Menachot 139
דאמדינהו ועשרינהו ושתלינהו והוסיפה להו
<br> the ears of corn were tithed by conjectural estimate and the rest was resown and had increased in growth. And should you say that [in this case] we have no regard to the stock, so that the increase must be tithed, the question will remain, What about the stock itself? -Said to him Abaye, Wherein does this differ from ordinary wheat and barley? - He replied. In those cases where the seed decays I have no doubt at all; my question only refers to the case where what was sown does not decay. What is then the position with regard to this? - But surely this can be solved from the following statement of R. Isaac which he said in the name of R. Johanan: If a litra of onions was tithed and then replanted, the tithe must again be taken from the whole [of the growth]! - In this case it is the usual manner of planting. but in the former case that is not the usual manner of sowing. R. Hanina b. Manyomi put the following to Abaye. What is the law with regard to the growth in a plant-pot that was not perforated? - But surely if it is not perforated, it is not perforated! Perhaps you refer to an unperforated pot which was later perforated! -Here there is but one sowing and it has now become joined [to the earth] and is growing up, whereas in the other case there were two sowings! <br>
אם תמצא לומר לא אזלינן בתר עיקר ותוספת בעי עשורי עיקר מאי אמר ליה אביי מאי שנא מכל חיטי ושערי דעלמא
R. Abbahu raised this question. What is the law if an ear of corn, which had been in the pile when it was smoothed off, had been replanted and designated [as terumah] when attached [to the soil]? Do we say that since it was in the pile when it was smoothed off it then became tebel, and therefore when it is later designated [as terumah, even though attached to the soil], it is consecrated [as terumah]; or perhaps since it was replanted its tebel state has passed? - The Rabbis thereupon said to Abaye, If [we say] so, then we find produce that is attached to the soil consecrated as terumah, and we have learnt: We do not find produce that is attached to the soil consecrated as terumah! - He replied. That was taught only in connection with the liability of death [at the hands of Heaven] and the payment of the added fifth. For if one plucked it out and ate it, one has then eaten what was detached from soil; and if one bent down and ate it, that act runs counter to the acts of men. <br>
אמר ליה דבר שזרעו כלה לא מיבעיא לי אלא כי קמיבעיא לי דבר שאין זרעו כלה מאי
Wherein is this case different from that which is stated in Ufa's note-book, viz., As regards the eggs that were partly out-, side the carcass of a clean bird and partly inside, the inside part renders unclean whilst it is in the gullet the clothes [of him that eats it]; but the outside part does not render unclean whilst it is in the gullet the clothes [of him that eats it]!-What is not attached [to the soil] people sometimes eat in this [unusual] manner, but what is attached to the soil people do not eat in that manner. <br>
תפשוט ליה מהא דאמר רבי יצחק אמר ר' יוחנן ליטרא בצל שתיקנו וזרעו מתעשר לפי כולו
R. Tabyom b. Kisna said in the name of Samuel, If a man sowed diverse seeds in an unperforated plant-pot, it is forbidden. Said Abaye, It is well if he were to teach us that the man suffers the Rabbinic penalty of chastisement; but what does he teach us by saying 'It is forbidden'? That Rabbinically it is regarded as a sowing? Surely this we have already learnt: If a man set aside as terumah that which grew in an unperforated pot for that which grew in a perforated pot, [what has been set aside is accounted as] terumah, yet he must give the terumah afresh. <br>
התם היינו זריעתו הכא לאו היינו זריעתו
MISHNAH. WHEAT, BARLEY, SPELT, OATS AND RYE ARE SUBJECT TO THE DOUGH-OFFERING; AND THEY CAN BE RECKONED TOGETHER. THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO BE EATEN] AS NEW PRODUCE BEFORE THE 'OMER, AND THEY MAY NOT BE REAPED BEFORE THE PASSOVER. IF THEY HAD TAKEN ROOT BEFORE THE 'OMER, THE 'OMER RENDERS THEM PERMITTED; OTHERWISE THEY ARE FORBIDDEN UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR'S 'OMER.