Menachot 70

Sugya Map

The core of this sugya in Menachot 70a revolves around the status of produce that undergoes a second cycle of growth after having been tithed. The fundamental tension is whether the original act of tithing me'akher (renders moot) the obligation for subsequent growth, or if the "new" growth creates a chiddush of obligation.

• Primary Issue: Does the kiddush (sanctification) of the first growth persist, or does the addition (tosafot) necessitate a new cycle of terumot and ma'asrot?
• Nafka Mina:
  • Whether the original grain, already tithed, requires a second tithe if the plant continues to grow.
  • Whether terumah can be designated on produce mechubar l'karka (attached to the ground), and if so, how that interacts with the prohibition against eating tevel.
• Primary Sources: Menachot 70a; Bikkurim 2:4 (the source for "no terumah on attached produce"); Leviticus 22:9, 14 (laws of chomesh and mitah).

Text Snapshot

The Gemara frames the dilemma:

"אמדינהו ועשרינהו והדר שתלינהו ואוסיפו להו... מי אמרינן בתר עיקר אזלינן ופטר תוספת, או דילמא בתר תוספת אזלינן ומחייב עיקר?" (Menachot 70a)

• Nuance: The term amdinaihu (estimating) implies a formal act of separating tithes from the pile (kri). The dikduk here is critical: the Gemara distinguishes between a seed that "disintegrates" (nirkav) versus one that does not. If the seed disintegrates, the new growth is de facto a new entity. The lomdus focuses on the ontological status of the "original" material versus the "additional" biomass.

Readings

1. Rashi (ad loc. 70a, s.v. v'tosafot ba'ei):

Rashi highlights the binary logic of the chiddush. He posits that if we rule stringently (l'chumra)—that the addition is obligated—we must then ask about the "base" (ikar). Does the ikar (which was already tithed) now fall back into a state of tevel because it is now attached to the "new" and untithed growth? Rashi’s concern is the de-sanctification of the previously tithed portion. If the new growth is tevel, it renders the entire pile tevel by mixture, effectively undoing the previous mitzvah performance.

2. Steinsaltz (Commentary on 70a):

Steinsaltz contextualizes the dilemma through the lens of the "normalcy of sowing" (derekh zeri'ah). He notes that the reason the onion case (Rabbi Yitzchak) fails to resolve the grain dilemma is the distinction between derekh (normative practice) and chareig (anomaly). For onions, the entire bulb is planted, so the yield is viewed as a continuation. For grain, planting an ear is abnormal. The chiddush here is that halachic status is not just a function of biology, but of human intent and normative agricultural practice.

Friction: The Kushya and Terutz

The Strongest Kushya: The Sages challenge Abaye: If we admit that one can designate terumah on grain mechubar (attached to the ground) because of the "smoothing" (amidinaihu), we contradict the established baraita (Bikkurim 2:4) which states explicitly: Ein terumah b'mechubar (there is no terumah on attached produce). If the designation works, then we have created terumah on attached produce, which is a conceptual impossibility in the Mishnaic framework.

The Terutz: Abaye (and the Gemara) provides a sophisticated split. The baraita forbidding terumah on mechubar refers specifically to the penalty of misah (death) and chomesh (a fifth). That is, the Torah does not recognize the status of terumah on attached produce to the extent of triggering the severe penalties for a non-priest who eats it. However, the dignity or sanctity of the designation might still exist in a limited, non-penal capacity. Furthermore, the Gemara suggests that even if one does eat it while attached, the "abnormal" manner of consumption (achilah gassah/meshunah) provides a further exemption from liability, neutralizing the conflict between the potential sanctity and the lack of chiyuv.

Intertext

• Bikkurim 2:4: The primary source for the restriction on terumah in the ground. The Gemara uses this to test the boundaries of "attached vs. detached" (t'lushah).
• Leviticus 11:37-38: The Gemara cross-references the susceptibility of grain to ritual impurity based on whether it is "sown" (zaru'a). This links the Menachot discussion to the broader Taharot corpus: if the shell is a protective layer, it is part of the seed; if it is mere waste, it is an interposition (chatzitzah).

Psak/Practice

The sugya clarifies that terumah and ma'asrot are fundamentally linked to the harvest or the processing of the produce. In practical terms, one cannot circumvent the tithing obligation by replanting tithed grain, as the new growth is always viewed as a fresh entity requiring its own terumah. The meta-psak is clear: Halacha prioritizes the state of the produce over the history of the seed. The "attached" nature of the produce remains a barrier to formal terumah status in terms of penal liability, preventing the accidental creation of "untithed" (or "priestly") zones in the field.

Takeaway

Halacha distinguishes between biological continuity and legal obligation; the gemar (completion of the growth process) creates a new chiyuv that even the previous kiddush of the seed cannot override.