## Menachot Daf 69b

###### Menachot 69b:1
[Menachot 69b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:1)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Menachot 69b:2
[Menachot 69b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:2)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יְהוֹצָדָק: מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָלְעוּ זְאֵבִים שְׁנֵי תִינוֹקוֹת בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְטִהֲרוּ אֶת הַבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:3
[Menachot 69b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:3)

שָׁאנֵי בָּשָׂר, דְּרַכִּיךְ. וְלִפְשׁוֹט מִסֵּיפָא: וְטִמְּאוּ אֶת הָעֲצָמוֹת! שָׁאנֵי עֲצָמוֹת, דַּאֲקוֹשֵׁי טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:4
[Menachot 69b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:4)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: חִיטִּין שֶׁיָּרְדוּ בֶּעָבִים, מַהוּ? לְמַאי? אִי לִמְנָחוֹת – אַמַּאי לָא? אֶלָּא לִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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*?


###### Menachot 69b:5
[Menachot 69b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:5)

״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, לְאַפּוֹקֵי דְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דְּלָא, אֲבָל דְּעָבִים שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי; אוֹ דִלְמָא ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ דַּוְוקָא, וַאֲפִילּוּ דְּעָבִים נָמֵי לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:6
[Menachot 69b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:6)

וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, כְּדַעֲדִי טַיָּיעָא, נְחִיתָא לֵיהּ רוּם כִּיזְבָא חִיטֵּי בִּתְלָתָא פַּרְסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Menachot 69b:7
[Menachot 69b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:7)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.**


###### Menachot 69b:8
[Menachot 69b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:8)

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יַלְדָּה שֶׁסִּבְּכָהּ בִּזְקֵנָה, וּבָהּ פֵּירוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:9
[Menachot 69b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:9)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: בָּצָל שֶׁשְּׁתָלוֹ בַּכֶּרֶם, וְנֶעֱקַר הַכֶּרֶם, אֲפִילּוּ הוֹסִיף בְּמָאתַיִם – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:10
[Menachot 69b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Menachot 69b:11
[Menachot 69b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Menachot/r/69b:11)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר מַאי? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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**