Menachot Daf 69 (מנחות דף ס״ט)
Daf: 69 | Amudim: 69a – 69b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (69a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Continuation of the discussion regarding the two loaves and first fruits — refuting Rabba’s suggestion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּכּוּרִים לְפֵירָא קָא אָמְרִינַן? לְמִזְבֵּחַ קָא אָמְרִינַן! וְהָא אָכֵיל לֵהּ מִזְבֵּחַ מִפֵּירֵי דְּהָא שַׁתָּא.
English Translation:
that when we say the two loaves must come from the first fruits, the verse is referring to the new fruit crop grown this year? This is not so. Rather, we say that the two loaves must come from the first fruits sacrificed upon the altar this year. Therefore, even in Rabba’s case the two loaves cannot come from wheat, as the altar had already consumed from the fruit, i.e., the wheat used for the omer offering, of this year.
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment concludes the discussion from the previous daf regarding whether the two loaves of Shavuot must represent the “first” offering of new produce upon the altar. The Gemara clarifies that “bikkurim” (first fruits) in the context of the two loaves refers not to the first produce of the year’s crop, but to the first offering from the new crop brought to the altar. Since the omer offering has already been brought from that year’s wheat crop, the altar has already “consumed” from this year’s produce, and therefore the two loaves must come from new wheat that has not yet been offered.
Key Terms:
- בִּכּוּרִים (Bikkurim) = First fruits; here referring to the first offering upon the altar from the new crop
- מִזְבֵּחַ (Mizbe’ach) = The altar in the Temple
Segment 2
TYPE: בעיא
Rami bar Hama’s dilemma: Do the two loaves permit fruit at the budding or formation stage?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – הֲנָצָה שָׁרְיָא, אוֹ חֲנָטָה שָׁרְיָיה? מַאי הֲנָצָה, וּמַאי חֲנָטָה? אִילֵּימָא הֲנָצָה דְּפֵירָא וַחֲנָטָה דְּפֵירָא – הַשְׁתָּא הַשְׁרָשָׁה שָׁרְיָא, הֲנָצָה וַחֲנָטָה מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: With regard to the two loaves that permit the bringing of first fruit, are all fruit that are budding at the time of the sacrifice permitted, or are only fruit that has gone through formation permitted? The Gemara asks: What is meant here by budding and what is the meaning of formation? If we say that this is referring to the budding of the fruit and the formation of the fruit, this is difficult: Now that it is taught (70a) that even in the case of the grain taking root prior to the bringing of the two loaves, that grain is permitted by their sacrifice, is it necessary to discuss the budding or formation of fruit, which corresponds to a later stage than the taking root of grain?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Hama opens a new sugya exploring the precise stage of plant development at which the two loaves of Shavuot permit new produce. We know from a mishna on 70a that the critical threshold for grain is “taking root” (hashrashah). Rami bar Hama asks whether for fruit trees, the equivalent threshold is “budding” (hanatza) or the later stage of “formation” (chanatah). The Gemara immediately challenges: if even grain that has merely taken root is permitted, why would fruit at a later developmental stage (budding or formation) be in question?
Key Terms:
- הֲנָצָה (Hanatza) = Budding; the initial appearance of blossoms or leaves
- חֲנָטָה (Chanatah) = Formation; a later stage when fruit begins to take shape
- הַשְׁרָשָׁה (Hashrashah) = Taking root; the earliest stage of growth in the ground
Segment 3
TYPE: תֵּיקוּ
Resolution: The dilemma concerns leaf budding vs. leaf formation — left unresolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הֲנָצָה דְּעָלֶה וַחֲנָטָה דְּעָלֶה, מִי הָוֵי כִּי הַשְׁרָשָׁה אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rather, Rami bar Ḥama is referring to the budding of a fruit tree’s leaf and the formation of a fruit tree’s leaf. The question is whether the budding of the fruit tree’s leaves is like the taking root of grain, and therefore all the tree’s first fruit is permitted by the two loaves, or whether this budding is not similar to the taking root of grain, and therefore the tree’s fruit is not permitted by the two loaves. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reframes the dilemma: it is not about fruit development but about leaf development on the tree. The question is whether the early emergence of leaves (hanatza of the leaf) constitutes an equivalent milestone to a grain stalk taking root, thereby making the tree’s fruit permitted by the two loaves. Since a tree’s leaves appear before its fruit forms, this represents an earlier developmental stage that might or might not be analogous to grain taking root. The dilemma is left as teiku — unresolved, which the Rambam codifies as a doubt requiring stringency.
Key Terms:
- תֵּיקוּ (Teiku) = The dilemma shall stand unresolved; no definitive ruling was reached
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Rava bar Rav Hanan’s dilemma: Does the omer permit sowed wheat kernels?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: חִטִּין שֶׁזְּרָעָן בַּקַּרְקַע, עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן אוֹ אֵין עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַשְׁרוּשׁ – תְּנֵינָא, אִי דְּלָא אַשְׁרוּשׁ – תְּנֵינָא.
English Translation:
§ Rava bar Rav Ḥanan raises a dilemma: With regard to wheat kernels that one sowed in the ground, does the bringing of the omer offering permit them to be eaten or does the omer not permit them in consumption? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is referring to a case where the wheat kernel has already taken root prior to the bringing of the omer offering, we already learn this in a mishna. If it is referring to a case where the wheat stalk has not yet taken root, we already learn this in a mishna as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new series of dilemmas begins here, all revolving around the halakhic status of sowed grain that exists in an ambiguous state. Rava bar Rav Hanan asks about wheat kernels placed in the ground: does the omer offering permit them for consumption? The Gemara notes that if the wheat has already taken root, the mishna clearly states the omer permits it; if it has not taken root, the mishna states it remains prohibited until next year’s omer. So the dilemma must involve a more unusual scenario.
Key Terms:
- עוֹמֶר (Omer) = The barley offering brought on the 16th of Nisan, which permits consumption of the new crop
- הִשְׁרִישׁוּ (Hishrishu) = Took root; the critical developmental threshold for the omer’s permitting effect
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
Citation of the mishna establishing the hashrashah rule
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּתְנַן: אִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר – עוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא עוֹמֶר הַבָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites the source for this claim. As we learned in a mishna (70a): If crops took root before the sacrifice of the omer offering, the omer permits them to be eaten. And if not, i.e., they took root only after the sacrifice of the omer offering, they are prohibited until the next omer is sacrificed the following year.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the foundational mishna (Menachot 10:7 / 70a) that governs the relationship between the omer offering and the new crop. Taking root (hashrashah) before the omer is the determinative factor: if grain has taken root before the 16th of Nisan, the omer permits it; if not, one must wait until next year. This principle now serves as the baseline for the more complex scenario Rava bar Rav Hanan is about to present.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ (Chadash) = New grain; prohibited until the omer offering
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא
The actual dilemma: reaped and re-sowed grain that hasn’t yet taken root when the omer arrives
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּחַצְדִינְהוּ וְזַרְעִינְהוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, וַאֲתָא עוֹמֶר וַחֲלֵיף עֲלַיְיהוּ, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מַהוּ לְנַקּוֹטֵי וּמֵיכַל מִינַּיְיהוּ? כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָיא בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָא, וּשְׁרִינְהוּ עוֹמֶר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטֵּיל לְהוּ לְגַבֵּי אַרְעָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: No, Rava bar Rav Ḥanan’s dilemma is necessary only in a case where one reaped grain and sowed it again prior to the omer, and the time of the omer arrived and passed while the grain was in the ground but before it had taken root. And this is the dilemma that he raises: What is the halakha in such a case? Is it permitted to take these kernels and eat from them? Is their halakhic status considered like that of kernels cast into a jug, i.e., disconnected from the ground, and consequently the sacrifice of the omer offering renders their consumption permitted? Or perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, in which case their halakhic status is that of seeds that did not take root and are therefore prohibited.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here we encounter one of this daf’s signature conceptual questions: what is the halakhic status of an object that is physically placed in one domain but has not fully transitioned into it? The wheat was previously harvested (detached) and then re-sowed, but has not yet taken root. The omer arrives while these kernels sit in the ground in this liminal state. Are they still considered detached items — like grain stored in a jug — which the omer would permit? Or by placing them in the earth, the owner subordinated them to the ground, giving them the status of unharvested new crop?
Key Terms:
- כְּמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָיא בְּכַדָּא (Like cast into a jug) = A legal fiction comparing ground-placed items to items stored in a container, treating them as detached
- בַּטֵּיל לְהוּ לְגַבֵּי אַרְעָא (Subordinated to the ground) = The act of sowing gives the grain the halakhic status of land
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא
Extension: Does the law of exploitation (ona’ah) apply to re-sowed grain?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ אֵין לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה?
English Translation:
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan raises another dilemma with regard to grains that were reaped and then sowed again: Does the halakha of exploitation apply to them in a case of a disparity of one-sixth between their sale price and their market value, which would render the exploiter obligated to refund the difference between the purchase price and the market value, or does the halakha of exploitation not apply to them? Since the halakhot of exploitation apply only to movable property, not to land, this matter depends on whether these grains are considered like detached movable property or whether they have been subordinated to the land.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava bar Rav Hanan extends the same conceptual question — movable property vs. land — into the realm of commercial law. The Torah’s prohibition against ona’ah (price exploitation, overcharging by more than one-sixth) applies only to movable property (metaltelin), not to land (mekarkei). If the re-sowed kernels are considered subordinate to the ground, they would have the status of land and be exempt from ona’ah laws. This demonstrates how a single halakhic uncertainty — the status of sowed-but-unrooted grain — has cascading implications across different areas of law.
Key Terms:
- אוֹנָאָה (Ona’ah) = Exploitation; overcharging by more than one-sixth of market value in a sale
- מְטַלְטְלִין (Metaltelin) = Movable property, subject to ona’ah
- מְקַרְקְעֵי (Mekarkei) = Land/real property, exempt from ona’ah
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: If the grain is quantifiable by measure, any discrepancy reverses the sale
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁדַאי בַּהּ שִׁיתָּא, וַאֲתוֹ סָהֲדִי וְאָמְרִי דְּלָא שְׁדָא בַּהּ אֶלָּא חַמְשָׁה – וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה חוֹזֵר!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If we say that one said: I sowed six kav of grain in the field, and witnesses came and said that he sowed only five kav in it, that is difficult: But doesn’t Rava say: With regard to any item that is otherwise subject to the halakhot of exploitation, and it is sold by measure, or by weight, or by number, even if the disparity was less than the measure of exploitation in the transaction, the transaction is reversed. A disparity of one-sixth between the value of an item and its price constitutes exploitation only in cases where there is room for error in assessing the value of an item. In a case where the sale item is easily quantifiable, any deviation from the designated quantity results in a nullification of the transaction, even if the sale item in question is subordinate to the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes the circumstances of the ona’ah dilemma. If the seller specified an exact quantity (“I sowed six kav”), then Rava’s principle applies: items sold by measure, weight, or number have an even stricter rule — any deviation at all (even less than one-sixth) nullifies the transaction entirely, regardless of whether the item is movable property or land. So specifying the quantity would bypass the core dilemma about the grain’s status.
Key Terms:
- קַב (Kav) = A unit of dry measure, approximately 1.2 liters
- בִּיטּוּל מִקָּח (Bitul mekach) = Nullification of a transaction
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution of the ona’ah scenario: unspecified quantity, with conflicting testimony
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁדַאי בַּהּ כִּדְבָעֵי לַהּ, וַאֲתוֹ סָהֲדִי וְאָמְרִי דְּלָא שְׁדָא בַּהּ כִּדְבָעֵי לַהּ. יֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה, דִּכְמַאן דְּשַׁדְיָיא בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָא וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן אוֹנָאָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטֵּיל לְהוּ לְגַבֵּי אַרְעָא?
English Translation:
Rather, it is a case where the seller said: I cast kernels in the field as required, without quantifying the measure of the kernels that he cast, and witnesses came and said that he did not cast kernels in the field as required. Are they subject to the halakhot of exploitation, as the halakhic status of these kernels is like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are subject to the halakhot of exploitation? Or, perhaps the laborer subordinated them to the ground, in which case they have the status of land, which is not subject to the halakhot of exploitation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara narrows the dilemma to a case where no specific quantity was stated — the seller simply claimed to have sowed “as required.” When witnesses contradict this qualitative claim, the question returns to the core issue: are the sowed kernels treated as movable property (subject to ona’ah) or as land (exempt)? This distinction has real practical consequences — if they are movable property, the buyer can demand compensation for the shortfall; if they are land, the buyer has no ona’ah claim.
Key Terms:
- כִּדְבָעֵי לַהּ (As required) = The appropriate amount of seed for the field’s size
Segment 10
TYPE: בעיא / תֵּיקוּ
Third extension: Can one take oaths regarding re-sowed grain? — Unresolved
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹ אֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן? כִּדְשַׁדְיָיא בְּכַדָּא דָּמְיָא, וּכְמִטַּלְטְלֵי דָּמוּ, וְנִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, אוֹ דִלְמָא בַּטֵּיל לְהוּ אַגַּב אַרְעָא, וְכִמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמוּ, וְאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין עֲלֵיהֶן? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan raises yet another dilemma with regard to grains that were reaped and then sowed again. The halakha is that one does not take oaths with regard to claims on land. Consequently, if one admitted to part of a claim with regard to such grain, which generally obligates him in an oath, does he take an oath with regard to the kernels or does he not take an oath with regard to the kernels? Is their halakhic status like that of kernels cast into a jug, and they are like movable property and one takes an oath with regard to them? Or, perhaps he subordinated them to the ground, and they are like land and one does not take an oath with regard to them. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third application of the same foundational question extends into the laws of oaths (shevu’ot). The Torah mandates that when a defendant admits to part of a monetary claim (modeh bemiktzat), he must take an oath regarding the remainder. However, this obligation applies only to claims involving movable property, not land. If the re-sowed kernels are considered subordinate to the ground, no oath can be imposed. All three dilemmas — omer permission, ona’ah, and oaths — remain unresolved as teiku, demonstrating how a single conceptual ambiguity ripples across multiple halakhic domains.
Key Terms:
- שְׁבוּעָה (Shevu’ah) = Oath; a judicial oath imposed on a partial admitter
- מוֹדֶה בְּמִקְצָת (Modeh bemiktzat) = One who admits to part of a claim
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא
Rami bar Hama’s dilemma: Wheat in cattle dung — what is its halakhic status?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: חִטִּין שֶׁבְּגֶלְלֵי בָקָר, וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבְּגֶלְלֵי בְהֵמָה – מַהוּ? לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְטַמּוֹיֵי טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין – תְּנֵינָא: חִטִּין שֶׁבִּרְעִי בָקָר וּשְׂעוֹרִין שֶׁבְּגֶלְלֵי בְהֵמָה, חִישֵּׁב עֲלֵיהֶן לַאֲכִילָה – אֵין מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, לִקְּטָן לַאֲכִילָה – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין.
English Translation:
§ Rami bar Ḥama raises another dilemma: With regard to wheat kernels that are found in the dung of cattle, or barley kernels found in the dung of an animal, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to what issue was this dilemma raised? If we say it was with regard to their capacity to become susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, we already learn this in a baraita, as it is taught: If one found wheat kernels in the dung of cattle or barley kernels in the dung of animals, they do not become susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. But if he collected them for eating, they do become susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rami bar Hama introduces a new set of dilemmas about transformation through digestion. Wheat kernels that pass intact through an animal’s digestive system are found in the dung. The Gemara rules out tum’at okhlin (food impurity) as the subject of the dilemma, since a baraita already addresses this: mere thought about eating them is insufficient to make them susceptible to impurity, but actually collecting them for eating does render them susceptible. The real question must lie elsewhere.
Key Terms:
- טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין (Tum’at okhlin) = Ritual impurity of food; food items can become susceptible to impurity when they come into contact with certain liquids
- גְּלָלִים (Gelalim) = Animal dung
Segment 12
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: Using dung-grain for meal offerings is obviously forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לִמְנָחוֹת, פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא, ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara provides another suggestion: Rather, perhaps Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma is referring to the use of these kernels for meal offerings. The Gemara rejects this: It is obvious that they may not be used for meal offerings, as it is written with regard to those who offer inferior items to the Temple: “Present it now unto your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? Says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:8). Any item that one would not feel comfortable bringing to a governor or local ruler may certainly not be brought to the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rules out using grain from animal dung directly for menachot, citing the vivid verse from Malachi. The prophet’s rebuke of those who bring substandard offerings establishes a general principle: anything one would be embarrassed to present to a human governor certainly cannot be brought to God. Grain extracted from dung clearly falls below this standard of dignity. But this rejection sets up the actual dilemma in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ = “Present it now unto your governor” — a verse from Malachi 1:8 used as a standard for offering quality
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא / תֵּיקוּ
The real dilemma: If dung-grain is replanted and grows new wheat, can that be used for menachot?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּנַקְטִינְהוּ וְזַרְעִינְהוּ, וְקָא בָעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מְנָחוֹת מִינַּיְיהוּ. מַאי? מִשּׁוּם דִּמְאִיסוּתָא הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּזַרְעִינְהוּ אַזְדָּא (למאיסותייהו) [מְאִיסוּתַיְיהוּ], אוֹ דִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם כְּחִישׁוּתָא הוּא, וְהַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי כְּחוּשָׁה? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: No; it is necessary to raise the dilemma in a case where one collected these kernels and sowed them in the ground, and now he wants to bring meal offerings from them. What is the halakha? Is the reason one may not use them initially for meal offerings because they are disgusting, and since he sowed them again their disgusting quality has left? Or perhaps they were initially disqualified because they are considered weakened after having been digested by an animal. And if so, even the grains that have now grown after they were replanted are also weakened, like the kernels that gave rise to them. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a profound question about whether disqualification is circumstantial or inherent. If the problem with dung-grain is me’isuta (disgust) — an external, superficial quality — then replanting eliminates the disgust, as the new wheat growing from these seeds is perfectly normal. But if the problem is kechishuta (inherent weakness) — the grain’s essential vitality has been diminished by passing through an animal — then even the next generation of wheat carries this deficiency. This distinction between surface-level and essential disqualification has implications far beyond this specific case.
Key Terms:
- מְאִיסוּתָא (Me’isuta) = Disgusting quality; a superficial, removable disqualification
- כְּחִישׁוּתָא (Kechishuta) = Weakness/diminishment; an inherent, persistent deficiency
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא
Rami bar Hama’s dilemma: An elephant that swallowed a wicker basket
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: פִּיל שֶׁבָּלַע כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית, וֶהֱקִיאָהּ דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית הָרְעִי, מַהוּ? לְמַאי?
English Translation:
Rami bar Ḥama raises yet another dilemma: In the case of an elephant that swallowed an Egyptian wicker basket and excreted it intact along with its waste, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter was this dilemma raised?
קלאוד על הדף:
This famous and vivid dilemma explores the concept of transformation through digestion on a larger scale. An Egyptian wicker basket (kefifah mitzrit — a basket woven from palm leaves) is swallowed by an elephant and passes through its digestive system. The question is whether the basket’s material has been fundamentally altered by the digestive process. This case pushes the boundaries of the digestion concept introduced with the wheat kernels in the previous segments.
Key Terms:
- פִּיל (Pil) = Elephant
- כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית (Kefifah Mitzrit) = An Egyptian wicker basket, typically made from palm leaves
Segment 15
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: If the basket was already impure, digestion doesn’t change its status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵּימָא לְמִבְטַל טוּמְאָתַהּ, תְּנֵינָא: כׇּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טוּמְאָתָן בְּמַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין עוֹלִין מִטּוּמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְּשִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
If we say that the dilemma was raised with regard to a case where the wicker basket was ritually impure and the question is if its ritual impurity is nullified by the elephant swallowing it, we already learn in a mishna (Kelim 25:9): All vessels descend into their state of ritual impurity by means of thought. Although an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to finish it, it immediately assumes the halakhic status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. But they ascend from their state of ritual impurity only by means of a change resulting from an action. A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Therefore, as the wicker basket remained intact without physical change, it is clear that it remains ritually impure.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara eliminates one possible reading of the dilemma. If the question were about purifying an already-impure basket by passing it through an elephant, the answer is straightforward from the mishna in Kelim: vessels become susceptible to impurity through mere thought (intention), but can only be purified through a physical change in form (shinui ma’aseh). Since the basket emerged intact, there has been no physical change, and it remains impure. This asymmetry — easy to become impure, hard to become pure — reflects the general stringency of tum’ah.
Key Terms:
- שִׁינּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה (Shinui ma’aseh) = A change resulting from an action; physical alteration that changes a vessel’s status
- מַחְשָׁבָה (Machshavah) = Thought/intention; sufficient to render a vessel susceptible to impurity
Segment 16
TYPE: בעיא
The real dilemma: palm leaves swallowed and excreted — then made into a basket
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּבְלַע הוּצִין וְעַבְדִינְהוּ כְּפִיפָה מִצְרִית. מִי הָוֵה עִיכּוּל, הָוֵה לֵיהּ
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where the elephant had swallowed ends of palm leaves [hutzin] whole, and after the leaves were excreted one made them into an Egyptian wicker basket. The dilemma is as follows: Is this considered digestion, and therefore the basket prepared from the leaves is
קלאוד על הדף:
The real dilemma concerns raw palm leaves (hutzin) that an elephant swallowed and excreted. After excretion, someone fashions them into a wicker basket. The question is whether the digestive process transformed the palm leaves into “dung” (galal), which would make the resulting basket a keli gelalim — a dung vessel that is not susceptible to ritual impurity. This continues directly onto amud bet.
Key Terms:
- הוּצִין (Hutzin) = Palm leaf ends; raw material used for weaving baskets
- עִיכּוּל (Ikkul) = Digestion; the process of transformation through an animal’s digestive tract
Amud Bet (69b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא (המשך)
Continuation: Are the excreted palm leaves considered dung or wood?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּכְלֵי גְלָלִים, כִּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה, וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה – דְּאָמַר מָר: כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים וּכְלֵי גְלָלִים וּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה אֵין מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא הָוֵי עִיכּוּל?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two sides of the dilemma are now fully articulated. If the elephant’s digestion truly transformed the palm leaves, the resulting material is classified as galal (dung), and a vessel made from it would be a keli gelalim — a category of vessel that is entirely immune to ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic enactment. But if the leaves remained essentially unchanged despite passing through the elephant, they retain their status as wood, and a basket woven from them would be susceptible to impurity like any other wooden vessel.
Key Terms:
- כְּלֵי גְלָלִים (Kelei gelalim) = Vessels made from dung; not susceptible to ritual impurity
- כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה (Kelei adamah) = Earth vessels (unfired clay); also not susceptible to impurity
- כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים (Kelei avanim) = Stone vessels; also not susceptible to impurity
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Attempted proof from the incident of wolves and the two children
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יְהוֹצָדָק: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָלְעוּ זְאֵבִים שְׁנֵי תִינוֹקוֹת בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְטִהֲרוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to resolve the elephant dilemma from a dramatic historical incident. Wolves devoured two children east of the Jordan, and the Sages ruled on the remains: the flesh was ritually pure (since it had been fully digested and was now considered wolf excrement, not human flesh). By analogy, palm leaves digested by an elephant should similarly be considered elephant dung. However, as the next segment shows, the cases are not perfectly analogous.
Key Terms:
- עֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן (Ever haYarden) = The east bank of the Jordan River; Transjordan
Segment 3
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: Flesh is soft (digestible), bones are hard — palm leaves are in between
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי בָּשָׂר, דְּרַכִּיךְ. וְלִפְשׁוֹט מִסֵּיפָא: וְטִמְּאוּ אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת! שָׁאנֵי עֲצָמוֹת, דַּאֲקוֹשֵׁי טְפֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara establishes a spectrum of digestibility: flesh is soft and fully digested, bones are extremely hard and not digested at all, and palm leaves fall somewhere in between. Since neither extreme provides a valid analogy for palm leaves, the dilemma remains unresolved. This passage reveals the Talmudic method of careful analogical reasoning — a proof from one case is valid only if the cases share the relevant characteristic. Here, the degree of hardness (and thus digestibility) is the distinguishing factor that prevents a definitive ruling.
Key Terms:
- רַכִּיךְ (Rakhikh) = Soft; easily digestible
- אֲקוֹשֵׁי טְפֵי (Akushei tefei) = Harder; more resistant to digestion
Segment 4
TYPE: בעיא
Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma: Can wheat that fell from the clouds be used for the two loaves?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: חִיטִּין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ בֶּעָבִים, מַהוּ? לְמַאי? אִי לִמְנָחוֹת – אַמַּאי לָא? אֶלָּא לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, מַאי?
English Translation:
§ 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira presents a fantastical-sounding dilemma: what if wheat literally fell from the sky? For regular menachot (meal offerings), there would be no problem, since menachot can be brought from grain grown anywhere. But the two loaves of Shavuot have a special requirement: “mimoshvoteikhem” — “from your dwellings” (Leviticus 23:17), which is understood to require wheat grown in Eretz Yisrael. Does wheat that descended from the clouds satisfy or violate this requirement?
Key Terms:
- עָבִים (Avim) = Clouds
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם (Shtei haLechem) = The two loaves; special leavened bread offered on Shavuot
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא (המשך)
The two sides: “From your dwellings” excludes diaspora only, or requires Eretz Yisrael specifically?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי דְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּלָא, אֲבָל דְּעָבִים שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ דַּוְוקָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ דְּעָבִים נָמֵי לָא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma hinges on how to interpret “mimoshvoteikhem” (from your dwellings). One reading treats it as an exclusion — the verse comes to exclude produce of chutz la’aretz (the diaspora), but cloud-wheat, which is neither from Eretz Yisrael nor from the diaspora, would be permitted. The alternative reading treats it as a positive requirement — the wheat must specifically come from “your dwellings,” i.e., Eretz Yisrael, and cloud-wheat, which comes from nowhere in particular, fails this test.
Key Terms:
- מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם (Mimoshvoteikhem) = “From your dwellings”; the Torah’s geographic requirement for the two loaves
- חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ (Chutzah la’aretz) = Outside the Land of Israel; the diaspora
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Confirmation that wheat falling from the sky is possible — the incident of Adi the Arab
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, כְּדַעֲדִי טַיָּיעָא, נְחִיתָא לֵיהּ רוּם כִּיזְבָא חִיטֵּי בִּתְלָתָא פַּרְסֵי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara verifies that this dilemma is not purely theoretical by citing a known incident. Adi the Arab experienced a miraculous rain of wheat — one handbreadth deep across an area of three parasangs (roughly 12 km). Whether understood as a miraculous event or a natural phenomenon (such as a storm lifting grain from one location and depositing it in another), the Gemara establishes that the scenario has historical precedent, making the halakhic dilemma practically relevant.
Key Terms:
- טַיָּיעָא (Taya’a) = An Arab; a nomadic person
- פַּרְסָה (Parsah) = A parasang; a Persian unit of distance, approximately 4 km
- כִּיזְבָא (Kizba) = A handbreadth in height
Segment 7
TYPE: בעיא
R. Shimon ben Pazi’s dilemma: Grain that grew one-third before the omer, then replanted after
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר, וַעֲקָרָהּ וּשְׁתָלָהּ לְאַחַר הָעוֹמֶר, וְהוֹסִיפָה – מַהוּ? בָּתַר עִיקָּר אָזְלִינַן וְשַׁרְיַיהּ עוֹמֶר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר תּוֹסֶפֶת אָזְלִינַן, וְעַד שֶׁיָּבֹא עוֹמֶר הַבָּא?
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This dilemma introduces a profound conceptual question: in a mixed-status entity, does the original component or the additional component determine the whole entity’s status? An ear of grain reached one-third of its growth (the halakhic threshold of significance for grain) before the omer, making it permitted. It was then uprooted and replanted after the omer, and grew further. The new growth occurred after the omer and was never “permitted” by it. Do we follow the ikkar (the original, permitted component) or the tosefet (the addition, which was never permitted)?
Key Terms:
- הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ (Hevi’ah shelish) = Reached one-third of its growth; a halakhic milestone for grain
- עִיקָּר (Ikkar) = The original/main component
- תּוֹסֶפֶת (Tosefet) = The additional growth
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Attempted proof from R. Abbahu/R. Yohanan: Orla vine grafted onto a permitted vine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּבְּכָהּ בִּזְקֵנָה, וּבָהּ פֵּירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם – אָסוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to resolve the dilemma from the laws of orla (fruit of a tree in its first three years, which is forbidden). R. Yohanan teaches that if a young, forbidden vine is grafted onto an old, permitted vine, and the old vine’s growth adds even 200 times the original fruit’s volume, the fruit remains forbidden. This appears to establish the principle that we follow the original growth — and since in R. Shimon ben Pazi’s case the original was permitted, the entire grain should be permitted.
Key Terms:
- עָרְלָה (Orla) = Fruit of a tree during its first three years, which is forbidden
- יַלְדָּה (Yaldah) = A young vine (under three years)
- זְקֵנָה (Zekenah) = An old, established vine (past the orla period)
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Additional proof from R. Shmuel bar Nahmani: Onion planted in a vineyard
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: בָּצָל שֶׁשְּׁתָלוֹ בַּכֶּרֶם, וְנֶעֱקַר הַכֶּרֶם, אֲפִילּוּ הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם – אָסוּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second proof is marshaled from the laws of kilei hakerem (mixed species in a vineyard). An onion planted in a vineyard is forbidden as kilayim. Even after the vineyard is uprooted — removing the source of prohibition — and the onion continues to grow in a now-permitted context, the entire onion remains forbidden, even if the subsequent permitted growth vastly outweighs the original forbidden portion. This again suggests the principle: we follow the original status of the growth (batar ikkar azlinan).
Key Terms:
- כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם (Kilei haKerem) = Forbidden mixture of crops in a vineyard; prohibited by Deuteronomy 22:9
Segment 10
TYPE: דחייה / תֵּיקוּ
Rejection: Perhaps the Sages rule stringently with originals only when it leads to prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הִיא גּוּפַהּ קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מִפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבָתַר עִיקָּר אָזְלִינַן, לָא שְׁנָא לְקוּלָּא וְלָא שְׁנָא לְחוּמְרָא? אוֹ דִלְמָא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ, וּלְחוּמְרָא אָמְרִינַן, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמְרִינַן? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the crux of R. Shimon ben Pazi’s dilemma. The proofs from orla and kilayim prove only that we follow the original growth when it leads to a stringency (prohibiting the mixed fruit). But R. Shimon ben Pazi’s case would require applying the principle leniently — permitting grain because its original growth was permitted by the omer. Perhaps the Sages themselves were uncertain about the general principle and applied it only as a chumra (stringency), never as a kula (leniency). This methodological question — whether a principle applies symmetrically in both directions — is a recurring theme in Talmudic reasoning. The dilemma remains unresolved.
Key Terms:
- לְקוּלָּא (Lekula) = Leading to a leniency
- לְחוּמְרָא (Lechumra) = Leading to a stringency
- בָּתַר עִיקָּר אָזְלִינַן (Batar ikkar azlinan) = We follow the original/main component
Segment 11
TYPE: בעיא
Rabba’s dilemma: What about tithing obligations for such replanted grain?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר מַאי? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן
English Translation:
§ 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
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf concludes mid-sentence with Rabba extending the ikkar vs. tosefet question into the realm of tithes (ma’aser). Tithing obligations can differ based on the agricultural year: grain that reached one-third of its growth in one year may be subject to different tithing rules (ma’aser sheni vs. ma’aser ani) than grain from the following year. If the grain was replanted and grew additional growth in a different tithing year, which year’s rules apply? This question — continuing onto the next daf — demonstrates how the same conceptual uncertainty about “original vs. additional growth” permeates yet another area of halakha.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂר (Ma’aser) = Tithe; agricultural produce must be tithed, with different rules in different years of the seven-year cycle