיְּיבִי הָתָם – פָּטְרִי הָכָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rava’s assumption that the mishna about a convert’s dough definitively resolves his question. On the previous daf, a tannaitic dispute was presented: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that meiruach (smoothing) by a gentile does not exempt from tithes, while Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon hold it does. Here the Gemara suggests that perhaps the mishna exempting a convert’s pre-conversion dough is unanimous — even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda agree regarding challah, because the scriptural derivation differs.
Key Terms:
- דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל (divrei hakol) = A unanimous ruling upon which all agree
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Scriptural basis: three occurrences of “your grain” regarding tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם הוּא, דִכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״, ״דְּגָנְךָ״ יַתִּירָא.
English Translation:
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.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now explains why the laws of tithes and challah might differ even for Tannaim who take a strict view on meiruach. The Torah uses the possessive term “deganekha” (your grain) three times in the context of tithes. While one instance restricts the obligation to Jewish-owned grain (excluding hekdesh), the additional occurrences create a hermeneutical anomaly that must be resolved through the principle of miut achar miut.
Key Terms:
- דְּגָנְךָ (deganekha) = “Your grain” — a possessive term that restricts which grain is subject to tithes
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression includes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment presents a fundamental hermeneutical rule: when the Torah repeats a restrictive expression (miut achar miut), the double restriction paradoxically expands rather than narrows the scope. Since one “deganekha” already excludes hekdesh, the redundant occurrences must serve a different purpose — to include gentile-owned grain within the obligation of tithes. This is why, according to Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, meiruach by a gentile does not exempt from tithes: the triple “deganekha” re-includes what would otherwise be excluded.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט (miut achar miut) = A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression — a hermeneutical principle that such repetition serves to include rather than exclude
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Challah has only two occurrences of “your dough” — a simple exclusion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל הָכָא, תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּתִיב, חַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ כְּדֵי עִיסַּתְכֶם, וְחַד ״עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם״ וְלֹא עִיסַּת גּוֹיִם וְלֹא עִיסַּת הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the crux of the distinction. Unlike tithes, where three occurrences of “deganekha” trigger the miut-achar-miut principle and paradoxically include gentile grain, challah has only two occurrences of “arisoteikhem” (your dough). Each serves a distinct exclusionary purpose: one establishes the minimum quantity (an omer’s worth), and the other straightforwardly excludes gentile and hekdesh dough. There is no surplus restrictive expression to trigger the re-inclusion principle. Thus, even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda could agree that gentile kneading exempts from challah.
Key Terms:
- עֲרִסֹתֵיכֶם (arisoteikhem) = “Your dough” — the possessive expression in Numbers 15:20-21 that restricts the challah obligation
- כְּדֵי עִיסַּתְכֶם (k’dei isatkhem) = The measure of dough equivalent to what was used in the wilderness
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Alternative: Perhaps only R. Yosei and R. Shimon exempt, while R. Meir and R. Yehuda derive challah from tithes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ דִלְמָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּקָא פָּטְרִי, אֲבָל רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה גָּמְרִי ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵהָתָם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now presents the opposite possibility: the mishna exempting a convert’s pre-conversion dough might reflect only the lenient view of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda could learn challah from tithes through a gezera shava — the shared word “reishit” (first) that appears in both contexts. By this verbal analogy, since they hold that gentile meiruach does not exempt from tithes, they would similarly hold that gentile gilgul does not exempt from challah. This leaves Rava’s original question unresolved.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (gezera shava) = A verbal analogy linking two laws through a shared word
- רֵאשִׁית (reishit) = “First” — the shared term linking challah (Numbers 15:20) and tithes (Deuteronomy 18:4)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s conclusion: meiruach and gilgul should follow the same rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a remarkable passage — Rava expresses such uncertainty that he prays to see the answer in a dream. He then formulates a principle linking the two disputes: the status of gentile meiruach for tithes and gentile gilgul for challah must follow the same logic. If a Tanna exempts from one, he exempts from the other; if he obligates in one, he obligates in the other. Rava is reasoning that the underlying question of whether gentile ownership at the critical processing moment creates an exemption should be answered uniformly across both domains. The Gemara will now challenge this symmetry.
Key Terms:
- מֵירוּחַ (meiruach) = Smoothing or leveling a grain pile, which triggers the obligation of tithes
- יְהֵא רַעֲוָא (yehei ra’ava) = “May it be God’s will” — an expression of prayer
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Pappa’s objection from a baraita about a gentile separating challah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר וְחַלָּה, מוֹדִיעִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, וְחַלָּתוֹ נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְזָרִים, וּפֶטֶר חֲמוֹר גּוֹזֵז וְעוֹבֵד בּוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa introduces a baraita that will undermine Rava’s symmetry principle. The baraita discusses a gentile who voluntarily performed Jewish ritual obligations — separating challah from his dough and designating a lamb for peter chamor (firstborn donkey redemption). The ruling is that we inform him he is exempt, indicating these separations have no sanctity. The challah may be eaten by non-priests (zarim), and the lamb retains ordinary status. The significance lies in the inference about teruma that follows.
Key Terms:
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר (peter chamor) = Firstborn donkey, which must be redeemed with a lamb
- זָרִים (zarim) = Non-priests, laypeople who may not normally eat teruma or challah
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Inference: The same tanna holds gentile meiruach does not exempt from tithes but gentile gilgul does exempt from challah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא תְּרוּמָתוֹ אֲסוּרָה, וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, וְגִלְגּוּל גּוֹי פּוֹטֵר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the critical inference that challenges Rava’s symmetry. The baraita treats a gentile’s challah as having no sanctity (eaten by non-priests), implying gentile kneading exempts from challah. Yet the baraita only mentions challah and peter chamor — conspicuously omitting teruma. The inference is that a gentile’s teruma would be treated with sanctity (prohibited to non-priests), meaning gentile meiruach does not exempt from tithes/teruma. Thus we have a tanna who distinguishes the two cases, directly refuting Rava’s principle that they must follow the same rule.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה (teruma) = The portion of produce separated for the priest, subject to restrictions on consumption
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Ravina’s additional objection from a baraita contrasting challah in Eretz Yisrael with teruma outside the land
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina piles on a second objection from a different baraita that makes the same point even more explicitly. This baraita contrasts two cases: a gentile’s challah in Eretz Yisrael has no sanctity, but his teruma outside the land also has no sanctity (because teruma outside Eretz Yisrael is only rabbinic). The inference is that teruma of a gentile in Eretz Yisrael would have sanctity — meaning gentile meiruach does not exempt from tithes. Again, this tanna distinguishes between challah (where gentile kneading exempts) and tithes (where gentile smoothing does not exempt).
Key Terms:
- מְדַמַּעַת (medama’at) = Renders a mixture prohibited — when teruma becomes mixed with ordinary produce, it creates a prohibited mixture (meduma)
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
Restatement of the contradiction to Rava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא הַאי תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר: מֵירוּחַ הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר, גִּלְגּוּל הַגּוֹי פּוֹטֵר!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment crystallizes the objection. Two independent baraitot now demonstrate that tannaitic tradition distinguished between tithes and challah regarding gentile processing. Rava’s neat symmetry — that the two obligations must follow the same logic — is refuted by these sources. The Gemara must now find an alternative resolution.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא (tanna) = A sage from the Mishnaic period whose authority is cited
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: Gentile meiruach is only rabbinically obligated, as a decree against wealthy schemers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם בַּעֲלֵי כִיסִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This elegant resolution reconciles Rava’s principle with the baraitot. On a Torah level, Rava is correct: gentile processing exempts from both tithes and challah. However, the Sages added a rabbinic decree requiring tithes even from grain smoothed by a gentile, because wealthy landowners (ba’alei kisim) would game the system by temporarily transferring grain to gentiles during processing. This decree was not extended to challah — and the Gemara on amud bet will explain why.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן (mid’rabbanan) = By rabbinic law, as opposed to Torah law
- בַּעֲלֵי כִיסִים (ba’alei kisim) = People of means; wealthy individuals who might scheme to avoid obligations
- גְּזֵירָה (gezeira) = A rabbinic decree enacted as a preventive measure
Amud Bet (67b)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא / תירוץ
Why wasn’t the decree extended to challah? Because challah is easily avoided by baking small batches
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חָלָה נָמֵי? אֶפְשָׁר דְּאָפֵי לָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים קֶמַח, וְעוֹד.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks the obvious question: if the Sages decreed regarding tithes to prevent scheming, why not for challah too? The answer is pragmatic: anyone wanting to avoid challah has a much simpler option — just bake with less than the minimum quantity (approximately 1.2 kg of flour). Since this easy loophole exists, there is no reason someone would go through the trouble of transferring dough to a gentile for kneading. The Sages only enact preventive decrees where there is a genuine risk of circumvention.
Key Terms:
- חֲמֵשֶׁת רְבָעִים (chameshet reva’im) = Five quarter-kav, approximately 1.2 kg of flour — the minimum amount of dough requiring challah separation
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Counter-question: Teruma can also be easily avoided through Rabbi Oshaya’s methods
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the distinction between challah and tithes. If the Sages did not decree on challah because an easy circumvention exists, the same argument should apply to tithes. Rabbi Oshaya teaches two methods to avoid tithes: bringing grain in unprocessed form as animal feed, or importing produce through roofs/enclosures rather than the main entrance. Since these loopholes exist for tithes too, why did the Sages bother with a decree against gentile meiruach?
Key Terms:
- מַעֲרִים (ma’arim) = Employs artifice, uses a legal stratagem
- מוֹץ (motz) = Chaff — grain still in its husk, not yet fully processed
- קַרְפֵּיפוֹת (karpeifot) = Enclosures, walled areas adjacent to a house but not entered through the main door
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Public vs. private circumvention: the key distinction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא, זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא; הָכָא בְּצִינְעָא, לָא זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This nuanced answer introduces a social-psychology consideration into the halakhic calculus. The Sages’ decrees target the most likely avenue of circumvention. For tithes, Rabbi Oshaya’s methods — hauling grain over roofs or leaving it unthreshed — are publicly visible and embarrassing. A wealthy person would prefer the more discreet option of transferring ownership to a gentile, so the Sages blocked that route. For challah, however, baking small batches is done privately in one’s home and carries no social stigma. Since no one would bother with the cumbersome gentile-transfer route when a private alternative exists, no decree was needed.
Key Terms:
- פַרְהֶסְיָא (parhesya) = In public, openly visible
- צִינְעָא (tzin’a) = In private, discreetly
- זִילָא בֵּיהּ מִילְּתָא (zila beih milta) = It is degrading for him — a social consideration
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
The omer meal offering procedure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ בָּא לוֹ לָעִשָּׂרוֹן, נָתַן עָלָיו שַׁמְנוֹ וּלְבוֹנָתוֹ, יָצַק וּבָלַל, הֵנִיף וְהִגִּישׁ, קָמַץ וְהִקְטִיר, וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to a new mishna that describes the practical procedure of preparing the omer meal offering. After the barley was harvested, processed, and sifted (as described in the previous mishnayot), the priest performs the standard meal offering procedure: applying oil and frankincense, pouring, mixing, waving (tenufah), bringing near (hagashah), taking the handful (kemitza), and burning it on the altar. The remainder is eaten by the priests. This mishna serves as a bridge between the omer harvesting procedure and the next topic: the permissibility of the new crop after the omer offering.
Key Terms:
- עִשָּׂרוֹן (isaron) = A tenth of an ephah, the standard measure for meal offerings
- יָצַק (yatzak) = Poured oil onto the flour
- בָלַל (balal) = Mixed the oil and flour together
- הֵנִיף (henif) = Waved the offering
- הִגִּישׁ (higish) = Brought the offering to the corner of the altar
- קָמַץ (kamatz) = Removed a handful for burning
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Dispute: Was the marketplace filled with new grain before the omer with or without the Sages’ approval?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, יוֹצְאִין וּמוֹצְאִין שׁוּק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁהוּא מָלֵא קֶמַח קָלִי, שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים – דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This mishna describes a striking scene: immediately after the omer was offered on the 16th of Nisan, Jerusalem’s marketplaces were already overflowing with freshly parched grain flour. Since the new crop (chadash) is forbidden until the omer is offered, this grain must have been prepared in advance. Rabbi Meir considers this unauthorized — the Sages disapproved because preparing grain before the omer risks people eating forbidden new crop. Rabbi Yehuda maintains the Sages approved, presumably because the populace understood the grain was only for post-omer consumption.
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶר (omer) = The barley offering brought on 16 Nisan that permits the new crop
- קֶמַח קָלִי (kemach kali) = Flour of parched grain — grain roasted and ground
- חָדָשׁ (chadash) = New grain crop, forbidden until the omer offering is brought
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Question: Doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda usually worry about accidental consumption of prohibited food?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְלָא גָּזַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל מִינֵּיהּ?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s lenient position. If the marketplaces were filled with parched flour before the omer was actually offered, people might inadvertently eat from the forbidden new crop. The Gemara expects Rabbi Yehuda to be concerned about such scenarios, based on his known positions elsewhere regarding handling prohibited items.
Key Terms:
- דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכַל (dilma atei le’meikhal) = Perhaps someone might come to eat — the standard concern motivating rabbinic decrees
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Contradiction from Pesachim: Rabbi Yehuda restricts searching for chametz to prevent eating it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּבְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, וּבִשְׁעַת הַבִּיעוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא בָּדַק כּוּ׳.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presents an apparent contradiction in Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning. In Pesachim, Rabbi Yehuda limits the search for chametz to before Passover begins — once Passover starts and chametz is forbidden, he does not allow searching because finding chametz might lead to eating it. This shows Rabbi Yehuda is generally concerned about exposure to prohibited food leading to consumption. Why, then, does he approve of filling marketplaces with forbidden new-crop grain before the omer is offered?
Key Terms:
- בִּיעוּר (bi’ur) = Eradication or destruction of chametz
- אוֹר אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר (or arba’a asar) = The evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, when the search for chametz takes place
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabba begins to distinguish: new grain is different
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה: שָׁאנֵי חָדָשׁ,
English Translation:
Rabba says that the prohibition of new grain is different, for the following reason:
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba begins to resolve the contradiction by distinguishing between chametz on Passover and chadash (new grain) before the omer. The text breaks off here, but the continuation on the next daf presumably explains that the prohibition of new grain has a known, fixed endpoint — the omer offering — which reduces the risk of accidental consumption. People know the grain will become permitted shortly, so they are less likely to eat it prematurely. Chametz during Passover, by contrast, remains forbidden for the entire festival, making the temptation more acute.
Key Terms:
- שָׁאנֵי (shani) = It is different — a standard Talmudic term introducing a distinction
- חָדָשׁ (chadash) = New grain, forbidden until the omer offering