Fire is not the proper interpretation of the term kali in the verse. Rather, kali means something else, i.e., the barley was parched inside a receptacle and not directly in the fire. How so? The term kali means only that something else, a vessel made from burnished [kalil] brass was used in the process of parching the grains. How so, i.e., how was this performed? There was a hollow vessel there, in the Temple, which was used for making parched grains. And it was perforated with holes like a sieve, in order to allow the fire to take hold of it in its entirety.

The baraita analyzes the verse: “And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits to the Lord, you shall bring for the meal offering of your first fruits grain in the ear parched with fire, even groats of the fresh ear” (Leviticus 2:14). This indicates that the grain used for the omer offering must be parched with fire, but is unclear if that clause modifies the earlier or later part of the verse. In other words, I do not know if grain in the ear is to be parched before it is ground, or if the ground groats are to be parched. The baraita explains that when the verse states: With fire, it interrupted the previous matter and is now introducing a new clause. Accordingly, the instructions to parch with fire is referring to the grain still in the stalks, not the ground groats.

The verse states that the omer offering should be of the fresh ear [karmel]. The baraita defines karmel as soft and malleable [rakh umal]. And likewise there are other examples of terms that are interpreted as shortened terms, as the verse states: “And there came a man from Baal Shalishah, and brought the man of God bread of the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of grain [karmel] in his sack [betziklono]. And he said: Give to the people, that they may eat” (II Kings 4:42). This verse mentions the word karmel in connection with the word betziklono, which is interpreted as an abbreviation for: He came [ba] and he poured for us [veyatzak lanu], and we ate [ve’akhalnu] and it was fine [venaveh haya].

The baraita presents further examples of words that are interpreted as shortened terms of an expanded phrase. And the verse states: “Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning; let us solace ourselves [nitalesa] with love” (Proverbs 7:18). The word nitalesa is short for: We shall converse [nissa veniten] and we shall go up [vena’aleh] to bed and we shall rejoice [venismaḥ] and be pampered [venitḥata] with loves.

The baraita provides an example of a similar shortened word: “The wing of the ostrich beats joyously [ne’elasa]” (Job 39:13). The word ne’elasa is a combination of the words: Carries [noseh], goes up [oleh], and places down [venitḥata]. This bird carries its egg, flies upward, and places it in its nest.

Likewise, the verse states, after Balaam struck his donkey: “And the angel of the Lord said to him: Why did you hit your donkey these three times? Behold I have come out as an adversary because your way is contrary [yarat] against me” (Numbers 22:32). Yarat is also a shortened term: The donkey feared [yirata], it saw [ra’ata], and it turned aside [nateta].

The Gemara returns to discuss the word karmel. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that karmel means: A full kernel [kar maleh], i.e., that the shell of the kernel should be filled with the ripened kernel inside.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having ḥalla and the tithes separated from it. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Akiva would say: The smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from the obligation to separate tithes if it is later redeemed for common use. This is despite the halakha that the smoothing of the pile is what causes the obligation of separating tithes to take effect.

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: What would they do with the leftover of these three se’a of barley, i.e., the portion not used for the tenth of an ephah of flour for the omer offering? It is redeemed and eaten by any person, and it is obligated in the separation of ḥalla and exempt from the separation of tithes. Rabbi Akiva deems this flour obligated in having ḥalla and the tithes separated from it. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva: The halakha of one who redeems produce from the possession of the Temple treasurer [gizbar] proves otherwise, as he is obligated in the separation of ḥalla but exempt from the separation of tithes.

Rav Sheshet explains his objection: And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva holds that smoothing a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, what is the significance of that which the Rabbis said to him? Rabbi Akiva would simply disagree with their premise, as it is the same ruling itself: Just as a pile of consecrated grains that was smoothed is not exempt from tithes, so too, Rabbi Akiva would maintain that produce redeemed from the Temple treasury is not exempt from tithes.

And furthermore, Rav Kahana bar Taḥlifa raises an objection from a baraita to Rav Kahana bar Matitya, who reported that Rabbi Akiva holds that consecrated grain is not exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Akiva obligates one in the separation of ḥalla and in the separation of tithes, as the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. Only the requisite tenth of an ephah out of the entire three se’a was paid from the Temple treasury, and was therefore its property. This indicates that had the entire crop been purchased by the Temple, it would be exempt from the obligation to separate tithes.

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a settled, accepted tradition in the mouth of Rabbi Akiva that the Temple money designated for the omer crop was given only to cover the cost of that which they required for the offering. In other words, Rav Kahana’s version of Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, that in all cases the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grains does not exempt it from tithes, is rejected.

Rava likewise said: It is obvious to me that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain exempts one from any subsequent obligation to separate tithes. And even Rabbi Akiva, who requires the separation of tithes from the remainder of the grain not used for the omer offering, obligates one to separate tithes only there, where the money was given only to pay for that which they required for the offering. But he concedes that the smoothing of a pile of consecrated grain generally exempts one from the obligation to separate tithes.

Rava continues: The status of a pile of grain after smoothing performed by a gentile owner is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt other produce bought from gentiles, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt other produce bought from Samaritans. Furthermore, one may separate teruma from the produce of any of the above to exempt the produce of any of the above. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, as they maintain that produce that belonged to gentiles or Samaritans is obligated in tithes and has the same status as produce that initially belonged to a Jew.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: One separates teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt other produce of a Jew, and from produce bought from gentiles to exempt produce bought from Samaritans, and from produce bought from Samaritans to exempt produce bought from gentiles. But one may not separate teruma from produce of a Jew to exempt produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans, nor from produce bought from gentiles or from Samaritans to exempt produce of a Jew. According to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael, produce that belonged to a gentile or a Samaritan is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes. Therefore one may not separate tithes from produce of a Jew, to which the obligation of tithes applies, to exempt such produce.