Menachot Daf 70 (מנחות דף ע׳)
Daf: 70 | Amudim: 70a – 70b
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (70a)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא (המשך)
Continuation from 69b: Rabba’s dilemma about tithing replanted grain
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאַמְדִינְהוּ וְעַשְּׂרִינְהוּ וְשַׁתְלִינְהוּ (וְהוֹסִיפָה) [וְאוֹסִיפָא] לְהוּ.
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
This segment continues directly from 69b, completing Rabba’s dilemma about tithing. Grain that reached one-third growth was tithed, then replanted and grew further. Does the additional growth require new tithes? This extends the “original vs. additional growth” theme from the previous daf into the realm of agricultural taxes, adding another domain where this conceptual ambiguity has practical consequences.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂר (Ma’aser) = Tithes; mandatory agricultural taxes separated from produce
- עִישּׂוּר (Issur) = The act of tithing
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Rabba’s follow-up question and Abaye’s challenge
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר, לָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר עִיקָּר, וְתוֹסֶפֶת בָּעֵי עַשּׂוֹרֵי – עִיקָּר מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא מִכׇּל חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי דְּעָלְמָא?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba introduces a nested question using the “im timtza lomar” (if you say) framework. If additional growth requires new tithes, what about the original part that was already tithed? Abaye pushes back: when tithed grain is replanted and grows, the new produce always requires tithing — that is the normal agricultural cycle. Rabba must clarify what makes his case special.
Key Terms:
- אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר (Im timtza lomar) = “If you say”; a conditional framework exploring the implications of a hypothetical ruling
- טֶבֶל (Tevel) = Untithed produce; forbidden to eat until tithes are separated
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rabba clarifies: the dilemma concerns items whose seed does not disintegrate
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה – לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי, אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי – דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה, מַאי?
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba makes a critical botanical distinction. Most grains are “davar she-zar’o kaleh” — their seed disintegrates when planted, so the new plant is entirely new growth requiring new tithes. But some plants (like onions, garlic) are “davar she-ein zar’o kaleh” — the original planted item persists and continues growing. If the original onion was already tithed and then replanted, the additional growth emanates from an already-tithed source. Does the persistence of the original exempt the new growth?
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שֶׁזַּרְעוֹ כָּלֶה (Davar she-zar’o kaleh) = A substance whose seed disintegrates when planted (e.g., wheat, barley)
- דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין זַרְעוֹ כָּלֶה (Davar she-ein zar’o kaleh) = A substance whose seed does not disintegrate (e.g., onions, garlic)
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
Attempted proof from R. Yitzhak/R. Yohanan: tithed onions that were replanted
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לִיטְרָא בָּצָל שֶׁתִּיקְּנוֹ וּזְרָעוֹ – מִתְעַשֵּׂר לְפִי כּוּלּוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to resolve Rabba’s dilemma from R. Yohanan’s ruling about tithed onions that were replanted. R. Yohanan rules that the entire crop requires tithing — including the original onion that was already tithed. This would seem to prove that we follow the additional growth, not the original. However, the next segment will distinguish between this case and Rabba’s scenario.
Key Terms:
- לִיטְרָא (Litra) = A Roman pound; a unit of weight (approximately 327 grams)
- תִּיקְּנוֹ (Tikno) = Corrected/fixed it; meaning he properly separated tithes from it
Segment 5
TYPE: דחייה
Rejection: onions are normally replanted whole; grain stalks are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם – הַיְינוּ זְרִיעָתוֹ, הָכָא – לָאו הַיְינוּ זְרִיעָתוֹ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws a subtle agricultural distinction. Onions are normally planted as whole bulbs — replanting an already-tithed onion is the standard agricultural method, so the resulting crop is treated as entirely new produce requiring full tithing. But replanting a fully-grown ear of grain is abnormal (farmers sow seeds, not stalks), so the additional growth may be considered merely an extension of the already-tithed original. This distinction between normal and abnormal sowing methods determines whether the additional growth is independent or subordinate.
Key Terms:
- הַיְינוּ זְרִיעָתוֹ (Haynu zeri’ato) = This is its normal sowing method
Segment 6
TYPE: בעיא
R. Hanina bar Minyumi’s question about a non-perforated flowerpot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי לְאַבָּיֵי: עָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב, מַהוּ? אִי לֹא נָקוּב – הָא לֹא נָקוּב!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new question introduces the halakhic concept of the atzitz (flowerpot). A perforated flowerpot is considered attached to the ground (since roots can penetrate through), making produce grown in it subject to teruma and tithes by Torah law. A non-perforated pot is considered detached, so produce grown in it is subject only by rabbinic law. Abaye initially sees no novelty in the question.
Key Terms:
- עָצִיץ נָקוּב (Atzitz nakuv) = A perforated flowerpot; halakhically considered attached to the ground
- עָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב (Atzitz she-eino nakuv) = A non-perforated flowerpot; halakhically considered detached
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Abaye reinterprets: the real question is about a pot that was later perforated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּלְמָא חָזַר וּנְקָבוֹ, קָא אָמְרַתְּ?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye reinterprets the question to uncover a genuine dilemma. A plant grew in a non-perforated pot (rabbinic obligation) and then the pot was perforated (Torah obligation). The plant now has two “layers” of growth with different legal statuses. Can one separate teruma from the initial (rabbinic-level) growth to cover the whole plant? This depends on whether the initial growth retains its separate identity or is nullified into the subsequent growth. This parallels Rabba’s dilemma about replanted grain.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה (Teruma) = The priestly portion separated from produce; generally one-fiftieth of the crop
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye distinguishes: one sowing vs. two sowings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא, חֲדָא זְרִיעָה הִיא, אִיחַבּוֹרֵי הוּא דְּקָא מִיחַבְּרָא וְעוֹלָה; הָתָם – שְׁתֵּי זְרִיעוֹת נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resolves the flowerpot case by distinguishing it from Rabba’s dilemma. The flowerpot scenario involves a single, continuous sowing — the plant was never uprooted — so when the pot is perforated, the entire plant retroactively gains Torah-level status. But Rabba’s case involves two distinct acts of sowing (the original planting and the replanting), creating a genuine question about whether the two growths form one entity or two. This distinction between continuous growth with a status change versus discontinuous replanting is the key to understanding the different rulings.
Key Terms:
- חֲדָא זְרִיעָה (Chada zeri’ah) = One single sowing; a continuous growth process
- שְׁתֵּי זְרִיעוֹת (Shtei zeri’ot) = Two distinct sowings; discontinuous planting
Segment 9
TYPE: בעיא
R. Abbahu’s dilemma: grain smoothed into a pile, then sowed, then designated as teruma while attached
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שִׁבּוֹלֶת שֶׁמֵּרְחָהּ בִּכְרִי, וּשְׁתָלָהּ, וְקָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם בִּמְחוּבָּר – מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּמֵרְחָהּ טָבְלָא לַהּ, כִּי קָרָא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם קָדְשָׁה לַהּ, אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁתְלַהּ – פְּקַע לֵיהּ טִבְלָא מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
§ 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Abbahu introduces a new twist. “Smoothing the pile” (miru’ach) is the act that creates the obligation to tithe — it is the halakhic “finishing” of the produce. Once smoothed, the grain becomes tevel (untithed produce that is forbidden to eat). But what if one then replanted this tevel grain? Does it retain its tevel status while growing in the ground? If so, one could designate it as teruma while it is still attached to the ground. But this would create the anomalous situation of teruma that is attached to the ground.
Key Terms:
- מֵירוּחַ (Miru’ach) = Smoothing the grain pile; the act that triggers the obligation to tithe
- כְּרִי (Keri) = A grain pile/heap
- טֶבֶל (Tevel) = Untithed produce; forbidden to eat
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The Sages’ objection: we never find teruma attached to the ground!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְאַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, מָצִינוּ תְּרוּמָה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע, וּתְנַן: לֹא מָצִינוּ תְּרוּמָה בִּמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages raise a fundamental objection. There is an established principle that teruma cannot exist in a state of attachment to the ground — teruma by definition applies only to detached produce. If the replanted tevel grain retained its tevel status, designating it as teruma while it grows in the ground would create an impossibility. This objection suggests that replanting must strip away the tevel status, and the grain can only become tevel again through a new act of miru’ach after harvest.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמָה בִּמְחוּבָּר (Teruma bemechubar) = Teruma while attached to the ground; a halakhic impossibility
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Abaye’s response: that baraita addresses penalties for eating teruma, not its status
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – לְעִנְיַן אִיחַיּוֹבֵי מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, דְּאִי תָּלֵישׁ וְאָכֵיל – תָּלוּשׁ הוּא, וְאִי גָּחֵין וְאָכֵיל – בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye offers a brilliant reinterpretation of the baraita. The statement “we do not find teruma attached to the ground” does not mean teruma cannot exist in an attached state — it means that the penalties for a non-priest eating teruma cannot arise with attached produce. Why? Because one either detaches it first (and then it is detached teruma, not attached) or stoops down to eat it in the ground (which is so abnormal that “his intention is nullified by the consensus of all people” — batlah da’ato etzel kol adam). Since no normal eating can occur while produce is attached, the penalties never apply.
Key Terms:
- בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם (Batlah da’ato etzel kol adam) = His intention is nullified by the consensus of all people; an abnormal action has no halakhic significance
- מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם (Mita biydei shamayim) = Death at the hand of Heaven; the penalty for intentionally eating teruma
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge from Ilfa’s tablet: eating eggs inside a bird carcass is considered eating
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדִּכְתַב אַפִּינַקְסָא דְּאִילְפָא: בֵּיצֵי נִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר, מִקְצָתָן בַּחוּץ וּמִקְצָתָן בִּפְנִים – מִבִּפְנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה, מִבַּחוּץ אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges Abaye with a fascinating case from Ilfa’s teachings. Ilfa recorded halakhot on a pinkas (tablet). One ruling states that eating eggs directly from inside a bird carcass — certainly an unusual way to eat — is still considered “eating” for the purposes of tum’ah. If abnormal eating counts there, why should stooping to eat produce from the ground be dismissed as “batlah da’ato”?
Key Terms:
- פִּינַקְסָא (Pinkesa) = A tablet or notebook; Ilfa recorded halakhot on such tablets
- נִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר (Nivlat of tahor) = The carcass of a kosher bird species; transmits impurity when swallowed
- בֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה (Beit habeli’ah) = The throat/gullet; the location where impurity of bird carcass takes effect
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: eating detached items in unusual ways is common; eating from the ground is not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּלוּשׁ – עֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּאָכְלִי הָכִי, בִּמְחוּבָּר – לָא עֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּאָכְלִי.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes between two types of unusual eating. Eating eggs directly from inside a bird carcass, while unusual, involves detached food — and people do occasionally eat detached items in unconventional ways. But eating produce directly from the ground while it is still growing is so far outside normal behavior that “batlah da’ato” applies. This distinction preserves Abaye’s principle: attached teruma generates no penalties because no form of normal consumption is possible while it remains attached.
Key Terms:
- תָּלוּשׁ (Talush) = Detached; separated from the ground
- מְחוּבָּר (Mechubar) = Attached; still connected to the ground
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Shmuel’s ruling: planting kilayim in a non-perforated pot is forbidden
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי בַּר קִיסְנָא, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַזּוֹרֵעַ כִּלְאַיִם בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב – אָסוּר. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן לוֹקֶה מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת מִדְּרַבָּנַן – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אָסוּר – מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?
English Translation:
§ 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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion shifts to kilayim (forbidden mixtures) in a non-perforated flowerpot. Since a non-perforated pot is not halakhically connected to the ground, planting kilayim in it would only be a rabbinic prohibition (the Torah prohibition of kilayim applies only to actual ground). Abaye questions what Shmuel’s ruling adds: if it is merely prohibited by rabbinic law, that is already obvious from other sources. What new principle is being taught?
Key Terms:
- כִּלְאַיִם (Kilayim) = Diverse kinds; forbidden mixtures of seeds, grafts, or animal breeds
- מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת (Makat mardut) = Lashes for rebelliousness; a rabbinic punishment
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Resolution: non-perforated pot sowing is already known to be rabbinic-level from the mishna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּמִדְּרַבָּנַן הָוְיָא זְרִיעָה? תְּנֵינָא: תָּרַם מִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב עַל הַנָּקוּב – תְּרוּמָה, וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִתְרוֹם.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye demonstrates that the rabbinic status of non-perforated pot sowing is already established by Mishna Demai 5:10. That mishna explicitly treats produce from a non-perforated pot as having teruma status only by rabbinic law — proving that such “sowing” is recognized rabbinically. Shmuel’s ruling about kilayim adds nothing new. This passage underscores the importance of the perforated/non-perforated distinction in agricultural halakha.
Key Terms:
- דְּמַאי (Demai) = Doubtfully tithed produce; a tractate dealing with cases where tithing status is uncertain
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
Mishna: The five grains — halla, chadash, and the omer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַחִיטִּין, וְהַשְּׂעוֹרִין, וְהַכּוּסְּמִין, וְהַשִּׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל, וְהַשִּׁיפוֹן – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין בַּחַלָּה, וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, וַאֲסוּרִים בֶּחָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח, וּמִלִּקְצוֹר מִלִּפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר. אִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר – הָעוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן, וְאִם לָאו – אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא הָעוֹמֶר הַבָּא.
English Translation:
MISHNA: Wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye; these are obligated in the separation of halla, and each one of them joins together with the others to constitute the measure that obligates one to separate halla. 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a foundational mishna (Menachot 10:7 / Challah 1:1) establishing the unique halakhic status of the five grains. These five species — and only these — share four interconnected obligations: (1) halla separation from dough, (2) the prohibition of chadash (new crop) before Pesach, (3) the prohibition against reaping before the omer, and (4) the omer’s role in permitting consumption. The mishna also establishes the hashrashah (taking root) threshold referenced in many earlier dilemmas on this daf and the previous one. This mishna was cited on 69a as the basis for Rava bar Rav Hanan’s dilemmas.
Key Terms:
- חַלָּה (Halla/Challah) = A portion of dough separated for the kohen
- כּוּסְּמִין (Kusmin) = Spelt
- שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל (Shibbolet shu’al) = Oats (literally “fox-ear”)
- שִׁיפוֹן (Shifon) = Rye
- חָדָשׁ (Chadash) = New crop; forbidden until the omer offering
Amud Bet (70b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
Aramaic translations of the grain names; inference: rice and millet excluded
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּלְבָּא, שִׁיפוֹן – דִּישְׁרָא, שִׁיבּוֹלֶת שׁוּעָל – שֻׁבְלֵי תַּעֲלָא. הָנֵי – אִין, אוֹרֶז וְדוֹחַן – לָא.
English Translation:
gulva, rye is dishra, and oats are shibbolei ta’ala. The Gemara infers: With regard to these species, yes, the obligation of halla applies to them, but concerning rice and millet, no, the obligation of halla does not apply to them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara provides Aramaic vernacular translations for the less common grain names in the mishna, and draws a critical negative inference: the five grains are the exclusive list. Rice and millet — staple crops in many cultures — are explicitly excluded from the obligations of halla, chadash, and the omer. This exclusion has enormous practical significance, especially for communities where rice is a dietary staple.
Key Terms:
- גּוּלְבָּא (Gulva) = Spelt (Aramaic)
- דִּישְׁרָא (Dishra) = Rye (Aramaic)
- שֻׁבְלֵי תַּעֲלָא (Shuvlei ta’ala) = Oats (Aramaic; literally “fox stalks”)
- אוֹרֶז (Orez) = Rice
- דּוֹחַן (Dochan) = Millet
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Reish Lakish: halla obligation derived from matza via “lechem” verbal analogy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָתְיָא ״לֶחֶם״ ״לֶחֶם״ מִמַּצָּה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְהָיָה בַּאֲכׇלְכֶם מִלֶּחֶם הָאָרֶץ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לֶחֶם עֹנִי״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that only these five grains are obligated in the separations of halla, derived? Reish Lakish said: This principle is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” and “bread” from the case of matza. It is written here, with regard to halla: “And it shall be that when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set apart a portion for a gift to the Lord” (Numbers 15:19), and it is written there, with regard to matza: “Bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of those five grains, so too the obligation of halla applies only to bread from one of those five grains.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish establishes the scriptural basis through a gezera shava (verbal analogy). The word “lechem” (bread) appears both in the halla obligation (Numbers 15:19) and in the matza obligation (Deuteronomy 16:3). Since matza must come from the five grains, halla must also apply only to the five grains. This technique of linking laws through shared terminology is a fundamental hermeneutical principle of Talmudic exegesis.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה (Gezera shava) = Verbal analogy; a method of biblical interpretation linking laws through shared terminology
- לֶחֶם (Lechem) = Bread; the shared term linking halla and matza
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Derivation: only grains capable of leavening can be used for matza
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתָם גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא ״לֹא תֹאכַל עָלָיו חָמֵץ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל עָלָיו מַצּוֹת לֶחֶם עֹנִי״ – דְּבָרִים הַבָּאִים לִידֵי חִימּוּץ אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי חִימּוּץ אֶלָּא לִידֵי סֵירָחוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to matza itself, from where do we derive that it must be from one of those five grains? The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish said, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, and likewise a Sage of the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught, that the verse states: “You shall eat no leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it matza, the bread of affliction” (Deuteronomy 16:3). This verse indicates that only with regard to substances that will come to a state of leavening does a person fulfill his obligation to eat matza by eating them on Passover, provided that he prevents them from becoming leavened. This serves to exclude these foods, i.e., rice, millet, and similar grains, which, even if flour is prepared from them and water is added to their flour, do not come to a state of leavening but to a state of decay [sirhon].
קלאוד על הדף:
This is a crucial derivation with major practical implications. The Torah juxtaposes chametz and matza in a single verse, teaching that only substances capable of becoming chametz can be used for matza. This logical principle — matza must come from a substance that could have become chametz had it not been guarded — defines the five grains. Rice and millet, when mixed with water, do not ferment/leaven but rather decay (sirchon), a fundamentally different biochemical process. This principle underlies the well-known halakha that rice cannot be used for matza on Pesach and is the basis for the Ashkenazi custom of kitniyot restrictions.
Key Terms:
- חִימּוּץ (Chimmutz) = Leavening; the fermentation process specific to the five grains
- סֵירָחוֹן (Sirchon) = Decay/rotting; the process that occurs with rice and millet when mixed with water
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא
What halakha does the baraita about combining grain, flour, and dough address?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. תָּנָא: הַתְּבוּאָה וְהַקְּמָחִים וְהַבְּצֵיקוֹת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that each one of the five types of grain joins together with the others to constitute the measure that obligates one to separate halla. It was taught in a baraita: With regard to grain from produce and flours and pieces of dough, each one of these joins together with the others. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this taught?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s statement that the five grains combine with each other. A baraita extends this: not only do different grains combine, but grain, flour, and dough — three different processed forms of the same species — also combine. The Gemara asks: to which halakha does this combining rule apply? Four Amoraim offer different answers, each identifying a different legal context where this combination matters.
Key Terms:
- מִצְטָרְפִין (Mitztarfin) = They combine; different items join to reach a required minimum measure
- בְּצֵיקוֹת (Betzeikot) = Pieces of dough
Segment 5
TYPE: מחלוקת
Four opinions on which halakha the combining rule addresses
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לְעִנְיַן חָדָשׁ. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: לְעִנְיַן חָמֵץ בַּפֶּסַח. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, דְּאִי אָכֵיל לֵיהּ חוּץ לַחוֹמָה – לָקֵי.
English Translation:
Rav Kahana says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating of the new crop prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering on the sixteenth of Nisan. If one ate grain, flour, and dough of the new crop that combined to equal the size of an olive-bulk, he is liable to receive lashes for transgressing a prohibition. Rav Yosef says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating leavened bread on Passover. Rav Pappa says: It was taught with regard to the prohibition of eating second tithe outside the walls of Jerusalem. As, if one ate a combined olive-bulk’s worth of grain, flour and dough of the second tithe outside the wall of Jerusalem, he is flogged.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three Amoraim each identify a different prohibition where combining grain forms matters: Rav Kahana links it to chadash (the new crop prohibition), Rav Yosef to chametz on Pesach, and Rav Pappa to ma’aser sheni (second tithe eaten outside Jerusalem). In each case, the minimum prohibited quantity is a kezayit (olive-bulk), and the baraita teaches that different processed forms of the same grain combine to reach this threshold. Each opinion reflects a different legal context where the composition of what one eats determines culpability.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת (Kezayit) = An olive-bulk; the minimum quantity for most food-related prohibitions
- מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי (Ma’aser sheni) = Second tithe; must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Rava’s opinion: the combining rule addresses ritual impurity of food
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאַת אֳכָלִין, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דִּתְבוּאָה וּקְמָחִין דּוּמְיָא דִּבְצֵיקוֹת – מָה הָתָם אוּכְלָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי אוּכְלָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rava says: The baraita is referring to the matter of the ritual impurity of food; and this is what it teaches us: That grains of barley produce and flours are similar to pieces of dough. Just as there, concerning pieces of dough, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only if the combination of food is as is, without other additives, so too here also, concerning grain and flour, they combine to form the minimal measure of ritually impure food only when the mixture is food as is, without any shell or other additives.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava offers a fourth interpretation: the combining rule addresses tum’at okhlin (food impurity). The minimum quantity for food to become susceptible to impurity is a ke-beitza (egg-bulk). Rava teaches that grain, flour, and dough combine for this threshold, but only when they are “food as is” — meaning the grain must be in its edible form, without inedible shells or husks. This introduces the question of whether grain shells are considered part of the food for impurity purposes.
Key Terms:
- כְּבֵיצָה (Ke-beitza) = An egg-bulk; the minimum measure for food to become susceptible to ritual impurity
- אוּכְלָא בְּעֵינֵיהּ (Ukhla be-einei) = Food as is; in its edible form without extraneous parts
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Support for Rava: wheat combines shelled or not; barley only when shelled
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: חִטָּה, בֵּין קְלוּפָה בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְלוּפָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת; שְׂעוֹרָה, קְלוּפָה – מִצְטָרֶפֶת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְלוּפָה – אֵין מִצְטָרֶפֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites support for this opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: Wheat, whether shelled or unshelled, combines to form the minimal measure of food that is susceptible to ritual impurity. But as for barley, it combines only when it is shelled. When it is not shelled, it does not combine together, as the inedible shell interposes between the different grains. This support Rava’s interpretation of the baraita, that it addresses barley in the form of grain, flour, and dough.
קלאוד על הדף:
This baraita supports Rava by demonstrating that the combining rule for food impurity depends on the edibility of the grain’s outer layer. Wheat has a thin, edible shell, so it combines whether or not it is shelled. Barley, however, has a thick, inedible husk — when unshelled, the husks prevent the individual grains from combining as a single food mass. Only shelled barley (or barley flour and dough, where the husks have been removed) can combine. This distinction between wheat and barley shells reflects real botanical differences.
Key Terms:
- קְלוּפָה (Kelufah) = Shelled; with the husk removed
- שֶׁאֵינָהּ קְלוּפָה (She-einah kelufah) = Unshelled; with the husk intact
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge: The school of R. Yishmael teaches that seeds are susceptible to impurity in their shells!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִינִי? וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״ – כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם מוֹצִיאִין לִזְרִיעָה: חִטָּה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וּשְׂעוֹרָה בִּקְלִיפָּתָהּ, וַעֲדָשִׁים בִּקְלִיפָּתָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the shell of barley is not considered part of the grain with regard to combining for ritual impurity? But didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach in a baraita: Before a food item comes in contact with liquid it is not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the verse states: “And if anything falls from their carcasses upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water be put upon the seed, and any of the carcass fall thereon, it is impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37-38). The baraita teaches that the term “that is sown” indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to ritual impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing. This applies to wheat in its shell, barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells are considered part of the grain with regard to ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a contradiction from the school of R. Yishmael. A verse in Leviticus discusses seeds becoming susceptible to impurity, and the derasha teaches that seeds are evaluated “as people typically take them out for sowing” — meaning in their shells. This explicitly includes barley in its shell as part of the food for impurity purposes, contradicting the previous baraita that said unshelled barley does not combine!
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹמֵר (Shomer) = A protective covering/shell; can be considered part of the food for certain halakhic purposes
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: moist shells are part of the grain; dry shells are not
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּלַחוֹת, הָא בִּיבֵשׁוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. The ruling of this baraita, which teaches that the shells of kernels are considered part of it with regard to ritual impurity, is stated with regard to moist kernels, whereas the ruling of that baraita, which teaches that the shells are not part of the seed, is stated with regard to dry kernels, in which the shells crumble and fall away.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is elegantly simple: moisture determines whether shells are considered attached. Moist grain has shells firmly attached — they function as a protective covering (shomer) and are part of the food. Dry grain has shells that crumble and separate — they no longer serve as a genuine covering and are not part of the food. This practical agricultural distinction resolves the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot and establishes that the status of food coverings depends on their physical condition.
Key Terms:
- לַחוֹת (Lachot) = Moist; wet kernels whose shells adhere firmly
- יְבֵשׁוֹת (Yveshot) = Dry; dried kernels whose shells crumble away
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
Derivation: the prohibition of chadash applies only to the five grains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲסוּרִין בֶּחָדָשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָתְיָא ״לֶחֶם״ ״לֶחֶם״ מִמַּצָּה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches with regard to the five grains: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover festival. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “bread” written in connection with the prohibition of the new crop (see Leviticus 23:14), and “bread” written with regard to matza (see Deuteronomy 16:3). Just as matza can be prepared only from one of the five grains, so too the prohibition against eating of the new crop applies only to the five grains.
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish applies the same “lechem-lechem” gezera shava to derive that the chadash prohibition applies exclusively to the five grains. The verse prohibiting new crop consumption (Leviticus 23:14) uses the word “lechem” (bread), which links it to the matza obligation. Since matza is limited to the five grains, so is the chadash prohibition. This means rice harvested before Pesach, for example, is not subject to the chadash prohibition — a ruling with significant practical implications.
Key Terms:
- חָדָשׁ (Chadash) = New crop; grain forbidden until the omer offering on the 16th of Nisan
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
Derivation: the prohibition against reaping before the omer applies only to the five grains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִקְצוֹר לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָתְיָא ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵחַלָּה.
English Translation:
§ The mishna further teaches with regard to the five grains: And it is prohibited to reap them prior to the omer offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between “the first” written in conjunction with the new crop: “You shall bring the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest” (Leviticus 23:10), and “the first” written with regard to halla: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). Just as the obligation to separate halla applies only to bread prepared from the five grains, so too the prohibition against reaping the new crop prior to the omer offering applies only to crops of the five grains.
קלאוד על הדף:
R. Yohanan uses a different gezera shava — “reishit-reishit” (first) — to derive the reaping prohibition. The omer offering is called “the first of your harvest” (Leviticus 23:10), and halla is described as “the first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20). Since halla applies only to the five grains, the reaping prohibition must also be limited to them. Note that each element of the mishna requires its own derivation: halla from “lechem-lechem,” chadash from “lechem-lechem,” and reaping from “reishit-reishit.”
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית (Reishit) = First/beginning; the shared term linking the omer and halla obligations
Segment 12
TYPE: מחלוקת
Dispute: “Prior to the omer” — does it mean reaping or bringing the offering?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר? רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר: קוֹדֶם קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זַבְדָּא אָמַר: קוֹדֶם הֲבָאַת הָעוֹמֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Does it mean prior to the reaping of the omer grain or prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering? Rabbi Yona says: It means prior to the reaping of the omer grain, i.e., the new crop is permitted at daybreak on the sixteenth of Nisan. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the bringing of the omer offering later that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical dispute with significant timing implications. The omer grain was reaped on the night of the 16th of Nisan, immediately after the first day of Pesach ended. The omer offering itself was brought later that morning. According to R. Yona, the new crop becomes permitted as soon as the omer grain is harvested (nighttime). According to R. Yosei bar Zavda, permission comes only when the offering is actually brought (daytime). The difference is several hours on the most important agricultural-halakhic day of the year.
Key Terms:
- קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר (Ketzirat ha’omer) = The reaping of the omer grain; performed on the night of the 16th of Nisan
- הֲבָאַת הָעוֹמֶר (Hava’at ha’omer) = The bringing/sacrifice of the omer offering; performed the following morning
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Proof from the mishna’s structure supports R. Yosei bar Zavda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: אֲסוּרִין בֶּחָדָשׁ לִפְנֵי פֶסַח, וְלִקְצוֹר לִפְנֵי הָעוֹמֶר. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹדֶם הֲבָאַת הָעוֹמֶר – הַיְינוּ דְּלָא קָא עָרֵיב לְהוּ וְתָנֵי לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a proof from that which we learned in the mishna: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop prior to the Passover Festival, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the sacrifice of the omer offering. Granted, according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the bringing of the omer offering, this is the reason that the mishna did not combine the clauses together and teach them as one, since the time frame for each prohibition is different. The prohibition of harvesting the new crop is lifted at daybreak after the omer crop was harvested at night, whereas the prohibition against consuming the new crop ends only with the sacrifice of the omer offering later that day.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reasons from the mishna’s literary structure. The mishna lists the eating prohibition and the reaping prohibition separately rather than combining them. This makes sense according to R. Yosei bar Zavda, who holds that the reaping and eating prohibitions are lifted at different times: reaping becomes permitted at night (when the omer is harvested), but eating is only permitted later in the day (when the offering is brought). Since the two prohibitions end at different times, the mishna appropriately separates them.
Key Terms:
- עָרֵיב (Areiv) = Combined/mixed; the mishna could have merged the two prohibitions if they shared the same timing
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Challenge to R. Yona: if both end at the same time, the mishna should combine them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹדֶם קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר, לִיעָרְבִינְהוּ וְלִיתְנִינְהוּ: אֲסוּרִין בֶּחָדָשׁ וְלִקְצוֹר לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח!
English Translation:
But according to the one who said that the prohibition applies prior to the reaping of the omer grain, then both the consuming and the harvesting of the new crop are permitted at daybreak of the sixteenth of Nisan. If so, let the mishna combine them and teach them together, as follows: And they are forbidden due to the prohibition of partaking of the new crop, and likewise it is prohibited to reap them prior to the Passover Festival.
קלאוד על הדף:
If R. Yona is correct that both prohibitions end when the omer grain is reaped (nighttime of the 16th), then there is no timing difference between the eating and reaping prohibitions. The mishna should have combined them into a single statement. The fact that the mishna separates them suggests that the prohibitions end at different times, supporting R. Yosei bar Zavda.
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolution: the dispute actually applies to the latter clause about hashrashah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אִי אִיתְּמַר – אַסֵּיפָא אִיתְּמַר: אִם הִשְׁרִישׁוּ קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר – הָעוֹמֶר מַתִּירָן. מַאי קוֹדֶם לָעוֹמֶר? רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר: קוֹדֶם הֲבָאַת הָעוֹמֶר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זַבְדָּא אוֹמֵר: קוֹדֶם קְצִירַת הָעוֹמֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Rather, if a dispute was stated in this matter, it was stated with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches: If these grains took root prior to the omer offering, the omer permits their consumption. What does the mishna mean when it says: Prior to the omer? Rabbi Yona says: Prior to the bringing of the omer sacrifice. Rabbi Yosei bar Zavda says: Prior to the harvesting of the omer grain.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara relocates the dispute to the latter clause of the mishna, about the hashrashah threshold. “If these grains took root prior to the omer” — but prior to which omer event? R. Yona: prior to the bringing of the offering (more lenient — grain has until the morning to take root). R. Yosei bar Zavda: prior to the harvesting of the omer grain (more stringent — grain must take root before nighttime). Interestingly, the positions of the two rabbis have swapped relative to the original framing, ensuring internal consistency with the mishna’s structure.
Key Terms:
- סֵיפָא (Seifa) = The latter clause of the mishna
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Elazar’s statement (continues on next daf)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar said to
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf ends mid-sentence with Rabbi Elazar beginning a statement, continuing on 71a. This transition indicates that the discussion about the precise timing of the omer’s permitting effect continues, with further analysis of the dispute between R. Yona and R. Yosei bar Zavda.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (Rabbi Elazar) = A prominent third-generation Amora, student of R. Yohanan