Jerusalem Challah

Mishnah

1 Five kinds are subject to ḥallah: wheat, barley, spelt, foxtail, and oats. These are subject to ḥallah and combine with one another. They are forbidden as new grain before Passover and may not be cut before the ʿomer. If they formed roots before the ʿomer, the ʿomer permits them; otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ʿomer.

Halakhah

“Five kinds are subject to ḥallah,” etc. It is written: “It shall be when you eat of the bread of the Land you shall lift a heave for the Eternal.”Numbers 15:19 I might think that everything is subject to ḥallah; the verse says “of the bread” and not all bread. If “of the bread” and not all bread, that might be only wheat and barley. How do we know spelt, foxtail, and oats? The verse says “the first of your dough,”Numbers 15:20, 21 which includes them. Does it include everything? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Simeon: Rabbi Ismael stated this.

Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Zeïra, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rabbi Ismael. Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rabbi Aḥava ben Rabbi Zeïra, but my father said it in the name of Rabbi Ismael: “Bread” is mentioned for Passover and “bread” is mentioned for ḥallah. Since bread mentioned in a discussion of Passover is something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened, bread mentioned for ḥallah must be something that can be either maẓẓah or leavened. They checked and found that only the five kinds can be either maẓẓah or leavened; all others cannot be maẓẓah or leavened but would spoil.

It was stated: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, qeramit is obligated for ḥallah.” Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, it cannot be either maẓẓah or leavened. Let them check! They disagree about the outcome of the checking. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, they checked and found it can be either maẓẓah or leavened, but the rabbis say, they checked and did not find that it can be either maẓẓah or leavened.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, the dough is forbidden.” It was stated: Rabbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice of the apple. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rabbi Yose keeps to his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

And just as you say only the five kinds can become maẓẓah and leavened, so only wheat and barley can be drawn in with anything. Rabbi Hila said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, we have only stated: “He who makes dough from wheat and rice;” only wheat can be drawn in.

Is one guilty because of new grain when it is roasted? Rabbi Zeïra said, it is written: “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.”Leviticus 23:14 Anything for whose bread you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for parched grain because of new grain; but anything for whose bread you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for parched grain because of new grain.

Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeïra: One mixed four qab separately and made them leavened, and another four qab separately and mixed them. Then at the moment of their obligation for ḥallah can they become maẓẓah or leavened? He said to him, its kind becomes maẓẓah or leavened. Rabbi Jonah parallels Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Yose parallels Rabbi Zeïra. Rabbi Jonah parallels Rabbi Jeremiah, just as Rabbi Jeremiah says, only if it is called bread, so Rabbi Jonah says, only if it is called bread. Rabbi Yose parallels Rabbi Zeïra, just as Rabbi Zeïra said only if its kind is called bread, so Rabbi Yose said only if its kind is called bread. Rabbi Yose parallels Rabbi Hila even though he disagrees with him.

Rabbi Samuel ben Naḥman understood it from the following verse: “He puts wheat, śorāh, barley; nismān and spelt are its limit.”Isaiah 28:25 “He puts wheat,” that is wheat. “Śorāh” is foxtail and why is it called śorāh? Because it is made in a line. “Barley,” that is barley. “Nismān” is oats. “Spelt” is spelt. “Its limit,” bread: So far the definitions of bread. Does one infer anything from tradition? Rabbi Simon said, since it is written: “He instructs in the law, his God will teach him,”Isaiah 28:26 it is as if it were a word of the Torah.

Rabbi Simon said, those women who say: we will not send our sons to the communal school; if he is good at learning he will learn by himself; they are not acting rightly, but: “He shall be instructed in his God’s law, it will teach him.”Isaiah 28:29

Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: This is from Rabbi Ismael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, as Rabbi Joḥanan stated; “Rabbi Ismael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, I might think you could bring spelt, foxtail and oats. But is it not logical: If wheat which is usable for all other cereal offerings is not acceptable for the ʿomer offering, spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for any other cereal offerings certainly are not acceptable for the ʿomer offering. No; you might say about barley from which the offering of the straying wife is brought; what can you say about spelt, foxtail and oats which are not usable for the offering of the straying wife? Wheat is excluded by the verse; spelt, foxtail and oats are excluded by an argument from the lesser to the greater.”

Rabbi Yose said, who would think that Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi could think that the cereal offering of the ʿomer could come from spelt, foxtail, or oats? If somebody said, black figs are forbidden to me, is he not permitted white ones? But he said “black ones”; he did not say “white ones.” And here it says “milky white barley”; it does not say “milky white foxtail.”

But for the rabbis they are three kinds! Oats are a kind of spelt, foxtail are a kind of barley. The rabbis of Caesarea asked: Did we ever state: Five species? No, five kinds. Two times two kinds are one species.

There, we have stated: “What does one species with itself mean? Wheat does not go together with anything but spelt. Barley goes together with everything except wheat.” Rabbi Yose said it without attribution, Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “There if it bites, here if it was mixed. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: All those which he mixed as grains, flour, or dough, go together.” If he mixed the ends of doughs together? Rabbi Yose said, is biting not like mixing together? You say they do not go together, so here they do not go together.

Can one be whipped because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rabbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot be whipped because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish keeps to his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover sacrificial meat, Rabbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rabbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they canceled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot be whipped because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

“Hillel the elder used to make a sandwich of all three together.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, they disagreed with Hillel the elder. But did not Rabbi Joḥanan make a sandwich of maẓẓah and bitter herbs? There in Temple times, here not in Temple times. Even if you say here and there in Temple times, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Just as forbidden things do not cancel one another, so commanded things do not cancel one another.

Rabbi Joshua the Southerner asked: If somebody made dough from five kinds and then made five doughs from one kind each and put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, did not Rabbi Yose say that two kinds are more than the third and cancel it? It is only needed for the following: If somebody made five doughs from one kind each and put them together and again made five doughs from one kind each and did not put them together. Does wheat in one cancel the wheat in the other and barley in one cancel barley in the other?

“They are forbidden as new grain before Passover.” Some Tannaïm state: before Passover; some Tannaïm state: before the ʿomer. He who said “before Passover” supports Rabbi Joḥanan; he who said “before the ʿomer” supports Ḥizqiah. As Rabbi Jonah said in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits; if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rabbi Yose in the name of Ḥizqiah: If there is sacrifice, the sacrifice permits. Ḥizqiah agrees that if there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rabbi Joḥanan said: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits.

Rabbi Hila said: Rabbi Joḥanan’s reason is: “until that day proper,”Leviticus 23:14 teaches that the day permits. I might think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” I might think, until it is actually brought? The verse says, “until that day proper.” How is that? Allow for the time needed for bringing.

Rabbi Joḥanan agrees that it is forbidden. How is it forbidden? Rabbi Jeremiah said, it is forbidden from the Torah. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say, it is forbidden by their words. Rabbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis support us, we have stated there: “One may not bring cereal offerings, first fruits, and cereal offerings accompanying animal sacrifices before the ʿomer and if he brought they are invalid.” And Rabbi Joshua the Southerner, Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, they taught that only for the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. Therefore, on the sixteenth if he transgressed and brought, it is acceptable. If you would say it is forbidden from the Torah there should be no difference; whether he brought on the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, or sixteenth, if he transgressed and brought, it should be invalid. There is also the following, as Rabbi Zeïra said: Since Rav grew up with the opinions of the sons of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, he agrees with them. If you say that it is forbidden from the Torah, he would follow Rabbi Joḥanan!

Did we not state: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” If you say it is forbidden from the Torah, it is fine. If you say it is forbidden by their words, is there one institution on top of another? Rabbi Yose bar Abun said, because of those far away.

Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: Whether there is sacrifice or there is no sacrifice, the day permits. Rabbi Huna said, a baraita of Ḥizqiah disagrees with him: “Until that day proper,”Leviticus 23:14 which teaches that the day permits. I might think, even if there is sacrifice? The verse says, “until your bringing of your God’s sacrifice.” And we have stated: “When the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the entire day of elevation should be forbidden.” Rabbi Jonah said, this objection came before Rabbi Jeremiah and he said, possibly Ḥizqiah thinks like Rabbi Jehudah, since Rabbi Jehudah said it is forbidden by the Torah.

There, they were careful to keep the great fast for two days. Rav Ḥisda said to them, why do you put yourselves into that great uncertainty? One may trust that the Court is never lazy. The father of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was cautious for himself and fasted two days; his intestines split and he died.

“If they formed roots before the ʿomer, the ʿomer permits them.” Rabbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rabbi Yose said, before cutting. Rabbi Jonah said, presentation permits bringing, cutting permits cutting. Rabbi Yose said, cutting permits bringing and cutting. Therefore, Rabbi Yose gave his opinion: If he cut for the public and it became impure, private persons are again forbidden.

Rabbi Jonah said, before presentation. Rabbi Yose said, before cutting. Rabbi Jonah said, Cahana’s word supports me, as Cahana said: “If you bring a cereal gift of first fruits to the Eternal.”Leviticus 2:14 This one is first fruit, the others are not first fruit. Think of it, even if it were only grasses or only roots the ʿomer comes and permits it. Is that not before cutting? There is also the following, which was stated: “If somebody weeds on the thirteenth and a stalk remains in his hand, he should replant it in a moist spot but not a dry one.” Here you have the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, and part of a day is counted as whole.

Rabbi Yose said, the word of Rabbi Abinna supports me, since Rabbi Abinna said, explain it following this baraita: “In a place where one does not usually work on the 14th, but not in a place where people usually work on the 14th.” If it is cut, what about when it is standing? It was found stated: “In a place where people usually work on cut produce, one may work even on standing grain.”

“Otherwise, they are forbidden until the next ʿomer.” Rabbi Eleazar asked, may they be used to bring next year’s ʿomer? It is impossible to say so: Old and new produce, one does not give heave and tithe from one for the other, and you say so? They objected, are there not the other kinds which are dependent on the ʿomer but cannot be used for the ʿomer? No, what you said is for the other kinds which are never usable for the ʿomer; what can you say about barley which can be used for the ʿomer? The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “The first of your harvest,”Leviticus 23:10 not the last of your harvest. Rabbi Zeïra in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “First fruits,”Leviticus 2:14 these are not first fruits. What is the difference between them? If somebody transgressed and brought. In the opinion of the colleagues it is disqualified. In the opinion of Rabbi Zeïra it is acceptable. The words of the Sages, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabin bar Ḥiyya: That is only if it was one third ripe before New Year’s Day. But if it was only one third ripe after New Year’s Day, the ʿomer comes from it.

Mishnah

2 If somebody eats the volume of an olive of maẓẓah from them on Passover, he has fulfilled his duty, the volume of an olive of leavened bread, he is subject to being cut off. If one of them is mixed with other kinds one transgresses on Passover. He who takes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden to use them, the words of Rabbi Meïr; but the Sages say, he who takes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these. They are subject to ḥallah and tithes.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, this means that one is whipped because of their ḥallah as a word of the Torah. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, explain it if it contains the volume of an olive of any one of them. Rabbi Yose said, you might even say one volume of an olive of all of them. It is different since the category of “leavened” applies to all of them. The argument of Rabbi Yose seems inverted. There, he says two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; here, he says so! Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, so is the Mishnah: “Either the volume of an olive from this one or from another.”

Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” What case are we dealing with? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written: “The produce of the vineyard.”Deuteronomy 22:9 If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread.” Rabbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all kinds, only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread.”

Mishnah

3 The following are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes: Gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, as well as abandoned property, First tithe whose heave has been taken, second tithe and dedicated grain that were redeemed, the excess of the ʿomer, and grain not yet one-third ripe. Rabbi Eleazar said, grain not yet one-third ripe is exempt from ḥallah. The following are obligated for tithes but free from ḥallah: Rice, millet, poppies, sesame, legumes, and less than five quarter qab of grain. Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and demaʿ are free from ḥallah.

Halakhah

Rabbi Hoshaiah asked Cahana: How do we know that these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes? He said to him, do not tell me: “you shall lift”Numbers 15:19; “so you shall lift.”Numbers 15:20 He came back and said, from 14 years. Just as in the 14 years they were subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes, so these are subject to ḥallah but exempt from tithes.

Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This is one of three well-explained verses in the Torah: “The Levite shall come, for he has neither part nor inheritance with you.”Deuteronomy 14:27 You must give him from what you have but he has not. This excludes ownerless property where your hand and his are equal. There is no difference between gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, and abandoned property.

“First tithe whose heave has been taken”; since its heave was taken, is it not like profane? Explain it if he gave it early, from ears, as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: First tithe given early, from ears, is free from the obligation of great heave. Rabbi Yose said, it is written: “From all its best, the holy part from it;”Numbers 18:29 not its best and the best of another person. Rabbi Yose said, it is written: “You shall lift from it the heave of the Eternal, tithe of the tithe,”Numbers 18:26 but not heave and tithe from the tithe. When he made a heap and then gave its heave of the tithe. But if he gave heave of the tithe and then made a heap this does not apply. When he gave from itself for it, but if he gave from another place this does not apply.

“Second Tithe and dedicated grain that were redeemed.” Rabbi Zeïra, Rabbi Assi, Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba, Rabbi Hillel ben Vales argued in the name of Rabbi Jehudah from the following: “First tithe given early, from ears, is free from the obligation of great heave.”

Rabbi Jonah asked: Following him who holds that it is not like his property; but following him who holds it is like his property he must be obligated. He said to him, I also am of this opinion. For second tithe, since everybody agrees that it is like his property, he is obligated, there is a disagreement. For him who holds it is obligated, even its heave is obligated. For him who holds it is free, even its profane part is free.

For him who holds it is obligated, if he used it as heave of the tithe for some other produce, how do you treat it? Like a heap of sheaves which became demaʿ or like a dough which became demaʿ? A heap of sheaves which became demaʿ you say is obligated, a dough which became demaʿ you say is free! Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna: Concerning a heap of sheaves which became demaʿ if he transgressed and gave heave before it became obligated, is it not heave? A dough which became demaʿ if he transgressed and gave ḥallah from it before it became obligated is not ḥallah as we have stated there: “If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand of the Cohen.”

“The excess of the ʿomer.” The Mishnah is not Rabbi Aqiba’s since Rabbi Aqiba makes it liable for heave and tithes.

“And grain not yet one-third ripe.” What is the rabbis’ reason? “Bread” is mentioned in connection with Passover and “bread” is mentioned in connection with ḥallah. “Bread” mentioned in connection with Passover includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened, therefore also “bread” mentioned in connection with ḥallah includes all that may be maẓẓah or leavened. What is Rabbi Eleazar’s reasoning? “You shall lift it like heave from the threshing floor.”Numbers 15:20 Since heave from the threshing floor is only from produce at least one-third ripe, that also is only from produce at least one-third ripe. Does Rabbi Eleazar not have “bread, bread”? It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: It is not subject to ḥallah and nobody can use it to fulfill his duty on Passover.

Is one guilty for bread from it because of new grain? Rabbi Yudan said, it is written: “Bread, parched or fresh grain you should not eat.”Leviticus 23:14 Anything for whose parched grain you would be guilty because of new grain you are guilty for bread because of new grain; but anything for whose parched grain you would not be guilty because of new grain you are not guilty for bread because of new grain.

Rabbi Zeïra said: It is written: “You shall certainly tithe all your seed-yield.”Deuteronomy 14:22 Anything which will grow when sown; this excludes seeds less than one-third ripe which when sown will not grow.

It is obvious: For the rabbis, that “less than a third” is not drawn in concerning the matter of tithes. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Josef asked: According to Rabbi Eleazar, is it drawn in in the matter of ḥallah like a rice dough? Samuel bar Abba asked: How does one treat old and new for ḥallah? Two fields, one one-third ripe, one less than one-third ripe, are one for ḥallah and two for tithes. One less than one-third ripe and one of grasses are two for ḥallah and one for tithes. One one-third ripe and one of grasses are two both for ḥallah and tithes.

What are the rules “in between”? Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the first state. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “In between” follows the rules of the final state. What does “in between” mean? If somebody makes dough from ṭevel, its ḥallah is obligated for heave and its heave for ḥallah. How do we know that ḥallah is obligated for heave? Rabbi Isaac in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Martha in the name of Rav: “Ḥallah you shall lift heave,”Numbers 15:20 from ḥallah you shall lift heave. How do we know that heave is subject to ḥallah? From the difficulty of explaining that verse, the one where it is written: “Beginning ... you shall lift ḥallah.”

Bismarcks are tracta. Honey cakes μελίγαλα. Ὲσχαρίτης are baked foods of the market, pancakes are dumplings in water.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rabbi Yose said both together: Rabbi Joḥanan said, tracta is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, tracta is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rabbi Yose said another statement Rabbi Yose: Rabbi Joḥanan said, everything under which the fire burns is subject to ḥallah, one recites for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, anything under which the fire burns is not subject to ḥallah, one may not recite for it “He Who produces bread from the earth,” and one may not satisfy one’s Passover obligation with it. Rabbi Joḥanan said, only in a fluid.

The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “Bismarcks, honey cakes, roasted cakes, pancakes, and demaʿ are free from ḥallah!” He explains it for Bismarcks made on the fire: One does not fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked by the sun; one may fulfill one’s obligation with Bismarcks baked on the fire. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? He explains it if the fire extends to the sides.

The words of the rabbis disagree. Cahana asked Samuel: Is it not reasonable that the demaʿ which we stated here contains mostly heave? He said to him, that is also my opinion, but when you go to the Land of Israel be sure to ask about this. When he went, he heard what Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even one seah that fell into 99 which were profane. Rabbi Abbahu said, this is how Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish answered Rabbi Joḥanan: That one seah frees everything? Is a fig cake among fig cakes such a sure thing that heave came up in his hand? But you must say it is to be taken lightly; here also it is to be taken lightly. Could he not have objected: Is it different with fig cakes which are already disregarded? Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose, both in the name of Rabbi Zeïra: Even wheat and wheat he may grind and lift.

“Less than five quarter qab of grain.” Rabbi Abina said, you said this if it was less than five quarter qab of grain. But if it was exactly five quarters, this does not apply. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Abuna, it was not said on that but on the following: Rabbi Joḥanan said, demaʿ is free from ḥallah but ḥallah is obligated for what is possible demaʿ and is eaten because of demaʿ. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Abuna, when was this said? For more than five quarter qab, but for exactly five quarters it is exempt from ḥallah.

Mishnah

4 Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, it is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqaʾot are obligated. The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free them. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt, if to sell on the market, they are obligated.

Halakhah

A woman asked Rabbi Mana: Since I want to make iṭry in my kneading-trough, may I take from it so that it will be free from ḥallah? He said to her, why not? He went to ask his father. He said to him, it is forbidden; maybe she would change her mind to use it as bread dough.

“Similarly, qenubqaʾot are obligated.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zwieback. Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Agul in the name of Ḥizqiah said boqrlṭa. This is so that you will not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, dough for the sick is obligated for ḥallah, so that you will not say that because in the end it will be turned into a kind of farina it should be free from ḥallah.

Rav said, dough for kutaḥ is subject to ḥallah. Rabbi Abun said, perhaps she will change her mind to make it white Zwieback. Rabbi Mana said, we have to announce publicly that those who make ʿabiṣin should make less than the measure since they think it is exempt but it is obligated.

It was stated: “Rabbi Ismael ben Rabbi Yose said in his father’s name: What is parboiled? If one adds hot water to flour. Dumpling, flour into hot water.”

Come and look: If it is completely parboiled, the House of Shammai obligate, not completely parboiled, the House of Shammai exempt? Rabbi Assi in the name of Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Two students stated this. Rabbi Ammi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: I went about this matter to the elder Rabbi Hoshaia in Caesarea and he said to me, two students stated this.

“But the Sages say, not following either one of them, but what was baked in the oven is obligated, in a pan or a pot is free.”

What is certainly parboiled? Rabbi Zeïra said, anything under which the fire burns. Rabbi Yose said, even if the fire burns under it, since he will use it as dough in the future it is obligated for ḥallah. Roasted flour which he used as flour is obligated for ḥallah. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if he baked it.

“The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice and those needed by the nazir, if he made them for himself they are exempt,” for it is written “the first of your baking troughs;” “to sell on the market he is obligated,” it does not depend on his intention but on that of his customers. Maybe he will find a customer; therefore, it becomes ṭevel immediately.

Mishnah

5 A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah. But women who gave to a baker that he should make sour dough for them are free from ḥallah if no individual gave a full measure. A dog biscuit, if the shepherds eat from it, is obligated for ḥallah, one may use it for eruv and participation, one may recite the blessing over it and one invites for it, it may be made on a holiday, and a person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover. If the shepherds do not eat from it, it is not obligated for ḥallah, one may not use it for eruv and participation, it may not be made on a holiday, and no person may fulfill his duty with it on Passover. In any case it can become impure in the impurity of food.

Halakhah

If somebody made a heap of somebody’s grain without the latter’s knowledge: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rabbi Joḥanan objected to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” But what if all of them had the required amount? He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not bring an objection from a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which stayed overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish objected to Rabbi Joḥanan: Did we not state: “But if he dedicated it before it was finished, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free.” Is not the treasurer a different person and you say what he did is valid? He said to him, this follows him who says the treasurer has the status of owner and goes against Rabbi Yose since Rabbi Yose said, the treasurer is a different person.

Rabbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis asked: And even if one of them was of full measure it should be like something not completely processed, since Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Zeïra, Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Zeïra in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would in the end return it not fully processed.

What is dog biscuit? Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, any with coarse bran mixed in.

The Mishnah said: “if the shepherds eat from it.” Maybe sometimes the shepherds will not eat from it. Rabbi Joḥanan said, any he made into cracknels. We also have stated so: “Any he made into cracknels is obligated; if he made it connected it is free.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Samuel, Rabbi Ammi in the name of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, even if he formed it as rolls. But did we not state, “if the shepherds do not eat from it?” Explain it if he made it from the start thinking that the shepherds should not eat from it.

“It may be made on a holiday.” The Mishnah is Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s, as it was stated: “One does not make food on a holiday for use after the holiday.” Also, it was stated: “A woman may fill a pot with meat even if one eats only one piece from it, a water pot with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But when baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.”

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a blessing over a stolen maẓẓah. Rabbi Hoshaia said, because of: “He who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.”Psalms 10:3 Rabbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rabbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rabbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rabbi Hila said: “These are the commandments.”Leviticus 27:34 If you did them the way they were commanded they are good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

Mishnah

6 Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth, they are forbidden to laymen, are Cohen’s property, can be lifted in 101, need washing of the hands and feet and sundown, are not taken from pure for impure but only from what is earmarked and completed. He who says, all my threshing floor is heave or all my dough is ḥallah has said nothing unless he left out a small amount.

Halakhah

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi, Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, ḥallah might be profane, I would say it is permitted to wait with it. Therefore, it was necessary to say: “Ḥallah and heave. About them one is liable to death and a fifth.”

A person fulfills ten commandments before he eats a piece of bread: Do not plow, do not sow, do not muzzle, gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah, heave, first tithe, second tithe, and ḥallah. Before Rabbi Isaac went to dinner, he spread out his ten fingers and said, I kept ten commandments.

“Ḥallah for all, heave for all.” “To YHWH,” that is the particular Name. How do we know that he has done nothing unless he left some as profane? The verse says: “Of the beginning”Numbers 15:21 and not all the beginning.

Mishnah

1 Foreign produce imported into the Land is obligated for ḥallah. If it was exported, Rabbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rabbi Aqiba declares it free. Growth of earth from outside the Land which came to the Land in a ship is under the obligation of tithes and Sabbatical. Rabbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches the ground. Dough kneaded with fruit juice is subject to ḥallah, which can be eaten with unclean hands. A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah because she can cover herself, but a man may not.

Halakhah

“Foreign produce,” etc. It is written “To the Land into which I am bringing you.”Numbers 15:17 There you are obligated, you are not obligated outside the Land. It was stated: “These are the words of Rabbi Meïr. But the words of Rabbi Jehudah are: Foreign produce imported into the Land, Rabbi Eliezer declares it free but Rabbi Aqiba declares it obligated. What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? “From the Land’s bread,”Numbers 15:18 not foreign bread. What is Rabbi Aqiba’s reason? “To the Land into which I am bringing you.”Numbers 15:17 There you are obligated, both for produce of the Land and foreign produce.”

How does Rabbi Eliezer explain Rabbi Aqiba’s reason, “To the Land into which I am bringing you”Numbers 15:17? The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is how Rabbi Aqiba objected to Rabbi Eliezer: Do you not agree that when Israel entered the Land and found there coarse and fine flour that this was subject to ḥallah? Did it not grow while exempt? He accepted that. Rabbi Yose said, I wonder how Rabbi Aqiba could object to Rabbi Eliezer and how the latter could accept it. There, before they entered they had inherited it retroactively, as Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Naḥman: It is not written “to your descendants I shall give” but: “to your descendants I gave,”Genesis 15:18 I already gave it.

How does Rabbi Aqiba explain Rabbi Eliezer’s reason, “From the Land’s bread”Numbers 15:18? About a ship which entered the Land. If it made a crust in the oven inside the line it is obligated, outside the line it is exempt. In the opinion of Rabbi Aqiba, the same rule applies to a ship, Gentile’s dough, and their entry; everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. The Sages agree with Rabbi Aqiba when it enters the Land that everything depends on forming the crust in the oven. This is implied by the objection Rabbi Aqiba raised to Rabbi Eliezer, which the latter accepted.

Rabbi Jonah asked Rabbi Jeremiah: When Israel entered the Land and found there green grain standing, would that have been forbidden as new? He said to him, why not? That is if green; what about dry? He said to him, even dry, even cut. Then even grain in storage! Then I say, Israel should not have eaten maẓẓot in the Passover nights! Rabbi Jonah said, after I left there, I wondered why I did not say to him, it is different because a positive commandment overrides a prohibition. In the opinion of Rabbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition even if it is not written next to it, it is understood. But according to Rabbi Yose who said, a positive commandment overrides a prohibition only if it is written next to it? What Gentile traders sold them, or following Rabbi Ismael, since Rabbi Ismael said, any “coming” mentioned in the Torah means after 14 years, seven of their conquest, seven of the distribution. Rabbi Abun bar Cahana objected: Is it not written: “They ate from the produce of the Land the day after the Pesaḥ,”Joshua 5:11 on the sixteenth! Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose objected to Rabbi Yose: Is it not written: “The day after the Pesaḥ, the Children of Israel left with raised hand before the eyes of all of Egypt.”Numbers 33:3 Not on the fifteenth?

“If it was exported, Rabbi Eliezer declares it obligated but Rabbi Aqiba declares it free.” They said, Rabbi Eliezer is explained from his quote, Rabbi Aqiba from his quote. Rabbi Eliezer from his quote; what is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? “From the Land’s bread,”Numbers 15:18 wherever it may be. Rabbi Aqiba from his quote; What is Rabbi Aqiba’s reason? “To the Land into which I am bringing you;”Numbers 15:17 there you are obligated; you are not obligated outside the Land.

The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The disagreement: “Any place your foot will tread on shall be yours,”Deuteronomy 11:24 the general statement contains only the detail, and following Rabbi Jehudah. They object to Rabbi Jehudah: If this is about the boundaries of the Land of Israel, is it not written: “From the prairie and this Lebanon up to the great river, the Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites and to the great ocean at sunset shall be your borders.”Joshua 1:4 If it cannot deal with the border regions of the Land of Israel, consider it for the border regions outside the Land. Then, what David was conquering in Aram of the rivers and Aram Ẓova should be subject to ḥallah! There is a difference, because David was neglecting the border regions of the Land of Israel and conquering the border regions outside the Land.

They wanted to say, according to him who said, there it is obligated, also here it is obligated; according to him who said, there it is exempt, also here it is exempt. Even according to him who says, there it is exempt, here it is obligated for when Israel entered they became obligated. It is written: “He reestablished the borders of Israel from Lebo-Ḥamat to the sea of the Arabah, following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had said through Jonah ben Amittai, the prophet from Gat-Ḥepher.”2 Kings 14:25 Rabbi Ḥananiah and Rabbi Mana, one said that all that Joshua had conquered this one conquered. The other said, more than Joshua had conquered this one conquered. Rabbi Sidor stated, in support of Rabbi Mana: Israel held on to this land for only a few days.

Earth from outside the Land which came into Syria becomes like Syria. Coming from there to here it becomes obligated.

“Rabbi Jehudah said, when is this? When the ship touches ground.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, Rabbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rabbi Jehudah exempts water, as it has no consistency. Rabbi Abin said, it is more reasonable to assume his opinion changed; if the ship does not touch ground, would it not be as if the ship touched ground? If the ship does not touch ground, its tithes are of practice; one tithes from it for a flower pot without hole and from a flower pot without hole for it, as it was stated: “The tithes from a flower pot without hole are of practice, its heave does not create demaʿ and one does not owe a fifth for it.” Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If somebody acquires a flower pot with a hole in Syria, even if he did not acquire the earth under it or the ground on which it stands, he acquired it to be obligated for tithes and the Sabbatical, even if it sits on two pegs. Even Rabbi Jehudah will agree with this. What is the difference between this case and that of a ship? A ship rises and falls, this flower pot rests in its place.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, this is the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota, as we have stated there: “Rabbi Eleazar ben Jehudah from Birtota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua, he made everything unusable. But Rabbi Aqiba says in the latter’s name, he made unusable only the place where he touched.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, when do they disagree? When it was prepared for impurity and after that was kneaded, when fruit juices clearly do prepare. But if it was kneaded and after that only prepared, fruit juices do not clearly prepare. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It is everybody’s opinion. Even though Rabbi Aqiba says there that fruit juices have no clear connection with impurity, he agrees here that fruit juices are clearly for ḥallah.

Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Nothing is clear except the seven fluids. Rabbi Yose asked: Was this said for ḥallah or for impurity? If you say for ḥallah, so much more for impurity. If you say for impurity, then not for ḥallah. It is obvious for Rabbi Jonah that it had been said for ḥallah, so much more for impurity. Rabbi Jonah keeps to his opinion, for Rabbi Jonah stated from Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai; Rabbi Joshua ben Levi stated in Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai’s name, as Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Rabbi Ṭarphon said, it is stated here ḥallah, and it is stated there, a ḥallah of oil cake. Since the ḥallah mentioned there is prepared with oil, so the ḥallah prepared here must be prepared with oil. And oil is one of the seven fluids.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Sabbatai and Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: For ḥallah and for washing one’s hands, he has to walk up to four mil. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: That is, going forward; but one does not trouble him to go back the way he came.

How does one treat watchmen in gardens and orchards, as before them, as after them? Let us hear it from this: “A woman may sit down naked and separate her ḥallah.” Is that woman not sitting inside her house and you say that one does not bother her? Also here, one does not bother him.

It has been stated: “Water before the meal is conditional, after the meal it is obligatory. Except that for the first one he takes and interrupts; for the second he takes and may not interrupt.” What does he interrupt? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, he takes and repeats. Rabbi Samuel bar Isaac asked: “He takes and interrupts” and you say it is conditional? One requires four mil and you say it is conditional?

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said: Because of the first, pork was eaten. Because of the second, a woman had to leave her house; some say, three persons were killed because of it.

This means that buttocks are not sex organs. That is, for blessings, but to look at them in any way is forbidden. As it was stated: He who looks at a woman’s heel is as if he looked at her genitals and he who looks at her genitals is as if he had intercourse with her. Samuel said, a woman’s voice is a sex organ. What is the reason? “From the sound of her whoring the land became polluted, etc.”Jeremiah 3:9

Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, it is forbidden. Rabbi Mana said, even though Rabbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent. As Rav Huna said: A person may stand near excrement and pray, on condition that his flesh not touch the excrement. If he sat down and did not cleanse himself, his flesh touches the excrement.

Mishnah

2 If somebody cannot make his dough in purity he should make single qabim and not make it in impurity. Rabbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim, since just as he names the pure one, he names the impure. But single qabim have no named ḥallah. If somebody makes his dough single qabim and they are touching one another, they are free from ḥallah unless they are biting. Rabbi Eliezer says, also if one takes them out of the oven and puts them in a basket, the basket combines them together.

Halakhah

How is this? Less than four mil he should make it in purity, four mil he should make single qabim, or four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he should make single qabim? Let us hear from the following, since Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, for example Caesarea. Is Caesarea not four mil? That means, four mil he should make it in purity, more than four mil he should make single qabim. Rabbi Ammi ruled in Kefar Sammai that one should make a large dough in impurity. Is that not less than four mil? Since a brook interrupts it is as if there were four mil. This teaching follows Rabbi Aqiba since Rabbi Aqiba says, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qabim. It was a large dough and it would have been easier for him to walk a distance than to make it single qabim.

The arguments of Rabbi Aqiba are switched. There, he says one takes ḥallah from a qab, and here he says so? There after the fact, here before the fact.

Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan; Rabbi Ammi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if they were biting. There are Tannaïm stating: The bag combines them together but not the oven, and there are Tannaïm stating: The oven combines them together but not the bag. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one follows Ḥilfai: If they bite in both places they are combined together, if they do not bite in both places they are not combined together. The Mishnah applies, for example, to Babylonian bread.

Mishnah

3 If somebody gives ḥallah from flour it is not ḥallah and will be robbery in the hand of the Cohen. The dough itself is subject to ḥallah; the flour, if it is a full measure, is obligated for ḥallah and forbidden to laymen, the words of Rabbi Joshua. They said to him, it happened that a layman rabbi grabbed it. He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order. Five quarters of coarse flour are obligated for ḥallah; including hulls and bran it is obligated by five quarters. If the bran was sifted out and later returned, it is free. The rate of ḥallah is one in 24. If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24. A baker who makes to sell on the market, and also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48. If the dough became impure by error or accident, one in 48. If it became impure intentionally, one in 24 so the sinner should not be rewarded. Rabbi Eliezer says, it may be taken from pure for impure. How is this? With pure and impure dough, he takes the amount needed for ḥallah from dough from which ḥallah was not yet taken and gives less than the volume of an egg in the middle so that he takes from what is earmarked. But the Sages forbid it.

Halakhah

“He said to them, he destroyed himself and put others in order.” He destroyed himself by eating and exposed himself to punishment; he put others in order since they eat and unload their sin on him. Some Tannaïm state: He put himself in order and destroyed others. He put himself in order since he ate it anyway. But he destroyed others since they tend to say it is free when it is obligated.

Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Yannai: A Tiberian qab is obligated for ḥallah. A maker of fried food asked Rabbi Joḥanan: He said, go, make four, and separate. Could he say to him, three and separate? Rabbi Zeïra said, in their places, qabim in their places are measured by quarters. Could he have said to him five minus a little bit? So that there should not be any doubt of obligation of ḥallah.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, since Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said it is never subject to ḥallah unless it contains the full measure of grain. The students of the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, Bar Lolita in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, it is the opinion of everybody. Rabbi Mana said, even though my teacher Rabbi Yose did not say this, he said something equivalent: that Rabbi Joḥanan said, they taught the way dough is made. In this case, since the bran was removed and then put in again, it is not the way dough is made.

It was stated: “Rabbi Jehudah said, why did they say the private person one in 24 but the baker one in 48? Because the baker is generous with his dough but the private person is stingy with his dough. But the Sages say, not because of this category or reason, but: ‘You shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest’;Numbers 18:28 they should be given to the priest in his status as priest. The baker makes a large dough with enough to make a gift to the Cohen but the private person makes a small dough that would not be enough to make a gift to the Cohen.”

But did we not state: “If somebody makes dough for himself or his son’s wedding feast, one in 24”? Not to make a distinction in doughs of a private person. But did we not state: “And also a woman who makes to sell on the market, one in 48”? When she makes it for herself, she is stingy with her dough; when she makes to sell on the market she is generous with her dough. Rabbi said, the Mishnah speaks about one used to give one in 48, but about one who is used to give one in 24, we should state that “the sinner should not be rewarded.”

Does the house not combine them together? Things which one objects to being mixed the house will not combine together; if one would not object to their being mixed the house will combine them. The status of impure and pure dough is that one is assumed to object to their being mixed.

If the dough is ḥallah. But a dough of secondary impurity has no invalidating touch for ṭevel.

It was stated: “Rabbi Illaï says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: For food in fluids, one gives heave from pure for impure. How is this? If somebody pickled olives in impurity and wants to give heave in purity, he brings a funnel whose opening is less than the width of an egg, fills it with olives and puts it on top of the amphora; it turns out that he gives heave from what is earmarked.” Why does it have to be less than the width of an egg? Are these not single pieces? It is only that not many olives should become impure. “They said to him, the only food fluids called fluid are wine and olive oil.” How is that? One beam for two pits or two beams for one pit. One understands one beam for two pits, but two beams for one pit? Is it not that if it is partially impure it is totally impure? Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Assi: Explain it, if he had intended to process it in one batch, and he changed his mind to make it in two batches. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this applies if it became impure after he siphoned off the froth and the seeds formed lumps. But if it became impure before lumps were formed and he siphoned off, it does not apply. Rabbi Tabi, Rabbi Joshia in the name of Rabbi Yannai: Practice follows Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia followed Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Practice does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Practice does not follow Rabbi Eliezer. A case came before Rabbi Immi and he did not decide; he said there are two against two. They said to him, but Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman agreed! Nevertheless, he gave no opinion.

Mishnah

1 One may eat a snack from the dough until it is rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough. After it was rolled if wheat dough or compacted if barley dough, one who eats from it commits a deadly sin. After she added water she may lift its ḥallah on condition that there are five quarters of flour.

Halakhah

“One may eat a snack from the dough,” etc. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, they taught only as a snack, but as a meal it is forbidden since he would use a subterfuge to free it from ḥallah. Rabbi Yose said, if that were the reason, one could not infer anything since even if he takes from it two or three pieces of dough, since he will return the remainder to something not fully processed; it is permitted following what Rabbi Yose said in the name of Rabbi Zeïra, Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Zeïra in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, even what is in a flask did not become ṭevel, in case it was not fully processed, since he would put it back in the end.

But that means, he who cannot process in purity, because he is unable. Therefore, if he is able this does not apply. This means that it is forbidden for a person to make his dough qab sized.

For all other things one goes after compacting. If one made a dough from wheat and rice, what do you follow, after rolling or after compacting? Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: ḥallah in a form, after it was rolled for wheat flour or compacted for barley flour. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah, after it was well formed. Do they differ? One is for practice, the other for study matters.

It was stated: Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says after it was made into separate cuttings. What is Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra’s reason? “You shall lift it like the heave of the threshing floor.”Numbers 15:20 Since heave of the threshing floor is taken after the end of processing, so this also is taken after the end of processing. Then after it was baked? Rabbi Mattaniah: It is compared to heave only for doughmaking.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: This is Rabbi Aqiba’s, as we have stated there: “If somebody took ḥallah from a single qab, Rabbi Aqiba says it is ḥallah, but the Sages say it is not ḥallah.” Rabbi Aqiba said that only after the fact; would he say it from the start? Here we are dealing with the start. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, they followed the manner of Rabbi Aqiba.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is everybody’s opinion since when she starts pouring the water it is “the beginning of your doughs,”Numbers 15:20 as it was stated: “Ṭevel tithe that was mixed with profane food makes it forbidden in the minutest amount. If it can be taken care of from another place, one gives in proportion. Otherwise, Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh says he should give a name to the heave of the tithe and lift it by 101.” Rabbi Jacob from Jabul in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. Rabbi Joḥanan said, what they taught the Cohanot implies that practice does not follow Rabbi Eleazar ben Arakh. What did they teach the Cohanot? “This is ḥallah for this dough, and the sour dough in it, for the flour contained in it, and for the flat bread under it. If all these are counted together the amount in my hand will be dedicated as ḥallah except what might be impure in it.” She says, except what might be impure! Could it not be lifted by 101? Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Samuel from Cappadocia and one of the rabbis, one said in one case there is enough to lift, in the other case there is not enough to lift; since it would have been expected to be lifted it is as if care might be taken of it from another place.

Rabbi Yose said, the statement is reasonable on Sabbath eves; since everybody is bringing, it is as if she separated from what is obligated for what is obligated. But on weekdays, while they instituted that ḥallah may be taken from pure for impure and not earmarked, but from what is exempt for what is obligated? Rabbi Jonah said, it is only reasonable on weekdays, but on Sabbath eve she would have to say “all, including the impure.” Why? Since some dough is taken before all is one mass, when all is made into one mass the former is sanctified as ḥallah. If one would say “except the impure contained in it,” it would turn out that impure ṭevel is mixed with ḥallah. If you say “all, including the impure,” it is impure profane; therefore, it is better to give from what is exempt for what is obligated to avoid impure ṭevel mixed with ḥallah. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, does it not become dedicated retroactively? Since it is dedicated retroactively, it is as if one gave from what is obligated for the obligated.

Why “on condition that there not be five quarters of flour?” Rabbi said, the Mishnah was formulated before they instructed the Cohanot.

Mishnah

2 If the dough became demaʿ before it was rolled it is exempt since demaʿ is exempt from ḥallah. If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.

Halakhah

Rabbi Jonah said: The elder Rabbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rabbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rabbi Aqiba, since Rabbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rabbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected to Rabbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rabbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written: “I put on you the watch over my heaves.”Numbers 18:8 Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I uphold: “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest”Numbers 18:28? You have to give it to Aaron in his capacity as priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his capacity as priest, you may make it impure.

Mishnah

3 If she dedicated her dough and redeemed it before she rolled the dough, it is obligated. If she dedicated before she rolled, the Temple treasurer had it rolled, and then she redeemed it, it is exempt since at the moment of obligation it was exempt. Parallel to this, if somebody dedicated his produce before the time of tithes and redeemed it, it is obligated; after the time of tithes, it is obligated. But if he dedicated it before it was fully processed, the treasurer finished it, and then the owner redeemed it, it is free since at the time of obligation it was free.

Halakhah

And why is it stated twice? Rabbi Huna, Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rabbi Pedaiah: One for smoothing, one for one third. Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Abba and the colleagues. The colleagues say, one for smoothing, one for one third. Rabbi Abba explains: At Ḥallah for smoothing, at Peah for one third.

Our Mishnah is from Rabbi Aqiba since Rabbi Aqiba said that you follow the first third. And they differed: A field that was one-third ripened in the possession of a Gentile, and a Jew bought it after that time, Rabbi Aqiba said the additional growth is free, but the Sages say he is obligated for the additional growth. How is that? Explain it either for Rabbi Aqiba in a disagreement, or according to everybody if he harvested immediately.

Mishnah

4 A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah. If he gave it as a gift before it was rolled it is obligated, after it was rolled it is free. If somebody makes dough in partnership with a Non-Jew, it is exempt from ḥallah if the Jew’s part is less than the measure. If a proselyte became Jewish while he had dough, if it was made before he became Jewish it is exempt, after he became Jewish it is obligated. In case of doubt it is obligated but one does not owe a fifth because of it. Rabbi Aqiba says, everything depends on forming a crust in the oven.

Halakhah

What is the difference between this and a dough of annona? Is the latter not obligated for ḥallah? There it is in the possession of the Jew until the Gentile decides to take it. But here it depends on the latter’s opinion.

Rabbi Jehudah stated: “If the inventory belongs to a Jew but Gentile workers make it, it is subject to ḥallah. If the inventory belongs to a Gentile and Jewish workers make it, it is not subject to ḥallah.” Rabbi Yose said, we also have stated this: “A dough which a Non-Jew gave to a Jew to make is exempt from ḥallah.”

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked Rabbi Zeïra: Even if the Jew’s was a full measure, can it not be considered like a qab here, a qab there, and a Gentile’s qab in the middle? Rabbi Zeïra told him, is it not mixed by Gentiles?

There, we have stated: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rabbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rabbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe! Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there and take its value from the tribe? Rabbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Two Gentiles who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are obligated because they never were potentially obligated but exempted. Two Jews who made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, are exempted because they were potentially obligated but exempted. A Jew and a Gentile made a dough of two qabim, split, and then each of them added to it, it is clear that the Jew’s part is obligated. What is the status of the Gentile’s part? Would the Gentile’s part not be obligated only because of the Jew? The Jew’s part is obligated, the Gentile’s is exempt.

“Rabbi Aqiba says, everything depends on forming a crust in the oven.” The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough of a layman makes it ṭevel. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Rabbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that rolling the dough by the Temple exempts. Cahana said, the words of Rabbi Aqiba imply that shaping the heap by the Temple does not exempt. Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Cahana’s statement disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar’s. He who says rolling exempts, says shaping exempts. And he who says rolling does not exempt, says shaping does not exempt. But according to the rabbis, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power. It is difficult for the rabbis, if rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power, why does shaping not exempt in the Gentile’s power? There is a difference since it is written: “All tithe from the Land from the seed of the Land.”Leviticus 27:30 But is it not written here: “From the bread of the Land”Numbers 15:19? From the bread, not all bread. Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Hillel said, from the rabbis we infer that Cahana’s statement does not disagree with Rabbi Eleazar. Just as the rabbis say, rolling exempts in the Gentile’s power but shaping does not exempt in the Gentile’s power, so Rabbi Aqiba says, rolling does not exempt in the Gentile’s power and shaping does not exempt in the power of the Temple.

Mishnah

5 If somebody makes dough from wheat and rice, if it has the taste of flour it is subject to ḥallah and a person may satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If it does not have the taste of flour it is not subject to ḥallah and a person may not satisfy his Passover obligation with it. If somebody takes sourdough from a dough from which no ḥallah was taken and adds it to dough from which ḥallah was taken, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything. Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings, if he can provide for it from another place he should take in proportion; otherwise he should take heave and heave of the tithe for everything but the remainder of tithe and Second Tithe in proportion. If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt from ḥallah. Then why did they say ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount? In its own kind; not in its own kind if it can be tasted.

Halakhah

The Mishnah follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel since “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says it is never obligated unless it contains the measure of grain.” Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Hila said, both following the rabbis here or the rabbis there, they say not unless the greater part is grain and the taste that of grain. Rav Huna said, the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain. A baraita disagrees with Rav Huna: If he mixed other kinds in, not unless the greater part is grain and the taste that of grain. He explains it for other kinds. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Hila: “If somebody takes sourdough from grain dough and adds it to a rice dough, if it imparts the taste of grain it is subject to ḥallah, otherwise it is exempt.” Because it was stated after that: “Ṭevel is forbidden in the most minute amount in its own kind. Not in its own kind if it can be tasted.”

Rabbi Yose was supporting Rabbi Zeïra. He heard the voice of Rabbi Hila who was sitting and stating: Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: the taste of grain even if the greater part is not grain; Rabbi Assi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The greater part grain and the taste that of grain. He said, he got it wrong: we had a note that Rabbi Assi teaches like Rav Huna.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked Rabbi Zeïra: If a cereal offering was mixed with profane flour, may the Cohen take a fistful and permit the remainder to be eaten? Do I read for this: “The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons”Leviticus 2:3? He said to him: If ṭevel was mixed with profane, do I read “you shall give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the Cohen”Numbers 18:28? He answered him, did I say to you that he cannot take from itself for itself and not from it for another place? If it is clear to you that he cannot take from it for another place then even from itself for itself he should not be able to take! The Mishnah said that he can take from itself for itself as we have stated: “Otherwise he should take ḥallah for everything.”

They said, Rabbi Zeïra’s is no answer to Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s question. What is the difference between him who takes from itself for itself and him who takes from it for another place? When he takes from itself for itself, since this ṭevel is not qualified to become heave for anything similar, the profane admixture makes it disappear. When he takes from it for another place since this ṭevel is qualified to become profane for something similar, it cannot disappear. Rabbi Yose said, that means that if ṭevel was mixed with heave, since this ṭevel is qualified to become heave for something similar, it cannot disappear.

But Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya’s is no answer to Rabbi Zeïra. As you take it, if the upper disappears then the lower has disappeared. If the lower did not disappear, neither did the upper since it was already sanctified.

It was stated: Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite. Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Zeïra: This means that one quarter of sour dough which became ṭevel at its place makes four other quarters ṭevel.

This means that biting is biblical. Rabbi Immi said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rabbi Joḥanan said, biting is biblical. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, biting is not biblical. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba switches the traditions. They asked Rabbi Yose, what did you hear about Rabbi Joḥanan? He said, I did not hear anything but let us explain the words of the rabbis from their own words, as we have stated there: “If somebody collects loaves in order to separate ḥallah and they bit, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since we stated it is no connection, that means that nobody can become guilty under the heading “impure person eating pure food.” Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, that is different for a ṭevul yom because for him both pure and impure are written; pure for profane food during daytime hours and for heave after dark. That identifies Rabbi Joḥanan as the one who said that what is not a connection for the ṭevul yom is biblical. Therefore, he says biting is biblical. And Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish is he who says it is not biblical since he says biting is not biblical. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he brings four quarters and makes it bite”? Rabbi Hoshaia said, explain that it was part of the dough which was bitten.

Rabbi Zeïra asked: Do Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish differ if it bites by itself but if he made it bite with his hand everybody agrees that biting is biblical? Even if you say that the disagreement arises if he made it bite with his hand, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish keeps to his opinion since Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Ḥizqiah: ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Nahorai said, ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rabbi Joḥanan said, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal and Rabbi Hila brought a case before Rabbi Assi; they wanted to say that two form a majority against one. They had not heard that Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. But did we not state: “Otherwise, he takes from one for all”? Rabbi Yose said, everybody agrees that he separates. Where do they differ? To worry about a second taking. For him who says ṭevel disappears in a plurality, if one lifted it out but it fell into another place, he need not worry about taking it out a second time. For him who says ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality, if one lifted it out but it fell into another place, he must worry about taking it out a second time.

Rabbi Abba said: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish differ about ṭevel by biblical standards. But for ṭevel which is ṭevel only by rabbinic decree, everybody agrees that ṭevel disappears in a plurality. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana objected to Rabbi Yose: Did we not state: “Similarly, if harvested olives were mixed with plucked olives, or harvested grapes with gleanings,” is that not ṭevel only by rabbinic standards? Rabbi Mana said, I confirmed it: If oil from harvested olives was mixed with oil from plucked olives!

Rabbi Joḥanan objected to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “A person may take his ḥallah from a dough from which ḥallah was not taken to have it available in purity to separate from it.” After most of it became ḥallah, should not the remainder disappear in the plurality? He answered, when he notes it. You should know that this is so since we have stated there: “He who wants to separate heave and heave of the tithe together.” Why does he have to define its place? Is it not that it should not disappear in a plurality? Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, that he should not say the heave of this and that heap should be in this one. Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar changed his mind and said, I did not say anything! Is it not Rabbi Joḥanan who said, if somebody said the heave of this and that heap should be in this one, at the place where the heave of the first ended, there the second also ends.

“If somebody harvested a pumpkin to use to give now and in the future, any time he harvests he has to come and note, up to here is heave, up to here is heave, the words of Rabbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he harvests and computes as is usual for him.” They wanted to say, for him who says up to here is heave, up to here is heave, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he harvests and computes as is usual for him, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rabbi Abba said, the difference between them is the duty to immediately give it to the tribe.

“If he had to give heave for four or five amphoras in a cistern, he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave. The same for the second and third, the words of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rabbi says, he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern and says, this is heave.” They wanted to say, for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel disappears in a plurality but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, ṭevel does not disappear in a plurality. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They differ about earmarking. For him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan switches: For him who says he lifts the first one to the mouth of the cistern, he has to give from what is earmarked but for him who says he lifts all of them to the mouth of the cistern he does not have to give from what is earmarked. Rabbi Zeïra said to him, is it not united by sinews?

Mishnah

1 If two women each made a qab and they touched one another, even if they are of the same kind they are exempt. But if both belong to the same woman and are of the same kind they are obligated, different kinds are exempt. What is the same kind? Wheat combines with nothing but spelt. Barley combines with everything except wheat. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.

Halakhah

“Two women who each made,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, usually for women, one does not mind, two do mind. They gave to one woman who minds the status of two women, to two women who do not mind the status of one woman. If she does not mind, why does she make it at two different places? Rabbi Jonah said, because she does not have enough space to knead. The word of Rabbi Jonah implies that if she had enough space to knead but she makes it in two portions, she does mind. Clean and coarse flour, she does mind. Rabbi Lazar said, they gave two different habits the status of two women. Samuel bar Abba asked, even if they come to agree?

Certain situations are connections for ḥallah but not for a ṭevul yom, others for a ṭevul yom but not for ḥallah. A connection for ḥallah as we have stated: “But if they belong to the same woman the same kind are obligated, different kinds are exempt.” They are not obligated for a ṭevul yom as we have stated there: “If somebody collects pieces of ḥallah in order to separate them again, the House of Shammai say it is a connection for a ṭevul yom, but the House of Hillel say it is not a connection for a ṭevul yom.” We also stated there: “Sanctified meat on which the sediment congealed.” Therefore, in all other cases congealed sediment is a connection even if at the end one will remove it. But one is not obligated for ḥallah; as Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah.

What is left? Rav Huna said, if you say that oats are a kind of spelt, they combine with wheat; foxtail is a kind of barley which does not combine with wheat! “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, the remaining kinds all combine with one another.” There are Tannaïm who state: “All kinds combine with one another.” In the opinion of that outside Tanna, what is the difference between bitten and mixed? Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said, when he split and then added; it is obligated when biting, exempt when mixed.

Mishnah

2 Two qabim and a qab of rice or heave between them do not combine. If a thing of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine since they are already subject to ḥallah. If a qab of new grain and one of old bit one another, Rabbi Ismael says one should take from the middle but the Sages prohibit this. If somebody takes ḥallah from a single qab, Rabbi Aqiba declares it to be ḥallah but the Sages say, it is not ḥallah. If ḥallah of two qabim was taken separately, when he then combined them together into one dough, Rabbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate; it turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.

Halakhah

Should one have stated “rice” but not “heave”? If we had stated “rice” but not “heave,” we would have said that rice does not combine because it is not of that kind, but heave, which is of that kind, should combine. It is necessary to state “heave.” If we had stated “heave” but not “rice,” we would have said that heave does not combine because it is not drawn in, but rice, which is drawn in, should combine. It is necessary to state “rice” and “heave.”

“A qab of rice does not combine; a qab of demaʿ does not combine, a qab of heave does not combine. A Gentile’s qab does not combine. A qab of another kind combines. A qab of another woman combines. A qab of new grain combines. A qab of something of which ḥallah was taken in the middle does combine.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Does a qab of ḥallah combine? Rabbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: “A dedicated qab does combine, a qab of ḥallah does not combine.” What is the difference between dedicated dough and ḥallah? Dedicated dough may be redeemed and made obligated, ḥallah cannot be redeemed and made obligated.

“Half a qab of wheat, half a qab of barley, half a qab of spelt: He takes from spelt for what is needed. A qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, he takes heave from each one for what is needed.” He said only, a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, a qab of spelt, therefore this is not about a qab of wheat, a qab of barley, and a qab of spelt in the middle. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, Rabbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis asked: what is the difference whether spelt or barley is in the middle? Rabbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Spelt combines with wheat not because it is the same kind but because it looks similar. Since it is far from it, it does not look similar.

Rabbi Jonah asked: Is it the same for animal tithe? As you say there, if he had five obligated ones in Kefar Ḥananiah, five obligated in Kefar Othnay, and five free ones in Sepphoris? As you say there, if something of which ḥallah was taken is between them, they do combine; is it the same in this case? If you say that ḥallah is different since there it bites, are these 16 mil not as if it did bite? We find ḥallah from practice, we do not find animal tithe from practice.

Is Rabbi Ismael not correct? Spelt and wheat are two species. Since they are similar, you say they combine; should new and old not all the more combine? Rabbi Hila said, the rabbis’ reason is that spelt and wheat are two species and people will not mistakenly say that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other. New and old are one species and if you say so, one will think that one may give heave and tithes from one for the other.

Rabbi Aqiba compares it to not fully processed produce; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is heave. But the rabbis compare it to produce not yet one-third ripe; if one transgressed and gave heave from it it is not heave. They had second thoughts and said, it is similar neither to not fully processed produce nor to produce not yet one-third ripe! But Rabbi Aqiba compares it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken, and they were taken; but the rabbis compare it to the case of him who says, this is heave for these fruits when they will be taken.

They wanted to say what Rabbi Aqiba said, ḥallah may be taken from a qab from practice, not as a biblical standard. Since we have stated: “Rabbi Aqiba exempts but the Sages obligate,” this implies that it is by biblical standards.

“It turns out that the severity becomes a leniency.” Some Tannaïm state: “The leniency becomes a severity.” He who says the severity becomes a leniency, refers to Rabbi Aqiba; he who says the leniency becomes a severity, refers to the rabbis.

Mishnah

3 A person may take for ḥallah from a dough prepared in purity and from which ḥallah has not yet been taken, to use it continuously for ḥallah of demay until it decays, since ḥallah of demay may be taken from pure for impure and from what is not earmarked.

Halakhah

What does this mean: “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food? Let us learn from the following: “If it decayed and is no longer human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.

This means that one may give heave from bad for good. It parallels what Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan, one gives heave from the leaves of carrots for carrots at a place where the leaves are eaten. This happened with Gamliel the twin who had forgotten to put his carrots in order. He came and asked Rabbi Joḥanan who said to him: Is there greenery? Give heave from the greenery!

It was stated: “Heave of the tithe of demay.” Come and see, since certain heave of the tithe may be taken from pure for impure, does this not apply all the more to heave of the tithe of demay? Rabbi Yose said, we are dealing with a doubt of Great Heave when it is not sure whether Great Heave was taken or not. As you say, “from certain produce for demay, it is heave that should not be eaten unless heave and tithes were taken for it;” he asserts that from demay for demay it is the same. Rabbi Simeon ben Karsana said, there he wants to eat it, here he wants to burn it.

Mishnah

4 Jews were sharecroppers for Gentiles in Syria; Rabbi Eliezer obligates their produce for tithes and the Sabbatical but Rabban Gamliel exempts them. Rabban Gamliel says there are two ḥallot in Syria but Rabbi Eliezer says one ḥallah. They took the leniency of Rabban Gamliel and the leniency of Rabbi Eliezer but then returned to follow Rabban Gamliel in both cases. Rabban Gamliel says: There are three domains for ḥallah. The Land of Israel up to Akhzib, one ḥallah. From Akhzib to the Euphrates or Amanus, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has a measure, the one for the Cohen has no measure. From Euphrates or Amanus inside, two ḥallot, one for the fire and one for the Cohen. The one for the fire has no measure, the one for the Cohen has a measure but a ṭevul yom may eat it. Rabbi Yose says one does not need immersion. But it is forbidden to people suffering from genital flux, and to women during menstruation or after childbirth. It may be eaten at one table with a layman and may be given to any Cohen. The following may be given to any Cohen: ḥērem-dedications, firstlings, the redemption money for a firstborn son, the redemption value of a firstling donkey, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, oil to burn, Temple sacrifices, and First Fruits. Rabbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits. Heave vetch Rabbi Aqiba permits but the Sages forbid.

Halakhah

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Eliezer obligated only hereditary tenants, for example from Hillel to the House of Rabbi. Rabbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: Rabbi Eliezer fined him. Where do they differ? For a temporary sharecropper. For him who says a fine, he is obligated. For him who says hereditary tenants, he is exempt.

“He who buys from a baker in Syria has to separate ḥallah as demay, the words of Rabban Gamliel, but the Sages say he does not have to separate ḥallah as demay.” Rabbi Ḥananiah said to Rabbi Mana: Rabban Gamliel was right; what is the Sages’ reason? He said to him, just as Israel are not suspected in matters of heave in the Land, so they are not suspected in matters of ḥallah in Syria.

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Since you said that there are two ḥallot in Syria, should there not be two heaves in Syria? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, nothing comes after ḥallah, but something comes after heave. If you would say so, it would turn out that the heave he separates would be ṭevel for tithes!

Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi wanted to institute demay in Syria but Rabbi Hoshaiah did not let him do it. He said to him, then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! The argument of Rabbi Hoshaiah seems inverted. There, he says the fear of sacred things is on him and he will not give to the Cohen anything that is not in order, and here he says so? Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, I say that he gave him that of the fire. Rabbi Mana said to him, Rabbi Hoshaiah only stated: then Cohanim would have to worry about their ḥallah! “He who buys from a baker and from a woman who bakes to sell on the market has to separate ḥallah of demay; from a private person and if he is a guest he does not have to separate ḥallah of demay.” Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis, if he is a guest for his dough. Rabbi Jonah said, only if they saw him kneading at another’s place. It is a standing assumption that from a private person in Syria one does not have to separate ḥallah of demay; but if he knows that most of what is in his storage is his own produce, he has to separate ḥallah of demay. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, does this not disagree with Rabbi Hoshaiah? Rabbi Mana said, here in the Land, there outside the Land.

Rabbi Huna said: So is the Mishnah: “Between Akhzib and Euphrates, between Akhzib and Amanus.” It was stated: What is the Land and what is outside the Land? From the slopes of Taurus Amanus inwards is the Land of Israel, from Taurus Amanus to the outside is outside the Land. About the islands in the sea, one looks at them as if a string were drawn from Taurus Amanus to the brook of Egypt; from the string to the inside is the Land of Israel, from the string to the outside is outside the Land. Rabbi Jehudah said, all that lies before the Land of Israel is like the Land of Israel since it is said: “The Western border shall be for you the Great Sea as border; that shall be for you the sea border.”Numbers 34:6 Assuming that a string were drawn from Cephalaria to the Ocean, from the brook of Egypt to the Ocean; inside the string is the Land of Israel, outside is outside the Land.

Rabbi Justus bar Shunem said, when the people of the Diaspora arrive at Taurus Amanus they will sing. What is the reason? “Sing from the top of Amanah.”Song of Songs 4:8

Some Tannaïm state: The Jordan is part of the Land of Israel. Some state, the Jordan is outside the Land. Some state, the Jordan is a boundary by itself. He who says the Jordan is part of the Land of Israel: “The prairie, the Jordan, and the border.”Deuteronomy 3:17 He who says the Jordan is outside the Land: “The Jordan shall form its border eastward.”Joshua 18:20 He who says the Jordan is a boundary by itself, if it is in one place. “If the Jordan took from one place and gave to another, what it took, it took, and what it gave, it gave.” What are we dealing with? If it was from the Land of Israel and became Syria, it is already under the presumptive obligation of tithes and Sabbatical! Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, for claims of possession, removals, and animal tithe. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only if it removed earth.

“The one for the fire has a measure,” for it is biblical. “The one for the Cohen has no measure,” for it is rabbinical. Should he give for the fire and not for the Cohen? So that they will not say, we saw pure heave being burned. Should he give for the Cohen and not for the fire? So that they will not say, we saw impure heave being eaten. Since he gives both of them, when he comes here, he will ask.

But both are rabbinical! It is better to increase the one to be eaten, not the one to be burned.

Even Rabbi Yose agrees; it is more severe if impurity stems from someone’s body.

Rabbi Abbahu ruled in Bostra that it needs a plurality. Rabbi Jonah said, it teaches that it is lifted by less than 100 and is not forbidden up to 101. Rabbi Zeïra said, the Mishnah implies even one in one, as we have stated: “It may be eaten at one table with a layman.”

Rabbi Joḥanan said, our teachers in the Diaspora used to separate heave and tithes until the youngsters came and dissuaded them. Who are the youngsters? The interpreters. Rabbi Zeïra, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: For ḥallah from outside the Land and heave from outside the Land one may eat before one separates. Rabbi Abba in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave of grain, cider, and oil. Rabbi Hila in the name of Samuel: They only worried about heave, but for vegetables they did not worry even about the Great Heave, as it was stated: Issi ben Aqabiah says that tithes for vegetables are rabbinical.

It was stated: “Concerning a Gentile’s ḥallah in the Land and a Gentile’s heave outside the Land, one informs him that it is unnecessary, he might eat it, and it may be given to any Cohen, whether he is a Fellow or an ordinary person.”

Some of them are given to the people of the watch; some of them are given to any Cohen. Firstlings and First Fruits to the people of the watch; all others to any Cohen. Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeïra, how do we know that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? He said to him: “Like the ḥērem-dedicated field it shall become the property of the Cohen.”Leviticus 27:21 How do we know that the property itself should be given to the people of the watch? Because it is written “it shall become the property of the Cohen.” How do we know that ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch? But is it not written: “He shall give to the Cohen foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach,”Deuteronomy 18:3 should it not be for the people of the watch? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “Every ḥērem-dedication shall be most holy to the Eternal.”Leviticus 27:28 Just as most holy sacrifices are for the people of the watch, so ḥērem-dedications are for the people of the watch!

If this is the case, also movables? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: “The gifts to the Eternal and His inheritance they shall eat.”Deuteronomy 18:1 Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.

24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering, reparation offering, public well-being offerings, purification offering of a bird, the reparation offering for suspected guilt, the log of oil of the skin-diseased, the two breads, the showbread, the remainders of cereal offerings, and the ʿomer. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings, First Fruits, what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram, and the skins of sacrifices. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach, the first shearing, robbery of the proselyte, redemption of the firstborn, redemption of the firstborn donkey, ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance.

“Rabbi Jehudah forbids First Fruits.” Rabbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since “Rabbi Jehudah says, one gives them only to a fellow for goodwill.”

Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Aqiba follows his own opinion since “Rabbi Aqiba says, all its processing is done in impurity.” Rabbi Yose said, even if you say that he changed his method; there is a difference because a person usually does not make his animal’s fodder impure.

Why did they not decree about vicia? It came out with them from Alexandria on their shoes. When did they decree about black vetch? Rabbi Yose says, in a famine; Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi: In David’s time. They said, both are the same.

Mishnah

5 Nittai from Tekoa brought ḥallot from Baithur but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them. The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them because of the verse in the Torah: “The pilgrimage holiday of harvest, the First Fruits of your work from sowing the field.”Exodus 23:16 Ben-Atitas brought firstlings from Babylonia and they did not accept them. Joseph the Cohen brought his First Fruits as wine and oil and they did not accept them. He also brought his children and members of his household to make the second Passover in Jerusalem but they turned him back so as not to create a precedent for the future. Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them for they said, he who buys in Syria is like him who buys in the suburbs of Jerusalem.

Halakhah

Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: They decided about these and turned them back to their places of origin. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said, this is impossible. One may not eat it because people might say we saw impure heave being eaten. One may not burn it because people might say we saw pure heave being burned. One may not return it to its place of origin because people might say we saw heave being exported from the Land. What to do? He lets it lie until Passover eve and burns it.

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I saw Simeon ben Cahana drinking heave wine in Acco. When he said, this was brought from Cilicia, they decided about him and he drank it on a ship. Would not people say that one imports heave from outside into the Land? Let us say, he did not go into Acco. Where did he drink it? Outside the string or inside? Let us say, outside the string. Rabbi Jonah said, even if you say inside the string, they did not worry about bad appearances on a ship.

When did Simeon ben Cahana live? In the days of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Simeon bar Cahana was supporting Rabbi Eliezer. They passed by a fence. He said to him, bring me a sliver as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody did that, the fence of this man would be gone. Rabbi Ḥaggai was supporting Rabbi Zeïra. A person passed by who was carrying a load of chips. He said to him, bring me a chip as a toothpick. He changed his mind and told him, do not bring me anything; if everybody did that, the load of this man would be gone. Is not Rabbi Zeïra particularly pious? No, he told us that we should observe the words of our Creator.

“The people of Alexandria brought their ḥallot from Alexandria but they did not accept from them.” Rabbi Abba Mari said, is that not also from Rabbi Ḥiyya the elder? He holds that they decided about these and ordered them to be returned.

“The people from Hyena Mountain brought their First Fruits before Pentecost but they did not accept from them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring First Fruits as drinks.” Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: So says the Mishnah, “one does not turn First Fruits into drinks” even after they became property of the owners. But did we not state: “If he pressed First Fruits as a drink in order to bring them, how do we know that he should bring them? The verse says, ‘bring!’Exodus 23:19; 34:26” That is, if he harvested them from the start for this purpose. But here, if he did not harvest them from the start for this purpose.

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary? It was stated: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath, and certainly the First. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? “Every man a sheep for the family,”Exodus 12:3 if they want “a sheep for the house.” What is Rabbi Yose’s reason? “Every man a sheep for the family,” all the more so “a sheep for the house.” What is Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s reason? “Every man,” not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor. Rabbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since it was an exceptional occasion, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable”? It is different here since it was an exceptional occasion, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since it was an exceptional occasion, that it should not become an obligation.

“Ariston brought his First Fruits from Apamea and they accepted them.” There, we have stated: “One does not bring heave from outside the Land into the Land.” Should they be brought as First Fruits? Rabbi Hoshaia said, First Fruits are the responsibility of the owners, heave is not the responsibility of the owners. If you would say so, they would run after it there.