Traité Menachot

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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?

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : 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.