1) WHICH PRODUCE BECOMES PERMITTED?

(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): How developed must produce be in order that Shtei ha’Lechem will permit it – Hanatzah (sprouting) or Chanatah (budding)?
1. Question: Which Hanatzah and Chanatah does he refer to?
i. Suggestion: He refers to that of the fruit.
ii. Rejection: Hashrashah suffices for grain to be permitted by the Omer, surely Hanatzah and Chanatah permit fruit!
2. Answer: He refers to that of leaves;
i. He asks whether Hanatzah of leaves is like Hashrashah, or if Chanatah is like Hashrashah.
(b) This question is not resolved.
2) IS PLANTED WHEAT LIKE LAND?
(a) Question #1 (Rabah bar bar Chanan): If (harvested) wheat was replanted in the ground, does the Omer permit it?
1. Question: Whether or not it took root, a Mishnah answers this!
i. (Mishnah): If it took root before the Omer, the Omer permits it; if not, it is forbidden until next year’s Omer.
2. Answer: The case is, he harvested and planted it before the Omer, and the Omer passed (before Hashrashah) – may he uproot it and eat it?
i. If we consider the wheat to be in a box, the Omer permits it; if we consider it to be Batul to the ground (like wheat that is growing), it is forbidden until the next Omer.
(b) Question #2: Does Ona’ah (overcharging) apply to it?
1. Question: What is the case?
2. Answer #1: Reuven paid Shimon to plant six measures of wheat and witnesses testify that he planted only five.
3. Rejection: Surely Reuven does not pardon the missing measure!
i. (Rava): If the wrong measure, weight or number was given, even if the error is less than a sixth, the sale is invalid (Rashi; Rambam – the sale stands, but the additional amount must be given or returned).
4. Answer #2: Reuven paid Shimon to plant his field properly, witnesses testify that he planted improperly.
i. If we consider the wheat to be in a box, Ona’ah applies to it (like all other Metaltelim);
ii. If it is Batul to the ground, it is like land, Ona’ah does not apply to it.
(c) Question #3: Does one swear about it?
1. If it is like wheat in a box, it is Metaltelim, we swear about it;
2. If it is Batul to the ground, it is like land, we do not swear about it.
(d) These questions are not resolved.
3) WASTE AFTER DIGESTION
(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): If wheat or barley is in animal excrement, what is the law?
1. Question: What does he ask about?
2. Answer #1: He asks whether or not it has Tum’as Ochlim.
3. Rejection: A Mishnah teaches this!
i. (Mishnah): If wheat or barley is in animal excrement and one intended to eat it, it is not Mekabel Tum’as Ochlim;
ii. If he picked it out of the excrement in order to eat it, it is Mekabel Tum’as Ochlim.
4. Answer #2: He asks whether or not it may be used for Menachos.
5. Objection: Obviously, it may not be used – “Hakrivehu Na l’Fechasecha…” (a human governor would not accept a gift of a sickly animal, all the more so we should not offer repulsive Korbanos!)
6. Answer #3: The case is, he removed the grain and planted it, he asks whether or not what grows may be used for Menachos;
i. If grain in excrement is Pasul because it is repulsive, what grows from it is not repulsive (it may be used);
ii. If grain in excrement is Pasul because it is inferior (because it was digested), what grows from it will also be inferior (it is Pasul.)
(b) This question is not resolved.
(c) Question (Rami bar Chama): If an elephant swallowed a basket, and excreted it, what is the law?
1. Question: About what does he ask?
2. Answer #1: He asks whether or not it became Tahor.
3. Rejection: A Mishnah teaches this!
i. (Mishnah): (If one is making a vessel,) intent (to use it like it is now) causes things to Mekabel Tum’ah, a physical change is needed to Metaher (intent to fix it for a different use does not suffice.)
4. Answer #2: The case is, it swallowed reeds, they were made into a wicker basket;
i. If we consider the reeds to have been digested, the basket is a dung vessel, it is not Mekabel Tum’ah; if not, it is Mekabel Tum’ah.
69b—————————————69b

ii. Vessels made of stone, dung or dirt are not Mekabel Tum’ah, not mid’Oraisa nor mid’Rabanan.
(d) Answer #1: We learn from Ula!
1. (Ula): A case occurred, wolves swallowed two babies in Ever ha’Yarden (and excreted them), Chachamim were Metaher the flesh.
(e) Rejection: We cannot learn from there, flesh is soft (it is more easily digested than reeds.)
(f) Answer #2: We learn from the end of that teaching!
1. (Ula): …Chachamim were Metamei the bones.
(g) Rejection: We cannot learn from there, bones are hard.
4) WHEAT FROM THE CLOUDS
(a) Question (R. Zeira): If wheat (Rashi – from a ship was absorbed in clouds; Tosfos – miraculously) fell with rain, what is the law?
1. Question: What does he ask about?
i. Surely, he does not ask whether or not it is Kosher for Menachos – there is no reason to Posel!
2. Answer: He asks whether or not it is Kosher for Shtei ha’Lechem;
i. Shtei ha’Lechem must come from “Mi’Moshvoseichem (where you dwell)” – this excludes Chutz la’Aretz, but it may come from clouds;
ii. Or, “Mi’Moshvoseichem” also excludes clouds.
3. Question: Would this ever occur?!
4. Answer: Yes – a case occurred, a field three Parsa’os long was covered with a Tefach of wheat.
5) IS THE GROWTH “BATUL” TO THE “IKAR”
(a) Question (R. Shimon ben Pazi): If an ear of grain was a third grown before the Omer, and it was detached and replanted after the Omer and it grew (a little), what is the law?
1. If the law is determined by the Ikar (what was planted), the Omer permitted it (the additional growth is Batul, it is also permitted);
2. If the law is determined by the new growth, it is not permitted until next year’s Omer.
3. Question: He should learn from either of the following (that the Ikar determines the law!)
i. (R. Avahu): If a young branch (i.e. of a tree within the three years of Orlah) with fruits was grafted onto an old tree, even if they grew an additional 200 times their (initial) size, they are forbidden.
ii. (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): If an onion was planted in a vineyard and the vines were removed, even if it grew an additional 200 times its size, it is forbidden.
4. Answer: R. Shimon ben Pazi asks about the rulings of R. Avahu and R. Shmuel:
i. Are they sure that the Ikar determines the law, even if this is a leniency?
ii. Or, perhaps they are unsure, they are concerned for stringencies of the Ikar and the additional growth?
(b) This question is not resolved.