Menachot 132
אין אור לשון קלי אלא דבר אחר (הא כיצד וכו') אין לשון קלי אלא דבר (אחר) קליל הא כיצד אבוב של קליות היה שם והיה מנוקב ככברה כדי שתהא האור שולטת בכולו
<br> [intervening between the fire and the grain]. (Another version reads: By koli we understand what is parched in a vessel.) How was it done then? There was there [in the Temple] a pipe for parching corn which was perforated like a sieve so that the fire might take hold of it on all sides. Corn in the ear, parched...crushed: now I know not whether the fresh ears of corn must be parched or the crushed grain must be parched; but when the verse says '[parched] with fire', it thus interrupts the subject. Karmel [fresh corn] means, rak [tender] and mal [easily crushed]. In like manner [we interpret the word in the following] verse: And there came a man from Baal-shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh corn beziklono. And he said, Give unto the people that they may eat. [Beziklono means]: He came and poured out for us, and we ate, and it was fine. And so, too, [when it says, Let us solace ourselves [nith'alsah] with loves, [nith'alsah means:] Let us talk together and then let us go up [on the couch] and rejoice and revel in caresses. And so, too, [when] it says, The wing of the ostrich [ne'elasah] beateth joyously, [ne'elasah means:] It carries [the egg], flies upwards [with it] and deposits it [in the nest]. And so, too, [when] it says, Because thy way is contrary [yarat] unto me, [yarat means:] She [the ass] feared when she saw [the angel] and she turned aside. In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: Karmel means, kar [rounded, and male [full]. <br>
אביב קלוי גרש איני יודע אם אביב קלוי אם גרש קלוי כשהוא אומר באש הפסיק הענין
R. AKIBA DECLARES IT LIABLE BOTH TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING AND TO TITHES. R. Kahana said, R. Akiba used to say that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple does not exempt it [from tithes]. <br>
כרמל רך ומל וכן הוא אומר (מלכים ב ד, מב) ואיש בא מבעל שלישה ויבא לאיש האלהים לחם ביכורים ועשרים לחם שעורים וכרמל בצקלונו ויאמר תן לעם ויאכלו בא ויצק לנו ואכלנו ונוה היה
R. Shesheth raised the following objection: What did they do with what remained of those three se'ahs? It was redeemed and could be eaten by any one; it was liable to the dough-offering but exempt from tithes. R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and to tithes. But [the Sages] said to him, Let what is redeemed from the hand of the Temple treasurer prove the case, for that is liable to the dough-offering yet is exempt from tithes. Now if it is right to say, [R. Akiba holds the view that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple does not exempt [from tithes], then what was the point of their argument, it is just the same case? Furthermore, R. Kahana b. Tahlifa raised an objection against R. Kahana's statement [from the following Baraitha]: R. Akiba declares it liable both to the dough-offering and tithes, for Temple money was only used for what was necessary! - Rather, said R. Johanan,it is an accepted teaching in the mouth of R. Akiba that Temple money was only used for what was necessary. <br>
ואומר (משלי ז, יח) נתעלסה באהבים נשא ונתן ונעלה ונשמח ונתחטא באהבים
Raba said, I am quite certain that the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] the Temple exempts it [from tithes], for even R. Akiba only declares it liable [to tithes] in that case alone, since Temple money was only used for what was necessary, but elsewhere [all agree that] the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging to] the Temple exempts from tithes.
ואומר (איוב לט, יג) כנף רננים נעלסה נושא עולה ונתחטא
With regard to the smoothing of the pile of [corn belonging at the time to] a gentile there is a difference of opinion between Tannaim. For it was taught: One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce also bought from a gentile, and from produce bought from a Cuthean for other produce also bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from any one of these for other produce also bought from any one of these. So R. Meir and R. Judah. But R. Jose and R. Simeon say, One may give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce also bought from an Israelite, and from produce bought from a gentile for other produce bought from a Cuthean, and from produce bought from a Cuthean for other produce bought from a gentile, but one may not give terumah from produce bought from an Israelite for other produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean, nor from produce bought from a gentile or a Cuthean for other produce bought from an Israelite. <br>